Flanagan Lake

West Omaha, Sarpy and Nebraska metro counties.

Moderators: Coyote, nebugeater, Brad, Omaha Cowboy, BRoss

User avatar
RockHarbor
Planning Board
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Silver State

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by RockHarbor »

It's been neat watching this go in. At first, I was kinda annoyed they were putting that in so close to nearby Standing Bear Lake, but now, I'm good with it. We do need flooding control, and areas for recreation. I'm not a huge fan of our man made lake system here, as I don't like seeing the unnatural look of groves of trees standing out in the water, but oh well... I can't expect this area to have the pristine look & quality of natural, lake-dotted Minnesota -- or something.

Also, I like when they install the lake a ways from the interstate -- like this newest one. I just hate when the interstate runs close to a dam site lake, like the Wehrspann Lake and Cunningham Lake, and there is this sliver of land between lake & freeway to squeeze development in. Just bugs me. I also don't think people want to go to a local lake for peace & relaxation and have to hear the constantly loud interstate nearby. (Have you noticed that on the paddle boat lake & marina at Mahoney State Park? The nearby traffic on I-80 constantly makes noise, as you're paddling on the lake, or sitting at the tables on the docks. That's why I like quiet Platte River State Park better in some ways.)
I can get pushed out because I'm "too much" for some. Then, an observer of me comes suddenly swooping in to "fill my shoes." People are always more accepting of the new one, because their feathers aren't truly ruffled by them. (Yawn) I can count on it every time.
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033311
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by Brad »

RockHarbor wrote:I'm not a huge fan of our man made lake system here, as I don't like seeing the unnatural look of groves of trees standing out in the water, but oh well...
They will eventually fall down and make houses for the fish...
User avatar
nativeomahan
County Board
Posts: 5316
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:46 pm
Location: Omaha and Puerto Vallarta

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by nativeomahan »

Brad wrote:
RockHarbor wrote:I'm not a huge fan of our man made lake system here, as I don't like seeing the unnatural look of groves of trees standing out in the water, but oh well...
They will eventually fall down and make houses for the fish...
It looks incredibly stupid. Like they were too cheap to remove the trees from the lake bed. They will die and sit there for years. Dead trees are not attractive in any setting. In the middle of the lake they look like some sort of sick joke at the expense of those using the lake.
bigredmed
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1897
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:45 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by bigredmed »

nativeomahan wrote:
Brad wrote:
RockHarbor wrote:I'm not a huge fan of our man made lake system here, as I don't like seeing the unnatural look of groves of trees standing out in the water, but oh well...
They will eventually fall down and make houses for the fish...
It looks incredibly stupid. Like they were too cheap to remove the trees from the lake bed. They will die and sit there for years. Dead trees are not attractive in any setting. In the middle of the lake they look like some sort of sick joke at the expense of those using the lake.
No, they are fish habitat for nurseries and for bass and other predatory fish alike. This is intentional.
User avatar
jessep28
Planning Board
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:10 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by jessep28 »

The lake is primarily for flood control anyways. I doubt that reservoir water cares if it submerges a few trees.
Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum
User avatar
Greg S
City Council
Posts: 7440
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:46 am

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by Greg S »

I'm not a fan of leaving the trees standing either. I was really hoping they would not leave them up like they did with Prairie Queen. It will be quite some time before they fall below the water line.


Greg
Last edited by Greg S on Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033311
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by Brad »

jessep28 wrote:The lake is primarily for flood control anyways. I doubt that reservoir water cares if it submerges a few trees.
Think you nailed it right there...
User avatar
Greg S
City Council
Posts: 7440
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:46 am

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by Greg S »

Brad wrote:
jessep28 wrote:The lake is primarily for flood control anyways. I doubt that reservoir water cares if it submerges a few trees.
Think you nailed it right there...

But it is also being used by the public as a park. It's not like it's for flood control only and being put off limits to the public behind locked gates.

