2.6 Million Manmade Ponds

[ELKCHSR]

Here’s the question...

Why would it be an issue seeing as there are massive complaints by the 'ologists' that the wetlands, and marshes are and have been pretty much removed as a whole from the ecosystem?

They both end up having the same basic end means if managed properly.

Heck, the ones out here create a great oasis for water birds and plant life, plus all the other animals that live in and around water have a place to be that wouldn't normally be in this area.

Is it because they are man made??? This always seems to piss some people off to no end, it's the difference of a saw cut, a broken tree stump, one looks natural, and the other is obvious.

Is it the same exact wood sitting there?

If the answer’s yes, which it is, then it’s only eye impact and not natural impact which seems to be the issue.

2.6 Million Manmade Ponds Have ‘Dramatic Impact’
By LiveScience Staff

The United States is dotted by about 2.6 million man-made ponds that significantly alter natural runoff schemes by trapping a previously unknown amount of sediment.

The number was generated in a new review of satellite images. Most of the ponds are less than 1.5 acres in size, but they add up.

"These ponds capture the runoff from about 20 percent of the area of the U.S.," said Jeremy Bartley of the Kansas Geological Survey. "Most large-scale studies of sedimentation haven't taken these small water bodies into account. Taken together, they have a dramatic impact."

The ponds collect about a quarter of the sedimentation that would otherwise end up in rivers and deltas, Bartley and his colleagues report in the journal Geomorphology. The trapped sediment could fill more than three million railroad boxcars a year.

"Before these ponds were built, much of that sediment was deposited in river valleys," Bartley said. "Now it goes into these small impoundments, changing the nature of sedimentation and drainage in this country."

Many of the ponds were constructed during the 1900s to provide water for livestock or for recreation. But thousands more are built each year, many in the Great Plains or in the southeastern United States in locations where natural lakes are rare, the researchers say.

 

[BuzzH]

It doesnt surprise me that Cheese wouldnt understand the implications...no surprise at all.

Cheese, try taking a riparian management course, a hydrology course, or watershed management.

Then you wouldnt look like a clown when you post your ridiculous "thoughts" on subjects you have no idea about.

You dont have a clue.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Hey Cheese,
Have you ever seen a watershed after the streamflow has been altered and blocked sediment from moving downstream? You ought to get out more.

 

[BuzzH]

Here comes the "while I was traveling to a fire on a school-bus (the short bus) I looked out the window and saw a stream with my lieing eyes....but I painted myself into a vicious circle"....

 

[ELKCHSR]

LOL butz the putz.. I knew you would jump on this like flies on shit... your to easy..

guner/sybil...

You must have half timers (forgets shit half the time), I don't answer your questions until you answer mine first foolish boy..

 

[JoseCuervo]

So Cheese, should we take that as a no, that you have never paid attention to a stream after the sediment is blocked off?

 

[ELKCHSR]

Yawn... guner/sybil... your a bore, plain and simple....

You must have half timers (forgets shit half the time), I don't answer your questions until you answer mine first, foolish boy..

 

[BuzzH]

Cheese,

Re-read what you posted...thats the most pathetic dim-witted argument I've ever seen on any subject...ever.

Thats a classic example of how clueless you really are, and how everytime you post you look like an idiot.

You're a simpleton and a fool and you dont know your ass from hot rocks about anything to do with natural resources.

That post of yours proves it, beyond any reasonable doubt.

If you want to get into why your post is so full of holes you could strain spaghetti with it...just say the word and I'll show you how stupid and ignorant you really are.

 

[Nemont]

Man made "wetlands" are not as productive, biologically diverse and they tend to be in less desirable locations ie in the middle of a subdivision.

Have you read about any of the natural cycle of the Prairie Pothole Region, The duck factory of North America?

Sheesh sometimes you invite these guys jumping on you.

Nemont

 

[BigHornRam]

"Re-read what you posted...thats the most pathetic dim-witted argument I've ever seen on any subject...ever."

Buzz,

I would follow your own advice on this one to Russ, to your arguments on the gas thread. Your arguments there would be a close second for dim-wittedness.

 

[BuzzH]

BHR,

Not hardly.

