Talk:Columbia Slough/Archive 1

Archive 1

Slough?

Is it really both a slough and an estuary? That would make it a unique slough and a unique estuary, also. My gut tells me this ain't correct. But my gut's prone to being wrong on Wikipedia. --Blechnic (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a good question. The Friends of Smith and Bybee Lakes call the wetlands "an historical remnant of the Columbia River estuary system" here. The United States Geological Survey lists the waterbody by the name Columbia Slough but identifies its feature class as "Gut" here. I was surprised at the "Gut" class and looked for an article I could wikilink to but found nothing appropriate. The slough is odd in other ways and should be fun although complicated to work on. It seems to be tidal, and its maximum recorded reverse flow is bigger than its maximum forward flow. Note the minus signs in the infobox. Its elevation is given by the USGS as the same at both ends, another oddity; this can't be quite perfectly true since it does have an average forward flow bigger than zero. However, it would be fair to call it sluggish. Finetooth (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is it surprising that USGS calls it a gut? Sloughs are often guts. There is nothing in this article that indicates it is anything but a gut or slough, not an estuary. The friends may be a reliable source, who knows, I'm told that if 3 blogs say something in agreement it can be considered reliable information. If there are no reliable sources that say it's an estuary that information should be removed. I would tag it as inaccurate, but I am under threat of permanent community ban if I should question "facts" on Wikipedia in articles. It's your article, you want to call a slough an estuary, okay. I would just like readers to know it's unsourced information that appears to have nothing in the article backing it up. I've done that. I wash my hands of this inland stagnant water estuary. Blechnic (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

PS California's Central Valley is an historical estuary, but I don't think it's article begins with an introduction calling it an estuary.

I'm glad you brought this question up here on the article's talk page. You may well be right in saying that the slough is not an estuary. I will do my best to find better sources; failing that, I will remove the estuary claim. I would also appreciate help in developing the article, which is a stub at the moment. Although I'm the sole contributor so far, I don't own the article. Your help would be welcome. I'm no special expert on sloughs and was unfamiliar with the term "gut" used in this way. Finetooth (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I've changed "estuary" to "gut" in the infobox and the lead since "gut" is supported by the USGS. If strong support for estuary is later found, it can always be added. Thanks for raising the question. Finetooth (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that the USGS "Feature class" field, which is where this "gut" term is used, is not all that meaningful. See this help page, which says in part "...feature class terms consist of nine or fewer letters originally defined for mainframe computer search and retrieval. They do not identify all kinds of cultural and natural features. The terms are generally consistent with dictionary definitions, but represent more generalized categories." and "the Federal Government takes no position with respect to feature classification and there are no officially sanctioned lists or definitions. These were designed for and have proven useful to the Geographic Names Information System." It goes on to offer commonly used alternate names, which for the "gut" class are: creek, inlet, slough. Personally, I would find slough a better better term in this case, especially since that is the actual name of the feature in question. Also, there's no reason it can't be both a slough and an estuary. The entire Columbia River upriver beyond the Willamette is effected by tides and sometimes called an estuary. On the other hand, I would not think the Columbia Slough would be any more estuarine than the Columbia River in this area. Pfly (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"An estuary is a semi-enclosed coastal body of water with one or more rivers or streams flowing into it, and with a free connection to the open sea." Where's its free connection to the open sea? This means directly, not indirectly, as all non-enclosed bodies of water then become estuaries, which isn't accurate. Or maybe it is, if you can source it. An estuary is not simply a body of water flushed by tides, or maybe I'm wrong. In the latter case, it could be anything, so probably even an article isn't useful. --Blechnic (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a USGS source about the Columbia River to Bonneville Dam being an estuary: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/2006/213/ Pfly (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pfly. I changed "gut" to "slough" just now. Finetooth (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll buy the Columbia to the Bonneville Dam as an estuary. However, this isn't about the Columbia River, this is about a slough connecting the Columbia to another river. Again, if the Mississippi River is one thing, every river that comes off of it isn't that, also. It doesn't follow in any way to classify lesser bodies of water as all things the greater body of water is. --Blechnic (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Columbia Slough essentially *is* the Columbia River, or was once. It doesn't connect the Columbia River to another river. It connects the Columbia River to itself, or used to when it was a floodplain. The whole area was an estuarine environment formed by the Columbia's meandering multiple channels and frequent floods. In the last century, the slough was channelized and manipulated in various ways for flood control, blocked off by levees and dredged. Then it became its own waterway, which we can call a "slough" or "gut" or "waterway," doesn't matter. But it is perfectly appropriate for the article to be about both the modern waterway known as the Columbia Slough and about the estuarine system of which the slough is a part. The article currently defines it as a "long, narrow waterway" and as a "slough." I don't see where the problem is.Northwesterner1 (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I thought the Columbia River was a lot longer than 19 miles. My bad. Please remove the comment about the Willamette River, as you state this is wrong. --Blechnic (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Columbia River is a 1200-mile river; the Bonneville Dam a bit more than 100 miles inland; the 19-mile area around the Columbia Slough is in the middle. The whole system below the dam is considered an estuary. The Columbia Slough is part of a floodplain/wetland/slough system that was once basically just an alternate channel of the Columbia, flooded seasonally. It's not surprising to me that it would also be considered part of the estuarine system. Have a look at this map. best Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster, an Estuary is a water passage where the tide meets a river current.[1] That certainly applies to the Columbia Slough.

