That along with a few other changes. Look at Sabine lake, it's black and white. Put all scientific data aside and just use common sense, weirs closed=bad fishing. It doesn't take an expert to figure this out. Boy i love how scientists like to discredit observations made by people who fish the lake at least 100 times a year for last 10,20,30 years.

they can't just get by on water alone, they need food. Saltwater kills desirable waterfowl foods.

Look at the east side of the state in the marshes of Leeville/Golden Meadow, these areas used to be great duck hunting for dabbling ducks, now its a garhole due to a lack of desirable food. There isn't anything for puddle ducks to eat there, scaup and divers on the other hand...

That's the purpose of every NWR. They aren't going to re-write the definition of an NWR for just because of where it is situated. The weirs are not operated by USFWS anymore and even so, the intent was not to manage for a given group of species, but to manage the marsh as a whole.

It just so happens that land behind the weirs is managed for waterfowl, and waterfowl benefit from lower salinity environments because the overwhelming majority of waterfowl food occurs in brackish and intermediate marsh, which is what the area is maintained as.

So, it is easy to assume the weirs are for management of waterfowl habitat, but they are not. They are in place to keep a delicate ecosystem in balance, by keeping salinities low enough to sustain those plant communities.

Also, NWRs are created through duck stamp funds. They can't re-write the definition of an NWR, and then continue to fund it with money meant for waterfowl management if the written purpose is not waterfowl management.

does Sabine have a ship channel like Big Lake? therein lies your answer

Sabine lake is a different system. Major differences between the two.

For one, there are two freshwater inflows into the Sabine, the Neches and Sabine Rivers. Big Lake has one, that also happens to be disrupted by a saltwater barrier.

It has nothing to do with discrediting fishermen. Fishermen see fish, and crabs, and shrimp and say the marsh is fine. A wetland scientist looks at the plant community and sees rapid changes occurring. Changes that, if left unchecked, will result in massive expanses of open water where marsh once existed. It has happened, there is proof.

Sabine and Big Lake are different systems. You can't compare the two without considering the major differences. There is definitely more freshwater flowing into Sabine than there is into Big Lake.

BTW, back in 2002, plans were put in motion to install water control structures on the east bank of Sabine.

I'm afraid some aren't seeing the big picture. If u dynamite the weirs the fishing will be great like right after Rita. Problem is it won't last. The marsh will die and all the things that make it great when the weirs are open will no longer be there. When the weirs are open, and bait enters the lake, it's great for the fishing. If the marsh is dead, and their is no bait entering the lake when the weirs are open, then you will not have good fishing or hunting. I think we (me included) need to try to look at the big picture and come up with a solution to solve the problemS, not the problem like we've been doing. Things are cyclical. You cannot have great fishing 24/7/365. Im sure back in the day before the ship channels, there were good times and bad times, but man wasnt there to freak out if they didnt load the boat up one day with fish. The estuary is dependent on lots of things including certain levels of salinity, freshwater flushings, thriving surrounding marshes, etc. I wish there was a way that we could return things back to as original as possible.

ummm yes

saltwater barriers on the neches and the sabine. Also the main determining factor for the freshwater flowing into Sabine is he dams on Rayburn and Toledo. When they ain't generating power at those dams, the water don't flow. And the gulf pours directly into sabine...straight shot. It doesn't sit off to the side of the channel like B.L. does, so if anything, I would say Sabine receives more of a direct saltwater influx from the gulf?

Weirs and Oysters and Feeding the Fish
 

Smalls, I agree there are challenges when assigning importance to competing hypotheses when multiple factors are in play. We've developed new analysis techniques (based on multivariate analysis techniques in other fields) that are effective in unravelling food web dynamics of complex ecosystems given sufficient years of data. With a decade of data, inferences are possible with greater statistical confidence than possible now. If hypothetical causes are relatively uncorrelated, confident inferences may result from only 5-7 years of data. Empirical methods to estimate interaction matrix elements in the coupled Lotka-Volterra equations are something of a holy grail in population modeling. Our analysis approach shows promise toward accurately estimating species interaction coefficients (matrix elements) as well as making inferences regarding competing hypotheses in food web dynamics.