Greg
MTO
City Council
Posts: 7806
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Dundee

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by MTO »

These trees are the biggest non issue.
15-17, 26, 32
guest2017
Home Owners Association
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 7:02 am

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by guest2017 »

Greg S wrote:
Brad wrote:
jessep28 wrote:The lake is primarily for flood control anyways. I doubt that reservoir water cares if it submerges a few trees.
Think you nailed it right there...

But it is also being used by the public as a park. It's not like it's for flood control only and being put off limits to the public behind locked gates.

Greg
The trees are left and/or moved to the middle of lakes on purpose. They provide breeding areas for fish - something that the NRD cares about. They did the same things at Zorinski and Prairie Queen - at PQ, they also utilized a old sewer pipe and put those around the low levels for fish breeding.

While you might not like the look of the trees in the middle of the lake, people who recreationally fish the lake like them there. It also keeps stocking costs lower. It's a net positive.
guest2017
Home Owners Association
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 7:02 am

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by guest2017 »

bigredmed wrote:
nativeomahan wrote:
Brad wrote:
RockHarbor wrote:I'm not a huge fan of our man made lake system here, as I don't like seeing the unnatural look of groves of trees standing out in the water, but oh well...
They will eventually fall down and make houses for the fish...
It looks incredibly stupid. Like they were too cheap to remove the trees from the lake bed. They will die and sit there for years. Dead trees are not attractive in any setting. In the middle of the lake they look like some sort of sick joke at the expense of those using the lake.
No, they are fish habitat for nurseries and for bass and other predatory fish alike. This is intentional.
You are precisely correct. Here's a map of what they did at PQ. http://www.papionrd.org/wp-content/uplo ... re-Map.pdf
User avatar
Greg S
City Council
Posts: 7440
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:46 am

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by Greg S »

I knew why they did it. Just too bad it could not be kept below the water surface. We've started doing paddle boarding at Standing Bear (which also has good fishing), but with this set up following what they did it Prairie Queen, it will not be conducive.

It also to me makes it look like a man made lake.

Greg
bigredmed
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1897
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:45 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by bigredmed »

Greg S wrote:I knew why they did it. Just too bad it could not be kept below the water surface. We've started doing paddle boarding at Standing Bear (which also has good fishing), but with this set up following what they did it Prairie Queen, it will not be conducive.

It also to me makes it look like a man made lake.

Greg
Standing bear was built when I was in Boy Scouts (we planted the trees on the north entrance on 132nd). Back then tree cover was not as common and they were usually bulldozed during basin construction. Now, the ecologists have forced this to stop and given the impact on fish population, will probably never lose the argument again, so Standing Bear is an example of a old school dam. With the ones that came after Cunningham being treed. (Cunningham was only a year behind SB, but even then, the shift to keeping the trees was underway.)
guest2017
Home Owners Association
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 7:02 am

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by guest2017 »

Greg S wrote:I knew why they did it. Just too bad it could not be kept below the water surface. We've started doing paddle boarding at Standing Bear (which also has good fishing), but with this set up following what they did it Prairie Queen, it will not be conducive.

It also to me makes it look like a man made lake.

Greg
How far below water? How do you plan for this in a reservoir structure where water levels fluctuate relatively wildly? If you keep them all at the bottom, they lose a lot of their benefit as fish habitats. If they are under the water line, they pose significant hazards for boaters/fisherman. If boaters/fisherman find out that, by design, there are hazards in the water that will ruin their motors/props/etc, the NRD/PRD, engineering firm, etc. are all at risk of lawsuits for damages. Not saying they would win, but it's a concern. How do trees in the middle of the lake prohibit you from paddle boarding? If boaters can get around, you can get around.
User avatar
Greg S
City Council
Posts: 7440
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:46 am

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by Greg S »

It would have to be in the deeper parts obviously. If you can't make it work then obviously I'd rather not have them at all. We've got other lakes in the area without dead trees sticking up out of them that do fine for fishing and are much more natural to look at. Obviously need to get in better contact with our NRD representatives. I know they have this same set up at Prairie Queen, do they have the trees in the other new damn site, Wanahoo? I was pretty excited for this to come to my part of town, now I think I will just stick with Standing Bear.

