Simra - Page 2 - IAWaterfowlers
Duck Hunting
 

Go Back   IAWaterfowlers > Politics & Fluff > Conservation Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-10-2017, 08:30 AM   #14
IAW Veteran
 
feathhd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NW Iowa
Posts: 6,676

Thanked: 2,259 times
Default Re: Simra





Sediment in the Missouri River
Prior to the 1950s, the Missouri River carried more than 320 million tons
of suspended sediment per year at Hermann, Missouri. The construction
of dams, channel structures and levees allowed easier river navigation and
controlled flooding but drastically decreased the amount of sediment
flowing in the river. Today, the Missouri River near Hermann carries only
20 to 25 percent of its original sediment volume.


Just remember this. Many have spent millions in trying to battle Gulf Coastal Marsh loss or coastal habitat loss like barrier islands and such. They have tried and continue to battle the habitat loss problem by merely focussing on immediate area where loss has occurred or continues to occur at a rapid rate. The one thing that is not emphasized on in the battle is the transformation of upstream tributaries where the army corps of engineers has implemented it's bank stabilization program in most of the major river systems that feed the Mississippi River sediment. The problem of the coastal marsh habitat loss is that it is sediment deprived of historical levels. They will never solve the habitat loss of coastal wetlands by simply focussing on areas of the loss to move what little sediment they do get. The point being at the end of the day, the system still remains sediment deprived. Spending millions to restore said areas will ultimately fail and is unsustainable in its present approach. Simply repeating restoration projects some 20 years later at a much higher cost than 20 years prior. The problem / solution to the problem lies within resolving traditional or historical sedimentation transportation levels up stream that feed the Mississippi River ecosystem itself. If we can increase sediment loads upstream by restoring some natural forms of erosion or natural meander areas of upstream river systems, it will ultimately do the job of coastal restoration for free and be more efficient in doing so, not to mention long term cost effectiveness.
__________________
F/H/D
feathhd is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Members who found this post useful:
Old 05-10-2017, 10:03 AM   #15
IAW Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: sww iowa
Posts: 1,130

Thanked: 738 times
Default Re: Simra





Quote:
Originally Posted by feathhd View Post
Sediment in the Missouri River
Prior to the 1950s, the Missouri River carried more than 320 million tons
of suspended sediment per year at Hermann, Missouri. The construction
of dams, channel structures and levees allowed easier river navigation and
controlled flooding but drastically decreased the amount of sediment
flowing in the river. Today, the Missouri River near Hermann carries only
20 to 25 percent of its original sediment volume.


Just remember this. Many have spent millions in trying to battle Gulf Coastal Marsh loss or coastal habitat loss like barrier islands and such. They have tried and continue to battle the habitat loss problem by merely focussing on immediate area where loss has occurred or continues to occur at a rapid rate. The one thing that is not emphasized on in the battle is the transformation of upstream tributaries where the army corps of engineers has implemented it's bank stabilization program in most of the major river systems that feed the Mississippi River sediment. The problem of the coastal marsh habitat loss is that it is sediment deprived of historical levels. They will never solve the habitat loss of coastal wetlands by simply focussing on areas of the loss to move what little sediment they do get. The point being at the end of the day, the system still remains sediment deprived. Spending millions to restore said areas will ultimately fail and is unsustainable in its present approach. Simply repeating restoration projects some 20 years later at a much higher cost than 20 years prior. The problem / solution to the problem lies within resolving traditional or historical sedimentation transportation levels up stream that feed the Mississippi River ecosystem itself. If we can increase sediment loads upstream by restoring some natural forms of erosion or natural meander areas of upstream river systems, it will ultimately do the job of coastal restoration for free and be more efficient in doing so, not to mention long term cost effectiveness.
cleaner water water travels faster and also cuts stream beds deeper thus leaveing old wetlands and flood areas high and dry.bad dog
bad dog is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Members who found this post useful:
Sponsored Links
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2008 - 2017, IAW - Some Rights Reserve
.