For example, suppose current trends hold for a decade (they might not). If the mean annual relative condition factors of a given length class of a given species (say bull redfish > 800 mm) have a strong correlation (r > 0.8; P < 0.05) with oyster stock assessments, but relatively weak correlations with other hypothetical factors (r < 0.5; P > 0.2), then there would be greater statistical confidence that oyster reef condition plays the strongest role in bull redfish condition. Likewise, suppose a different length class/species combination (say redfish 400-500 mm TL) is most strongly correlated with the exchange between the marsh and lake (r > 0.7; P < 0.05), but only weakly correlated with other factors (r < 0.5; P > 0.2); one could confidently infer that weir operation has a strong role. Finally, suppose that the shortest sampled length class of specks (290-400mm TL) is most strongly correlated with exchange between marsh and lake (r > 0.8; P < 0.05), weakly correlated with population of speckled trout (r > 0.5; P < 0.05), and uncorrelated with other factors. This would suggest a rank ordering of weir operation (lake-marsh exchange) then speck overpopulation (limits) above other hypotheses regarding the relative condition factor of specks 12-16" TL.

Right now, there are three years of data, and we'll have a fourth year by the end of June. More can be said than with one or two years of data, but less than possible with a decade of data. For example, if the speck limit were a dominant factor in the lake's food web impacting redfish and drum and gafftops as well as specks, one would expect that the condition factor of specks (especially the shorter length classes, since they have the highest populations) would be more strongly reduced than the relative condition factors of redfish. This is because the food competition is stronger within a given species than with other species. One would also expect Kn of different length classes and species to be highly correlated with each other, since the underlying cause would be the same. However, that is not what we see. The Kn of shorter specks has been between 0.95 and 1.05 in all sampling years (2011, 2012, and 2013); whereas, the Kn of redfish in the 500-650mm length class (that tend to stack up strongly at the weirs) has dipped below 0.95. Weir operation seems to be having a bigger impact on redfish between 20-26" long than the change in the speck limit. This seems more likely than not with available data , but cannot be inferred with a 90% or 95% confidence level. With a decade of data, this apparent inference might wash out in the noise or it might be established with greater confidence.

Another factor to consider is that Kn for all length classes and species (except for Gaftops 450-550 mm TL and bull redfish) rebounded strongly in 2013 over 2012. Only the shorter length classes of specks and redfish 400-500 mm TL topped 1.0 (returned to normal). Most length classes and years had Kn increase by about 5%, whereas specks (combined lengths) had a Kn increase of 9% (+/- 1.5%). This rebound cannot be explained by a recovery of the oyster reefs. However, the rebound does coincide with much lower salinity levels in the lake for the first six months of 2013 (compared with 2011 and 2012) that allowed the weirs to be opened and bait to flow back and forth from the marsh and lake. Based on available data, it seems more likely than not that the exchange with the marsh plays a significant role in relative condition factors in these cases. Once again, this inference might wash out in the noise with a decade of data, or it might be established with greater confidence.

Salinity levels have been a bit in 2014 than in the same period in 2013, but lower than 2011 and 2012; however the weirs have hardly been opened so exchange with the marsh has been small. If we had LDWF's 2014 oyster stock assessment data (not available yet), we could weight the different factors and make some Kn predictions for each length class and species based on past years and our current understanding of the relative importance of each factor. If the 2014 oyster stock assessments are still down, I expect Kn's closer to what was measured in 2012 than in 2013.

Louisiana law mandates wildlife resources be managed with the "best available" science. My issues with the speck and tripletail limits is that CCA pushed for more restrictive regulations with no data at all. Available data was not reviewed; there were no hints of stock assessments; existing data from trawl studies and LDWF's fishery independent surveys was not consulted. In contrast, oyster stock assessments and the best available fisheries dependent data for Big Lake both suggest that oyster dredging is doing real and lasting harm. Volumes of published scholarly papers document valuable ecosystem services provided by oyster reefs, additional annual fisheries production around restored reefs, and the negative consequences on estuaries from the destruction of oyster reefs.

It is sad to think that a humble relative condition factor study may constitute the "best available" data on the state of the fishery in Calcasieu Estuary, but until LDWF and CCA improve their scientific committment, this may be the situation. Air Force support for the project dried up about the time of the sequester and furlough, right before I left the Academy and moved back to Louisiana. The study moves forward on a bit of private funding, exiting equipment, many volunteer hours, and kindness of those who let us weigh and measure their fish. Will we manage to get hundreds of fish weighed and measured in a three week window every year from now until 2021? I don't know.

But freshwater inflows are still greater when they occur. You have a much larger drainage area for the Sabine and Neches rivers than the Calcasieu.

I admit, I did miss the Neches SWB though.