 

[Bambistew]

Ponds are not wetlands... think of a wetland as being a swamp and all the vegetation, muck, mud and slow moving shallow water vs. the settling ponds in front of your house with the deep water, few plants vs total size and not much in the way of shallow water areas...

Here's a question for everyone to "pond-er"...

Isn't the sediment load in our streams and rivers (for most areas of the US) higher now than it has ever been due to farming, construction, development, etc??? Is there really a shortage of sediment, I thought sediment in our streams was the #2 problem right after pollution problem???

On average I'd say that I design probably 2-4 ponds a year. These ponds serve many purposes, the main purpose is to capture runoff from large new impervious areas such as parking lots or roadways, etc, and then control the rate at which the water ultimately enter into its watershed. Thus they prevent problems down stream such as flooding, eroding stream banks, and all other problems associated with large short duration flows. Note: You can't have erosion with out sediment...

This article really says nothing IMO... other than ponds trap sediment. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that one. The question yet to be answered, are the ponds hurting or helping by trapping that small amount of sediment? My guess is they are helping in most instances.

 

[ringer]

My guess is the thousand golf course and community ponds in Arizona that get filled from the water supply and create a huge amount of evaporation would be a bad. A few ducks and geese will inhabit them and they do hold fish if you don't get arrested trying to catch them. Monuments to the rich. Kind of like dam breaching though in that the money will dominate the arguement.

 

[BigHornRam]

"BHR,

Not hardly"


You're right Buzz. After a re-read, your arguments are easily first place for dim-wittedness. Sorry for the confussion

 

[ELKCHSR]

LOL You guys are funny...

Yes, it is true that many ponds belong to golf courses and communities, but there are far more built by some one wanting it “on the farm” and then letting it go, plus I also mentioned the ones out here, they are a long way from golf courses or human habitation and are designed just for critter habitation...

Some of you mentioned “thousands" of ponds around golf courses and human habitations, do you understand the difference between thousands and millions?

I understand Butz the Putz not understanding the concept because his understandings of the dollars spent on dam’s verse the amount on Medicare is really off kilter, but I honestly expected more out of the rest of you.

You guys seem to take every thing to the most extreme conclusion you possibly can, to the point of silliness, only noticing what you want in any thing posted jumping to forgone conclusions with out looking at what was actually posted, or its intent.

The questions I posed above weren't meant to see if you could find yet one more thing to jump up my ass over, they were meant for some thing meaningful in debate...

The article has some good points in the fact that even more ponds could be turned into wildlife refuges, an extension to a wetlands project, or even areas where sediments could be channeled back into the ecosystem for use.

A few of you need to get out of your offices and breathe some fresh air; the winter is getting to you...

Lighten up, look at what you posted, see the humor in regards to your antics of jumping to concussions, take a deep breath, and try coming at this in a little different perspective...

I think every ones just getting a little steeped in their own muck and knee jerking everything posted...

 

[Nut]

Many of the ponds were constructed during the 1900s to provide water for livestock or for recreation. But thousands more are built each year, many in the Great Plains or in the southeastern United States in locations where natural lakes are rare, the researchers say.

Plain and simple. They counted the water hazards for golf courses

 

[noharleyyet]

My guess is the thousand golf course and community ponds in Arizona that get filled from the water supply and create a huge amount of evaporation would be a bad. A few ducks and geese will inhabit them and they do hold fish if you don't get arrested trying to catch them. Monuments to the rich. Kind of like dam breaching though in that the money will dominate the arguement.

...damn good point ringer.

 

[BuzzH]

Bambistew, before I straigten out the local village idiot known as elkcheese, I'll answer your question, which will in turn be used to show how much of an idiot elkcheese is.

You said, "Thus they prevent problems down stream such as flooding, eroding stream banks, and all other problems associated with large short duration flows."