Slough is somewhat more complicated to define: a place of deep mud or mire b also slew or slue \ˈslü\ (1): swamp (2): an inlet on a river; also : backwater (3): a creek in a marsh or tide flat. I'd say all of that applies to the Columbia Slough as well.

I've never heard of gut used this way before, but it is the third oldest meaning (of six) for the word: 3: a narrow passage; also : a narrow waterway or small creek. Seems the Columbia Slough is all three. —EncMstr (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What precise misunderstanding are you trying to correct? The article calls it a slough connnecting two rivers, you now say it's the Columbia River. Who is misunderstanding what? I can't think of a single response but sarcasm to someone correcting a presumed misunderstanding they haven't identified by telling me the entire article isn't about what it seems to be about but about something else entirely. Make up your mind, please. It's either the Columbia Slough or a redirect to the Columbia River, then let's work on whatever you think I'm misunderstanding by first identifying it. --Blechnic (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. I think his point was that the Columbia River meandered at one point in time, and then evolved to mostly abandoning its meandering. The Slough is a remnant of that. But you already understood that, right? —EncMstr (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not hysterical, so you probably put that under the wrong person's comment. Go ahead and change it to calm the hysterical poster. --Blechnic (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to cause offense. I was trying to explain how the Columbia Slough can be both an estuary and a gut. Maybe a better way of saying it is that the historical Columbia Slough (or the Columbia Slough watershed if you prefer) is an estuarine system, and the modern channelized Columbia Slough is a gut. The article is about both. I'm not sure what sentence in the current version of the article you're objecting to, but if there's anything left to be fixed, please do so. Signing off now.Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The only sentence I have been discussing is the introductory sentence which says nothing of the sort. It describes only what the Columbia Slough is, not what it historically was. Again, I point out, geomorphology of river channels deals with non-static entities, it is always necessary to precisely define what you are talking about when. This is an article about the modern day slough, not the historic Columbia River estuary. It can develop the slough through time, but it can't call it an estuary because it was once part of one. It's hard to read the article, much less discuss it, when there's so much confusion. The Columbia Slough is not synonymous with the ancient estuary, or even the prehistorical, or historical estuary. It's simply a modern day slough, and the article can describe how it came to be without making it something it's not. --Blechnic (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the only sentence you have been discussing was changed nearly a week ago. So we're all squared away now.Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver Lake

Is Vancouver Lake part of the same estuary system? Should this be mentioned somewhere? Perhaps we should have an article on the Columbia River estuary at some point? -Pete (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Vancouver Lake is labeled in the watershed map in the geobox, so it's possible to see the physical nearness of the lake to the Columbia Slough watershed. The Geology section mentions that Clark County is part of the Portland Basin. I've stayed away from the word "estuary" since disagreement about the term arose early in the life of this article. Finetooth (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• • However long and unpleasant that discussion was, it seemed to me that it arrived at resolution. As a relatively uninformed reader, it strikes me as unusual for two auxiliary bodies of water that are so far inland to have periods where the flow of water reverses. Due to my ignorance, I'm hesitant to use terms like "estuary" or "floodplain" with any kind of technical specificity, but it seems worthy of a stronger link between the articles. I'll try to propose some specific text. The article is looking great, by the way; I'll give it a thorough read for the Peer Review. -Pete (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Pete. The semidiurnal tides affect the Columbia all the way up to the base of Bonneville Dam on the main stem. Tides affect the Willamette River at least as far up as Ross Island. I think it likely that some low-gradient streams or sloughs downstream of Portland may run backwards at times, but I don't know that for certain. Finetooth (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I thought an article on the whole estuary system (if that's even the right term) might be good; I'd imagine it would need to cover all the larger tributaries downstream of Bonneville Dam and Ross Island, too. So I suppose it would be a pretty big project. -Pete (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Categorization

Do you think it would be accurate to categorize this article and Fairview Creek in Category:Tributaries of the Willamette River? Not sure if it's technically correct or not, but it seems so. -Pete (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You are right. Finetooth (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've substituted the tribs category here for the plain Willamette River category. I'll do this for Fairview Creek too. Good catch. Finetooth (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually just created the "tributaries" category; I just wasn't entirely sure, from the discussion above, whether the Slough was a tributary, an estuary, a gut, or perhaps a rare form of potted plant. -Pete (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, Fairview Creek is a trib of the slough rather than the river, so I guess I'll leave its categories alone. The slough is a strange creature and used to be a potty. Finetooth (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1