Greg
bigredmed
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1897
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:45 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by bigredmed »

Greg S wrote:It would have to be in the deeper parts obviously. If you can't make it work then obviously I'd rather not have them at all. We've got other lakes in the area without dead trees sticking up out of them that do fine for fishing and are much more natural to look at. Obviously need to get in better contact with our NRD representatives. I know they have this same set up at Prairie Queen, do they have the trees in the other new darn site, Wanahoo? I was pretty excited for this to come to my part of town, now I think I will just stick with Standing Bear.

Greg
Wanahoo has trees like Buffett has money.
User avatar
RockHarbor
Planning Board
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Silver State

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by RockHarbor »

Wow...I didn't know some people felt the same about the trees out in the middle of the water, like I did. Yet, I've learned info here that makes me understand why they leave them. This convo is interesting. (The thing I don't get still is natural lakes don't have stands of trees out in the middle, so why is it a big deal if they are removed, and not present in the middle, like a natural lake? Or, why can't they knock them over first, then let the water cover them, rather than wait years for that to happen?)

Honestly, I'm never that drawn to our recreational dam sites around town, personally. I almost wish there was a place we could all go on a hot summer day that was more like Loveland, Colorado's lake -- or that lake just west/northwest of Downtown Denver. I'm talking about more a large, roundish (or peanut-shaped) lake, with broad lawns of mowed grass around it, and spaced-out trees, and a nice big sidewalk ringing the lake -- so people can walk and ride bikes. It would be a little more "urban", rather than "natural." It's a place where even a solo person can go, dressed up fairly nice, and enjoy the water, and they won't get all dirty, or be around mud & weeds & bugs, and tree stumps sticking out of the water, and people fishing. I don't want to be around that "camping & fishing" atmosphere all the time, when I desire to be around water in Omaha.
I can get pushed out because I'm "too much" for some. Then, an observer of me comes suddenly swooping in to "fill my shoes." People are always more accepting of the new one, because their feathers aren't truly ruffled by them. (Yawn) I can count on it every time.
guest2017
Home Owners Association
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 7:02 am

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by guest2017 »

RockHarbor wrote:Wow...I didn't know some people felt the same about the trees out in the middle of the water, like I did. Yet, I've learned info here that makes me understand why they leave them. This convo is interesting. (The thing I don't get still is natural lakes don't have stands of trees out in the middle, so why is it a big deal if they are removed, and not present in the middle, like a natural lake? Or, why can't they knock them over first, then let the water cover them, rather than wait years for that to happen?)

Honestly, I'm never that drawn to our recreational dam sites around town, personally. I almost wish there was a place we could all go on a hot summer day that was more like Loveland, Colorado's lake -- or that lake just west/northwest of Downtown Denver. I'm talking about more a large, roundish (or peanut-shaped) lake, with broad lawns of mowed grass around it, and spaced-out trees, and a nice big sidewalk ringing the lake -- so people can walk and ride bikes. It would be a little more "urban", rather than "natural." It's a place where even a solo person can go, dressed up fairly nice, and enjoy the water, and they won't get all dirty, or be around mud & weeds & bugs, and tree stumps sticking out of the water, and people fishing. I don't want to be around that "camping & fishing" atmosphere all the time, when I desire to be around water in Omaha.
Okay, here's more - if you care. I'll speak to Prairie Queen, because that is the project I'm most familiar with, but it is also applicable to 90 percent of the rest of the dam sites in Omaha and the surrounding area.

That Papillion-Missouri River Natural Resources District (P-MRNRD) was alleviating flood issues for Papillion. They opted for a 135 acre, over 40-foot-deep flood control structure. With that NRD and P-MRNRD decided to do more so than that. For instance, it is one of the first sites in the country that was evaluated for the Envision sustainable infrastructure system (the engineering version of LEED) - which evaluates the community, environmental and economic benefits of infrastructure projects.