The "problem" with water is that everything you do upstream effects everything downstream. Sure, a small reservior or pond will trap sediment, and that can be viewed as plus. Heres the catch. You say that short duration flows cause the "problems" of eroding banks, and flooding. Streams and Rivers are SUPPOSED to escape their banks and flood, they're supposed to erode and cut and fill as they move back and forth across their flood plains over time. Thats how healthy riparian systems function. Socially, because of peoples stupidity of building in flood plains, grazing on stream banks etc. the healthy functioning of a river is now considered undesirable as humans have manipulated the process via poor management. In an effort to help, they build ponds to catch sediment, not allow flooding, etc. Now, you have a channelized river that never gets out of its banks and the whole system is out of whack. Because we have no sedimention, we dont have point bar development, we dont have young cottonwoods, willows, etc. as they need freshly exposed point bars for regeneration. All so we could keep some dudes house from flooding and cut erosion of his stream banks that are exposed by over-grazing and cutting at an accelerated rate. To top it off, we've now changed things like duration, timing, and amount of run-off. Water temperatures change, not scouring of sediments below the empoundments because flow has been severely altered. Now, you have a whole other series of problems created downstream, and it compounds the further you go downstream. Water is a tricky beast, it doesnt obey mans "fixes" for long. You can armour a bank with rip-rap and slow cutting...but you increase the water velocity by doing this...increasing cutting on the banks downstream of your rip-rap...which leads to more cutting and more rip-rap to control that...and the cycle never stops.

The point of that is, a person may have the best of intentions on why they build ponds and small catchments, but ultimately they more than likely do more harm than good.

Most people....like elkcheese...argue that the ponds "create" wetlands. Thats simply not true, they dont. True wetlands are pretty much what you described and you get those by allowing all your streams to function in a natural state. I realize its not always possible because of the social impacts. So, we all pay the piper trying to repair more and more stuff, spending money unnecessarily so someone can have a trophy home in the flood plain of a blue-ribbon (or soon to be EX-blue ribbon) trout stream.

As to elkcheese, I know you probably dont understand any of that post, as its way beyond your knowledge base of riparian and wetland systems.

So to simplify, man-made empoundments are not nearly as valuable ecologically, diversity wise, and create big-money problems downstream.

Actually, I'll just end it there, as anyone that thinks man-made empoundments are "the same" as wetlands pretty much tells me all I need to know.

You dont have a clue. Instead of yapping your ignorant mouth about how college students dont know anything, go work in riparian management for a while and take a few courses in hydrology.

This is a classic case of where education not only shines, but is necessary to understand complex systems, as from your first post in this thread its more than obvious even a basic education would have prevented you from looking like a total moron.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Good points butz the putz...

But this negated any thing you could have said and looks pretty silly...

Bambistew, before I straigten out the local village idiot known as elkcheese, I'll answer your question, which will in turn be used to show how much of an idiot elkcheese is.

Most people....like elkcheese...argue that the ponds "create" wetlands.

You ever see the Warm Springs Ponds??? I have posted pictures of them, I guess the wrong birds are living around them, or the wrong grasses, or cat tails to make them a "true wetland" or the simple fact that they were man created, and we all know man can't do any thing to create what nature already has built (according to you that is)... village idiot??? tsk... tsk... tsk...

What is it again you do for a living... Spend a ton of good tax payers dollars to speed up some thing if given time, will heal itself, as it does in all the locals your not present in!

Now you’re going to tell every one you’re not a man??? Or it’s ok for you and no one else??? Or you’re the only exception to the rule???

Come on now, your supposed to be smarter than that...

Oh.. Because I put some thing on the board for debate, or questions, it makes me the idiot??? snicker... snicker... you ever look in the mirror ol' Mr. dinosaur, and what number is larger??? A hundred million or a hundred billion???

 

[Moosie]

FYI, I believe that a Clasification for Wetland is the Habitat growth in the area. For a Roadway Wetland mitigation/ distribution we use either a 1:! (HArdly ever) or a 2:1 (More likely). Man made wetlands usualy aren't as likely to succeed as the Natural ones.

We just finished (Almost finished) a wetland plan were we cut a dry bed out and inserted the Willows and "Stuff"... put it on a 1% slope so when the Waters rise it floods and when the Water drops it will creat the Wetlands. We used Wiers 6" high retainers to minimize the runoff and hopefully catch some sediment. Personally I don't think it will work, It's over a River rock shelf with minimal sediment and nutrients to grow the right habitat.

All that being said, we are making good money on a Feel good project so who cares ...