For whatever reason saltwater has had a greater effect to this point on Big Lake than on Sabine.

It may be what some have said before.."not all marsh is created equal"..idk..maybe the vegetation, soil make-up, or elevation makes the Sabine marsh more salt tolerant? or maybe its dying off too, and nobody has noticed? Heck IDK

It may see a more direct influx of saltwater but it probably sees more influx of freshwater too. I used to fish Sabine quite a bit before Rita and my father-n-law used to guide in it. My personal opinion (no scientific backing like the rest of my thoughts) is that Sabine gets "turned over" more often than Calcasieau does. There are times when it's fresh and times when it's salty. More like the way Mother nature intended.

If man would leave most things alone, NATURE would take care of itself. We can help, but we'll never control it..

I've heard old timers talk about how back in the day before the channel they would sometimes catch tarpon in Prien and other times they caught bass. wish I were around when it was a natural estuary.

MG, need a link to that 2000 USGS study you keep quoting please:)

So what is nature to do when it can't take care of itself because of human alterations? The problems in the cameron-creole are directly linked to the saltwater intrusion caused by the Calcasieu Ship Channel. The vegetation was dying so rapidly that there was nothing to take its place.

Sabine has a much smaller (narrower) coupling between the lake and channel at the southern end. Most of the salt water coming into the channel flows up and around and actually enters the lake at the northern end because the coupling at the N end is the full channel depth (40 ft) whereas the coupling at the S end is shallow (5 ft). There are many times when Sabine Lake is actually saltier at the N end than the S end.

Big Lake has a wide open coupling between the lake and channel at the S end that is about 15 times longer than the coupling between the channel and S end of Sabine. The salt water coupling from the Gulf to the lake is much stronger on Big Lake. The wide open gap between channel and lake at the S end of Big Lake is the place to stop the salt.

And with it's continued human alteration and the increase in shipping traffic in the near future, it's pretty fuch screwed.

Amen

Sent from my LGL45C using Tapatalk 2

I understand now with the human alteration it can't just be left to nature in saying direct link to ship channel and continued dredging so will creating a narrower passage via longer jetty or rocks coupled with a more limited controlling weir than now be a beneficial means of just closing the weir have to say this conversation has given me a broader understanding of the Lakes issues

I also had a question when we talk about more fresh water coming into Sabine does the locks and saltwater barrier hurt more than help

I know enough about fishing this lake to know the weirs are a major problem.

Fish are not holding because the bait is not here

It's freaken April almost May and I have not seen one group of birds picking shrimp( heard a few who saw a group or two lately)


Over oystering is also a problem and too deep a ship channel is also a problem

So right now we have a perfect storm!!

I don't think so, other than the human costs and inconvenience of maintaining the system and waiting to cross if you're in a boat.

CCA get off there azz and do some marsh restoration instead of sunshine pumping a useless half million dollar reef maybe we can save the marsh and allow weirs to stay open


Hell I bet we could start a save the Marsh foundation to raise money to restore marsh on a trade to leave them open

I quit reading when someone asked what Mother Nature did before the weirs...

You want to W? I'm in.

If there was a way to get a foundation going and set up a meeting with the weir guys


We could have a fundraiser start it up

Find some contacts Mr. Big Shot. I got confidence in you. I'll gladly jump in on that. I'll even be your VP. I can see it now, Waltrip and Smalls, long time rivals, tag teamin to save the marsh and Big Lake.

I know a lot of people who would join including myself first get a following then funding then the meetings with the boards will happen you have to get people and money for them to feel pressure

The Big Lake Coalition. I think that sounds appropriate.

Making the lake itself less salty is a multi-million dollar project. The best you can do with the realistic financial potential of a regional conservation group is improve the science on when the weirs are opened and closed and perhaps exert a bit of policy pressure investigating options to lower salinity in the lake.

By installing salinity sensors on the lake side and the marsh side, you can open the gates any time conditions show that open gates would lead to a net flow of salt out of the marsh and close them when actual local conditions show open gates would add salt to the marsh.

Until this is handled, efforts at replanting vegetation are risky because improper weir management will let too much salt into the marsh and kill the veggies.

Not entirely correct. Lets not forget, I did revegetation projects behind the weirs. I planted grass all over Cal/Cam and south central Louisiana for that matter. Its all about the planning. In 3 years, we had 2 projects fail out of 30, and those were because of high water that was over the plants.