When taking a small river, creek, or a bunch of them together, and putting them into one large lake or dam, you need to mitigate the detrimental ecological impacts by creating other suitable habitats for animals. In the past, this has been done at off-site locations. Now, most places are trying to integrate them into the dam sites (as being done at Dam site 15A and Prairie Queen). However, it is in the NRD/P-MRNRD's best interest not only to mitigate ecological impacts, but actually provide additional benefits. Part of this is not having a ton of impervious surfaces (roadways, paved paths, etc.) - which is one of the main reasons the area is even a flood zone to the level it is!

So, P-MRNRD not only attempted to replicate the environments that they had previously, but also make the environment better for additional species. They're introducing new fish into the lake (PQ has walleye, largemouth bass, channel catfish, bluegill, redear sunfish and black crappie - each of these fish has different breeding habits, making the need for several options) and making the dam a better space for wetlands and water fowl. They used native species (fesue, bluestem, wild rye, etc), sustainable materials (reused a sewer pipe that ran through it) and attempted to minimize upkeep through design. Why? Upkeep - and the "manicured look" is expensive. The first thing everything complains about paying? Taxes. The taxes go to keeping our parks looking nice.

Also concerning for these dams is water quality. That is the main reason that Zorinsky was dredged a few years ago. Over time, with these being part of a natural moving body of water, silt and sediment settles into the dam bottom (as it is supposed to) and reduces the water quality and shrinks back the depth of water. This also reduces the usefulness of the lake operating for it's true intended purpose - flood control. To alleviate that, they have begun to build additional water quality basins - typically upstream from the lake/dam. This allows the sediment to settle prior to entering the dam site, however, that typically leads to an "unattractive" area that is prone to flooding and slow moving water or standing water.

While I'm not a huge fan of the dam sites myself, I also understand that the main reason for them is flood control. We absolutely need them. I am on the side that if we absolutely need them, we should also purpose them into parks. It appears that people on this forum forget that there are a lot of fishermen/women in Omaha and their only concern is what it looks like and not it's usefulness outside of "aesthetics."

That experience you're looking for - ConAgra's Lake or Leahy. That's what you're going to get - those are "urban lakes" - though they aren't big or interesting and you'll never see such a development as a reservoir site due to all of the reasons I've already listed. Not to mention (not being a jerk), but I think you're in the minority on wanting this.
guest2017
Home Owners Association
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 7:02 am

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by guest2017 »

Greg S wrote:It would have to be in the deeper parts obviously. If you can't make it work then obviously I'd rather not have them at all. We've got other lakes in the area without dead trees sticking up out of them that do fine for fishing and are much more natural to look at. Obviously need to get in better contact with our NRD representatives. I know they have this same set up at Prairie Queen, do they have the trees in the other new darn site, Wanahoo? I was pretty excited for this to come to my part of town, now I think I will just stick with Standing Bear.

Greg
Just hope you're prepared for NRD to ignore you on this issue. :)
User avatar
BRoss
IT Director
Posts: 10002763
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: West Central Omaha

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by BRoss »

Thanks for that guest2017!

Another thing is at least we develop our reservoirs into parks. I've read on here or somewhere else that some other places just put a fence around it making only useful for flooding purposes and that's it.
User avatar
nativeomahan
County Board
Posts: 5316
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:46 pm
Location: Omaha and Puerto Vallarta

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by nativeomahan »

MTO wrote:These trees are the biggest non issue.
Well I guess then they should leave houses, farms and roads to sit in the middle of these lakes while they are at it. Makes as much aesthetic sense.
MTO
City Council
Posts: 7806
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Dundee

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by MTO »

Totally because they're perfect analogs.
15-17, 26, 32
User avatar
RockHarbor
Planning Board
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Silver State

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by RockHarbor »

Guest2017: Thanks for all that info. You seem to know a lot of details behind these reservoirs.

