|
|
| Post Number: 31
|
jimhanson 
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: May 25 2011,4:40 pm |
|
   |
For at least the 50 years I can recall, farmers blamed the city dwellers, and vice versa. Despite all of the studies, it seems that every one of them studiously avoided drawing a conclusion as to the source of the problem. As long as there is a controversy, people will always look for "more studies" (read that as "Money") for the problem.
I opposed the Shell Rock Watershed as just another tax and spend program--and initially, it was. There was something of an internal revolution, though, with many of the originals being replaced. The reformers drastically altered the original plans--instead of starting with the dam on Albert Lea Lake, they started at the headwaters and worked downstream.
Contrary to your assertion, 95% of the land adjacent to streams is now banked and filter-stripped--that issue is no longer valid. With surface runoff virtually eliminated, the idea that ag land was contributing the majority of phosphorus load also goes away.
My wife was a volunteer for collecting water samples for the Watershed from various monitoring sites. The results are shown here nullMy Webpage
Note the graphs on page 4 for suspended solids. In every case, the streams leading into Fountain Lake are well below the State norm for area lakes. Also compare the suspended solid loads at the OUTLET at the Shell Rock River dam--they are several times higher than at the inlet. Where do you suppose those solids entered the water, between the INLET and the OUTLET?
As the page shows, there are monitoring sites along both Fountain and Albert Lea lakes as they flow downstream--but the Watershed has not chosen to display them. Wouldn't it be informative to be able to compare those sites with sites further upstream?
Enough of 50 years of finger-pointing without facts--let the facts speak for themselves.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 32
|
l21ps
Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
|
Posted on: May 25 2011,5:39 pm |
|
 |
I would think with all the stupid thing the city spends money on, bike trails, main street lights, old buildings, tiger hills and on and on, this would be one project that would benefit Albert Lea the most and have a chance to bring in the most out of town people (=MONEY)
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 33
|
stardust17
Group: Members
Posts: 129
Joined: Nov. 2010
|
|
Posted on: May 25 2011,10:28 pm |
|
|
Banked, filter-stripped, whatever....none of these help in downpours. I live in a rural area. I drive around when it is pouring rain and watch farmland gushing into drainage ditches, creeks. These lax preventative measures are designed for average rain...or a bit above...not downpours. One downpour erases alot of average prevention. As fields grow larger(creating massive open areas for runoff) the problem grows worse.
Another issue is this: due to miles and miles of tiling(which may reduce surface runoff somewhat) and less and less marshland or holding ponds the chances for greater stream, river, and lake currents goes up; which in turn will draw sediment from sides and bottom. Massive tiling only increases chances of flooding and other problems downstream. One way or another the water is reaching streams and lakes faster...and in some cases filled with sediment.
Unfiltered tile inlets also are drains for fertilizers and toxic chemicals during heavy rain. Those who believe all lakes are filling with sediment through natural means are believing what they want to believe. If only fish, aquatic plants, and local wildlife could speak. Their story would more readily reflect reality.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 34
|
hot84svo
Group: Members
Posts: 405
Joined: Jul. 2005
|
|
Posted on: May 26 2011,11:44 am |
|
|
Like they ever would move them but Fireworks are a direct point source of phosphate pollution.
All the phosphorus from each of the thousands of fireworks shot over the lake in the last xxx years is a direct piont source of pollution.
--------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i06sv3-cZko
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 35
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: May 26 2011,2:04 pm |
|
|
Stardust-- QUOTE Banked, filter-stripped, whatever...none of these help in downpours. I live in a rural area. I drive around when it is pouring rain and watch farmland gushing into drainage ditches, creeks. These lax preventative measures are designed for average rain...or a bit above...not downpours. One downpour erases alot of average prevention. As fields grow larger(creating massive open areas for runoff) the problem grows worse.
What are you saying? That there should be NO STREAMS inletting to the lakes? That there should be no farmland allowed? 
Flooding on major rivers MAY happen, too--but it isn't the norm. Look again at the study--in only ONE case did ONE stream even hit the NORM the DNR set for the area--the rest of the time it was much lower. As for the normal inflow into the lakes, Wedge Creek was 1/10th of the suspended sediments compared to the outflow down the Shell Rock. Bancroft Creek was 1/4 of the suspended sediment.
I'll ask again--if this is the suspended sediment going INTO the lakes, and the suspended sediment going OUT of the lakes is this much higher, where do you suppose the problem lies?
Maddog--I know that you talk to Henschel--does anybody have access to the reporting point data on the west, center and near the dam on each lake?
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 36
|
MADDOG
Group: Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: May 26 2011,4:16 pm |
|
|
(jimhanson @ May 26 2011,2:04 pm)
QUOTE Maddog--I know that you talk to Henschel--does anybody have access to the reporting point data on the west, center and near the dam on each lake?
Jim, it's just back to the blame game with a couple posters. In one major rain, more sediment can run off an urban area setting than in ten years of farm runoff anymore with the practices used in field tiling and drainage today. Stardust also doesn't take into account the miles of county ditches the water runs before it enters the lake where the water is slowed down. This allows the suspended particles to be captured in the ditches. Before it reaches the lake. Conservation practices today in agriculture ARE NOT lax preventative measures anymore.
Stardust forgets all the water running off parking lots, fertilized lawns or construction sites. The amount of oils, salts and debris carried into the storm systems. The watershed recommends the city residents maintain rain gardens, leave strips of vegetation along the lakes for filtration and not mowing lawn clippings into the street. Do they? How many residents blow their leaves into the street? Helck, I've watched city street employees doing it on their own property.
Jim, I don't believe they take or maintain records for some of those areas you're asking for. As far as I know, they publish only the water quality at the entry and exit points on Fountain. (Shoff, Bancroft and the dam)
--------------
Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 37
|
usmcr
Group: Members
Posts: 922
Joined: Sep. 2003
|
|
Posted on: May 26 2011,9:23 pm |
|
|
a few years ago when they redid the bancroft creek they installed cache basins to capture the sediment from the run off. i had the opportunity to view the plans, in case anyone is interested you could check with the watershed personal at the courthouse to see what they had done to bancroft creek. i have no idea what they have done to wedge creek in that regard. i do know that where it dumps into edgewater bay off old hwy 13 there has been a sediment build up at that point.
--------------
"Do not confuse dissent with disloyalty" Edward R Murrow
Memento homo quia pulvis es, et in pulverem veverteris
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 38
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: May 27 2011,2:20 pm |
|
|
Whatever they did, it is working. As the chart shows, suspended sediment at Wedge creek is 1/10 of that leaving Albert Lea Lake.
Suspended sediment at Bancroft Creek is 1/4 (10 ppm vs. 40 ppm) at the entrance to Fountain Lake vs. the exit from Albert Lea Lake.
What do you suppose is happening in between? 
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 39
|
|
|
| Post Number: 40
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: May 28 2011,12:41 pm |
|
|
Ned--I agree.
You also have to make a decision on the geese--as long as there is a resident goose population, there will be problems. One of the ways to get rid of resident geese is to not use the aerators--but that will be detrimental to the fishing. Always a trade-off.
You will also have to make a decision on allowing high-powered boats on the lake, or making it "quiet water." They stir up the bottom, just as carp do--flying overhead, you can see the mud trails in the summer. It does little good to spend money on bottomfeeder eradication while having the bottom stirred up by big boats. Not advocating one or the other--just sayin' that there is a trade off.
It's always a trade-off between access and environment.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
