surfing Swepco in Gentry

[justin.payne]

Ive been talking to several people around the plant.....nobody with much pull, but everyone seems to think that this is something that they would go for. It really would benefit everyone. Victor would you email me that stuff you put together again? Thanks

[Ben Rodda]

After reading the thread on city funding of a whitewater park I think that tis project could be epic.

[jermdog]

This one would be really nice, also easy if we can get the go ahead from SWEPCO and Gentry. The Gradient is there as well as the water, which is warm. The main reason I was advocating Fay, was the idea we could probably get some $$ from the city.

[RandyJ]

1) Warm water, decent water quality
2) Adequate drop for two or more "major" features
3) Guaranteed cfs rate, no fluctuation to challenge designers
4) Someone else is paying for the pumping costs
5) The energy usage for pumping is not a "frivolous" use for recreation like some play parks, it is energy that "must" be used to run an existing plant
5) Park and play access via existing roads
6) Will never go to "flood stage" and then require repair later
7) No debates about the ethics of modifying natural streams. This is a man-made channel to start with.
8 ) Potential benefit to local economy
9) Potential PR benefit for "big-bad" power company
10) Runs 24/7, just add stadium lights for summertime fun
11) Excellent construction opportunities during planned plant outages
12) Scale modelling feasible as a school project for some budding Civil engineer; could even lead to future employment with a firm like those working on other WW parks around the country

13) Doesn't seem like there would be a bunch of regulatory or permitting barriers like a Corps 404, EIS, etc.
14) Excellent teaching venue. Start 'em on flatwater, move upstream a notch to easy current, then up another notch or two to the play features.
15) Haven't been there, but water quality seems to be reasonably good.

I'll toss out an idea: next time Rick McLaughlin comes to Tulsa, I could take a day off to drive him to Gentry for a site visit so we could get his take on feasibility, scope, order-of-magnitude costs, and such. No idea of when he'll be here next or what he would charge - he might do it on the cheap as a "sales call", but I could probably talk him into spending the night at my house and feed him for a day to try to keep costs down.

The harder question is, do we have any funds to operate with?

[Fish]

Ive been talking to several people around the plant.....nobody with much pull, but everyone seems to think that this is something that they would go for. It really would benefit everyone. Victor would you email me that stuff you put together again? Thanks

When you say "around the plant" are you talking about people who work there or people who live near it?

And speaking of that other thread about city whitewater parks, by all means try to talk Fayetteville into seriously looking at funding something there. If you can do that, Gentry may get fired up to have it in their neighborhood before Fayetteville can do it...

I'm all for this. Let me know if I can help out.

- Fish

[Half Ton]

Cowper wrote:
1) Warm water, decent water quality
2) Adequate drop for two or more "major" features
3) Guaranteed cfs rate, no fluctuation to challenge designers
4) Someone else is paying for the pumping costs
5) The energy usage for pumping is not a "frivolous" use for recreation like some play parks, it is energy that "must" be used to run an existing plant
5) Park and play access via existing roads
6) Will never go to "flood stage" and then require repair later
7) No debates about the ethics of modifying natural streams. This is a man-made channel to start with.
8 ) Potential benefit to local economy
9) Potential PR benefit for "big-bad" power company
10) Runs 24/7, just add stadium lights for summertime fun
11) Excellent construction opportunities during planned plant outages
12) Scale modelling feasible as a school project for some budding Civil engineer; could even lead to future employment with a firm like those working on other WW parks around the country

Randy wrote
13) Doesn't seem like there would be a bunch of regulatory or permitting barriers like a Corps 404, EIS, etc.
14) Excellent teaching venue. Start 'em on flatwater, move upstream a notch to easy current, then up another notch or two to the play features.
15) Haven't been there, but water quality seems to be reasonably good.

[Ben Rodda]

How about we shoot an email to the each of the three companies that specialize in building whitewater parks and invite them to check out this conversation. Unless one of you happens to be really good at developing a proposal to send to the companies and see what they think about the project. I think there is a president somewhere of a park that has been built in a power plant spillway. I think it was primarily a Slalom course or something like that. I am just not sure who funded it.

[justin.payne]

I have talked to several employees and supervisors. I makes sales calls out there, but I do not know many people in the community.