You're right: The Con Agra Lake or Leahy Mall is the "urban lake" for me to go to around here. I almost forget about that Con Agra lake for some reason. But, to be honest, I don't want to walk around it, because of all the soreness with Con Agra over ruining Jobber's Canyon, and building a suburban-style campus downtown, and now this new current stuff with them leaving Omaha. It just all puts a "bad taste in my mouth."

I want more this kind of look, centralized in Omaha. This is Loveland's lake: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3446/369 ... 93478d.jpg A place to go sit with a slushy on a park bench, to people watch, to bike, or walk a dog around the lake, or jog 1-2 laps around. Ya know? I just don't feel like our dam sites offer quite that.

The thing I also don't understand is why Des Moines doesn't have that many reservoirs, and we have them all over. They have a few on the southern portion of town I notice, but that Saylorville Lake (north of town) is the main one, and that lake is really expansive & pretty. Sometimes, I wish we had fewer dam sites, and the ones we had were larger & grander (like Saylorville Lake). It just would be more exciting going to one, if they had a marina, and a little restaurant, ect.
I can get pushed out because I'm "too much" for some. Then, an observer of me comes suddenly swooping in to "fill my shoes." People are always more accepting of the new one, because their feathers aren't truly ruffled by them. (Yawn) I can count on it every time.
bigredmed
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1897
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:45 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by bigredmed »

RockHarbor wrote:Guest2017: Thanks for all that info. You seem to know a lot of details behind these reservoirs.

You're right: The Con Agra Lake or Leahy Mall is the "urban lake" for me to go to around here. I almost forget about that Con Agra lake for some reason. But, to be honest, I don't want to walk around it, because of all the soreness with Con Agra over ruining Jobber's Canyon, and building a suburban-style campus downtown, and now this new current stuff with them leaving Omaha. It just all puts a "bad taste in my mouth."

I want more this kind of look, centralized in Omaha. This is Loveland's lake: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3446/369 ... 93478d.jpg A place to go sit with a slushy on a park bench, to people watch, to bike, or walk a dog around the lake, or jog 1-2 laps around. Ya know? I just don't feel like our dam sites offer quite that.

The thing I also don't understand is why Des Moines doesn't have that many reservoirs, and we have them all over. They have a few on the southern portion of town I notice, but that Saylorville Lake (north of town) is the main one, and that lake is really expansive & pretty. Sometimes, I wish we had fewer dam sites, and the ones we had were larger & grander (like Saylorville Lake). It just would be more exciting going to one, if they had a marina, and a little restaurant, ect.

Large streams like the rivers joining together in Des Moines require high dams and lots of space. Imagine how much ground would be consumed if we dam'd up the Elkhorn at Dodge Street. This is the reason that civil engineers have given for the absence of mainstem Papio creek dams.

Discuss your issues re: retained trees with the designers of these dams. The trees are retained to improve aquatic habitat. Dams that predate Standing Bear were scraped clean and were basically water tanks. Fisheries were poor till they started submerging old Christmas trees, tires, and sewer pipes.
User avatar
RockHarbor
Planning Board
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Silver State

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by RockHarbor »

bigredmed wrote: Large streams like the rivers joining together in Des Moines require high dams and lots of space. Imagine how much ground would be consumed if we dam'd up the Elkhorn at Dodge Street. This is the reason that civil engineers have given for the absence of mainstem Papio creek dams.

Discuss your issues re: retained trees with the designers of these dams. The trees are retained to improve aquatic habitat. Dams that predate Standing Bear were scraped clean and were basically water tanks. Fisheries were poor till they started submerging old Christmas trees, tires, and sewer pipes.
Gotcha. Interesting. I learn a lot here. I know the Des Moines area's geography is a bit different than Omaha, and I figured that had something to do with it, but I wasn't sure quite what.

The trees in the lake: Wow, that's interesting. It makes sense, considering even for fish tanks, they make all that stuff that creates little coves for the fish. They like that type of thing.

I guess with this discussion, my mindset about these lakes have shifted a bit, so I'm not so annoyed with the trees in the middle now. I still don't care for that look, but I understand it way better now. My mindset used to be: They were lakes for recreation. So, I was concerned with aesthetics and making it look/feel like a natural lake, like ones in Minnesota. Now, I understand: They are meant for flood control, and naturally, they create a recreational area out of the lake at the same time.

Still: I guess I'm wondering why they can't create an underwater environment before they fill in the lake. Why don't they just cut down all those big trees, and lay them in the middle of the lake? (I think of the danger with boats, but that happens anyway, when the submerged trees die and eventually collapse.) They could build solid guarding poles (or something) around the mass in the middle, ones that peek above the water, so boats know the boundaries not to cross. Course, thinking about it, would that look any better than having trees standing in the middle?
I can get pushed out because I'm "too much" for some. Then, an observer of me comes suddenly swooping in to "fill my shoes." People are always more accepting of the new one, because their feathers aren't truly ruffled by them. (Yawn) I can count on it every time.
bigredmed
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1897
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:45 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by bigredmed »

if they cut down the trees, they would dry before they get flooded and then float about (likely into the main current of the dam and obstruct it's outflow.)

I agree with your thoughts on esthetics, but frankly, I think that we should be calling for at least a few deep water dams that could support larger species of game fish and a greater variety of boats.
guest2017
Home Owners Association
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 7:02 am

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by guest2017 »

HR Paperstacks wrote:Thanks for that guest2017!

Another thing is at least we develop our reservoirs into parks. I've read on here or somewhere else that some other places just put a fence around it making only useful for flooding purposes and that's it.
In almost every proposed dam site, this is the first option given solely because it's the cheapest. It's never really used in Nebraska because we have a mindful natural resources district, but it's always an option.
guest2017
Home Owners Association
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 7:02 am

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by guest2017 »

RockHarbor wrote:Guest2017: Thanks for all that info. You seem to know a lot of details behind these reservoirs.

You're right: The Con Agra Lake or Leahy Mall is the "urban lake" for me to go to around here. I almost forget about that Con Agra lake for some reason. But, to be honest, I don't want to walk around it, because of all the soreness with Con Agra over ruining Jobber's Canyon, and building a suburban-style campus downtown, and now this new current stuff with them leaving Omaha. It just all puts a "bad taste in my mouth."

I want more this kind of look, centralized in Omaha. This is Loveland's lake: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3446/369 ... 93478d.jpg A place to go sit with a slushy on a park bench, to people watch, to bike, or walk a dog around the lake, or jog 1-2 laps around. Ya know? I just don't feel like our dam sites offer quite that.

The thing I also don't understand is why Des Moines doesn't have that many reservoirs, and we have them all over. They have a few on the southern portion of town I notice, but that Saylorville Lake (north of town) is the main one, and that lake is really expansive & pretty. Sometimes, I wish we had fewer dam sites, and the ones we had were larger & grander (like Saylorville Lake). It just would be more exciting going to one, if they had a marina, and a little restaurant, ect.
It's almost like I work for an engineering company. :shock: (and I'm happy to make that claim on a board unrelated to the controversial board about my employer - and I've commented on the one about my employer with knowledge from a 'friend' which is a white lie.). :lol:

I think the eastern side of Zorinsky isn't too far off from that? Especially if you stay near the actual dam. However, it's not super nice.

I am relatively unfamiliar with Des Moines' water issues. I'll do some researching sometime when I have little else to do.
guest2017
Home Owners Association
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 7:02 am

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by guest2017 »

RockHarbor wrote:Still: I guess I'm wondering why they can't create an underwater environment before they fill in the lake. Why don't they just cut down all those big trees, and lay them in the middle of the lake? (I think of the danger with boats, but that happens anyway, when the submerged trees die and eventually collapse.) They could build solid guarding poles (or something) around the mass in the middle, ones that peek above the water, so boats know the boundaries not to cross. Course, thinking about it, would that look any better than having trees standing in the middle?
There are huge trees cut down and sunk in the newer dam sites - most of the time they are bundled together too. It's just not something that most people care about because you can't see them.
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033311
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by Brad »