[justin.payne]

Randy,

Before you take him there for a site visit, you would need to get in touch with the facility to get access. This is a pretty secure site and they will not let anybody walk/drive in there. You will need to set up an appointment with the Environmental and Safety coordinator. Everything is completly gated off.


Justin

[RandyJ]

Yep, Justin, I didn't mean to imply we'd do a "drive-by." Not only should we arrange for access, but we'd want to have a sit-down with SWEPCO decision-makers/people of influence, tell them what we envision, and make a proposal, at least at the conceptual level. I think Rick M could add a lot of credibility and insight, since he's been involved with a lot of park designs, and has evaluated well over a hundred potential sites.

I expect SWEPCO's main concerns will be security, safety, and liability.

Then cost (to them). Restroom facilities? Water fountain? Parking? Sidewalk along the channel? Launch and take-out spots? Stairs/steps? Trash/litter? Landscape impact? Sorry - I don't mean to over-complicate things, but best to have thought through some of this stuff before making a big proposal. Luck favors the prepared.

Then at some point they will ask, "How many people do you think will come and use this?" And the answer probably needs to be something better than "15-20 wacko kayakers." Could a separate "tubers' chute" be built so locals - or boaters - can bring their kids out there and safely bounce down the chute? Who else would want to come out there to play, and what are the implications? What about eagle watchers? Aren't there a lot of bald eagles that hang around this lake in the winter? Could there be a win in this for the eagle watchers (access, parking, boat launch)?

What if the whole thing is wildly successful? What if 40-50 cars roll up on a nice, warm Saturday? Should there be a day use fee imposed to help cover maintenance and clean-up costs?

On the plus side, SWEPCO - and maybe Gentry - could get some good PR out of this. SWEPCO may have budget $ for this kind of thing under the heading of corporate citizenship or public service.

Alternative approach would be to try and take on the design without a pro engineer like Rick. Heath/Scott/Lance/Jason/Others have done a great job of pulling that off down at Dierks. I just know it's hard to "build" a great wave. Expect to make multiple tries to get it dialed in. On the other hand, whatever you build is for one non-varying flow rate and doesn't have to be hardened to withstand a 100-year flood - much easier and cheaper.

If there aren't a lot of approval and permit hoops to jump through, though, seems like this thing could get done in months versus years...which is at the opposite end of the spectrum from what we're dealing with on the Tulsa Wave Park project.

I'm "fer ye' not agin' ye!" Happy to help however I can.

[okieboater]

Amen to what Randy said and add me to the list to help or advise where I can.

Building any thing for public access takes a lot of permits, and a lot of nay sayers to contend with. And more money than you expect. Nay sayers will pop out of the woodwork and you must handle their complaints in a non combative procedure. I have seen nay sayers turn into supporters and you guys will as well.

Having said that, Randy, Myself and a good sized number of WW Park supporters here in Tulsa keep working away. We have had several near misses on completion. One day we will hit the target center and it will be a good deal for area boaters.

My advice to you all is to get the vision in your heads, add others to the vision team and do not give up!!

[Victor Caballeros]

I have E-mail Swepco to set up a meeting with them to allow us to use the land for a WWpark and I am waiting on a response. I would like Swepco to know of our intention towards there plant to get their blessing from them. When I find out a meeting time I will inform everyone.

Justin Sorry I have been swamped at work to let you know what's happing

[Victor Caballeros]

Randy That is Excatly what I have invision to create over there. I would like to see a place for every walk of life. Biketrials/ Walk trails, Swings slides, park bench, a Little Chute for kids on tubes and camping, Fishing. The whole works is what I want to be there. All help is needed to get this done.

[Fish]

I'd try to generate as much support in the local government as you can for this. It could mean some tourism bucks for the small town, and that ought to look interesting to them. I like Randy's comments about SWEPCO's perspective. Might be a good idea to be prepared to cite examples of where power companies have done this in other areas of the country. Having that kind of info may go a long way toward addressing safety and liability concerns. And stress to SWEPCO that it will be a good deal in terms of tourism revenue for the community and good publicity for them.

I'm glad to see this idea gaining momentum. Hope it takes off.

- Fish

[okieboater]

Ben Rodda is this the course you are looking for?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiH8S4ibT7k" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;