Brad wrote:The lake is filling up fast!
Apparently they decided to drain it, a year later and its almost completely empty.
User avatar
BRoss
IT Director
Posts: 10002763
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: West Central Omaha

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by BRoss »

Brad wrote:
Brad wrote:The lake is filling up fast!
Apparently they decided to drain it, a year later and its almost completely empty.
I wonder why they're draining it.
User avatar
Uffda
County Board
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:52 pm
Location: Land o Lakes, FL

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by Uffda »

I drove down 168th from State to maple today. There is one new subdivision between state and ida on the west side. It started last fall and has approx. 10 houses in various stages. Right to the south of it there is a new sign that says Future Bennington Elem.

Then as you get closer to Fort there was a bunch of earthmoving equipment working today on the hillside above what will be the future Dam site -- Dam has some water behind it currently. Maybe a residential area?


Image
User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 32937
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Aksarben Village
Contact:

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by Coyote »

According to the NRD, Construction of the site should be completed by September 1 this year, expecting that it would be open in spring 2018. 

 They have not started filling the lake yet. When it rains, it does get some ponding, but it will drain out over time until the dam is officially closed.
User avatar
gkudrna
New to the Neighborhood
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 2:15 pm

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by gkudrna »

to my knowledge it is a shopping area called pier 51 or something like that.
User avatar
RockHarbor
Planning Board
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Silver State

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by RockHarbor »

It's coming along nicely.... I just drove by it tonight. I love houses going up in Anchor Pointe to the north. Omaha is truly getting so big & sprawling.
I can get pushed out because I'm "too much" for some. Then, an observer of me comes suddenly swooping in to "fill my shoes." People are always more accepting of the new one, because their feathers aren't truly ruffled by them. (Yawn) I can count on it every time.
Joe_Sovereign
Library Board
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:57 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by Joe_Sovereign »

Is this still called 15A? Is there some kind of plan of naming the lake, a schedule on when a name is going to be announced.
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033311
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by Brad »

Joe_Sovereign wrote:Is this still called 15A? Is there some kind of plan of naming the lake, a schedule on when a name is going to be announced.
All the others ended up with names so I would be willing to bet this one will too. Prairie Queen was "WP-5" until March of 2015 when it got a name. Opened Spring 2015.
MTO
City Council
Posts: 7806
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Dundee

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by MTO »

It’s about time to get the Brad-copter spun up.
15-17, 26, 32
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033311
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by Brad »

MTO wrote:It’s about time to get the Brad-copter spun up.
Unfortunately Omaha appears to be without a helicopter again... :(
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033311
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Re: Dam Site 15A (168th and Fort)

Post by Brad »

Name the Park. What's Your Suggestion?

https://www.cityofomaha.org/latest-news ... suggestion
City of Omaha wrote:Omaha’s new lake and recreation area needs a name.

Currently referred to as Dam Site 15A, the Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources District developed the flood control reservoir and public recreation area northwest of 168th & Fort. The Omaha City Council approved an interlocal agreement in 2012 that allows the City of Omaha Parks Department to manage the dam site and surrounding park when it opens next spring.

The park will include a 4.5 mile concrete walking trail around the lake, playground, boat ramp and potentially a baseball field. Funds for the park are already included in the Capital Improvement Plan.

The City Naming Committee, established by city ordinance in 2010, will recommend a name to submit to the Park and Recreation Board and the Omaha City Council for approval. The committee includes three members appointed by the mayor and six department directors required by the ordinance (Police Chief, Fire Chief, Parks Director, Planning Director, Public Works Director, and Library Director). The appointed members are Douglas County Commissioners P.J. Morgan and Marc Kraft and Mike Kennedy.

This will be the first time the committee has met to name a park since the ordinance has been in place.

From now until July 24th, suggestions to name the lake and park can be made by email, namethepark@cityofomaha.org . The committee’s recommendation will be sent to the City Council by mid-August.
Submit Names: namethepark@cityofomaha.org
Post Reply