Hey CCA started somewhere and they got plenty money but I do not believe it's about directly funding but pressuring lobbying for funding

I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification. How many of those 30 are still alive today?

You may have a tough time convincing people that salinity needs to be lowered in the lake, especially folks that depend on saltwater species of fish to make their living. Its happening on the east side right now with the proposed freshwater diversions:redface:

Well, haven't seen the ones from last year, but all the others are doing great.

I get the whole picture, a lot needs to be done. We need oyster reefs back and to rock off the ship channel, i get that. I'm just saying that fishing sucks when the weirs are closed. Bottom line.

My question is, if we rocked the ship channel leaving a little cut where super cut used to be and a little cut at the washout, would the weirs still be just as necessary?

Good question

Good question. The answer is a definitive yes. To keep Big Lake as a brackish estuary with suitable salinities for good growth of oysters and reproduction of trout, etc. it needs to be saltier at times than you would want to have directly connected to the marsh between 5 and 15 ppt, depending on the time of year and water temps, etc.

It may also happen that the separation between the channel and lake is not always sufficient to keep salinities in the lake sufficiently low. An event like an extended period with low rain will eventually cause the salinity in the lake to approach 20-30 ppt. If there is no fresh water flowing into the system, the salinity will creep higher and higher. Reducing the coupling of the system to the Gulf just slows the process down and lowers the average salinity over time, it does not mean a high salinity event can never occur in the lake.

But keeping the salinity in the lake at 5-15 ppt most of the time would mean that the weirs could be open many more days per year than they are now - maybe an average of 240+ days per year: possibly 300 days in a good year and only 150 days in a bad year.

Weirs should never ever be closed. Never

You already restrict the water going in to a minimum

You've only said that a million times. You sound like a broken record. How's running your bubble gums working for ya? It's amazing that gbay has as much marsh as it does an doesn't have an issue. We have enough birds every year to justify the effort even with the mass development going on over here in the lone star state.

No one will ever be happy, there is no solution to a problem so complex. Deteriorating marshes lead to productive fisheries. But for how long and at what cost. The weirs are the only thing protecting the east side from completely breaking down. To keep the them open full time will produce some amazing fishing but will only be short lived. Fisheries go through different trends, some one year, others over 5 and 10 year peaks and lows. Other fisheries has been recorded to do so. I don't think that the trout fishery has enough data over enough time to show this but it could be on a downward side of a trend only to be compounded with other influences to produce lows.

For the ones who want the weirs open all of the time, do you recognize that this will have negative effects on the marsh that produces your great fishery? And are you fine with the fact that this short term success and irreversible?

Where's all the silt go from dredging? They make spoil areas around Sabine and use those areas to do some mash restoration after it settles. Their up and down the ship channel on Pleasure Island and North between Port Arthur and Bridge city. They even make some good duck hunting for a young guy with good legs.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

It does have an issue, do some research.

Maybe you should do some research on your own waters. Funny, there isn't a single water in the state of Louisiana that has a "Marsh Mania" annually to plant marsh grass because it is eroding away. I Googled "Galveston Bay Marsh", and get a good bit of press and research on the loss of salt marsh. Sounds like GBay has some issues too.

Oh, and lets not forget that Oil Spill that just occurred there. Funny, USFWS seemed to think that was a pretty big issue.

They are doing the same here. That is one reason for the rock on the channel. They are filling in with the dredge.

Maybe he meant Guantanamo Bay

Sure. And your guide business will be done soon.

It's kinda funny. When others can't catch fish and complain, it must be because conditions changed and they just aren't good enough fisherman to get on them.

But when some more confident peeps can't catch fish, it must be because the sky is falling and all the fish have packed up and gone somewhere else.

Big Lake is a hard place to fish. Even experience doesn't always provide the right recipe for all the curve balls this lake throws.

Drawing conclusions about the health of the estuary from a string of unproductive fishing trips is unwarranted, regardless of the skill of the angler. There are just too many other places the fish could be, and too many valid reasons the fish could be right under you but not buying what you are selling.

This is why the most scientifically valid stock assessments use fishery independent sampling methods. Nets are placed at random locations throughout the estuary, and many, many net locations are used over a long period of time to arrive at a reasonable first order approximation of fish populations. Even this level of scientific effort and careful sampling protocol often yields error bars on the order of 50% for population numbers.

Reactionary fishery management because we're catching fewer fish than last year really isn't any better science than the non-sense pushed by CCA.

Opening the weirs does enhance the food supply for the fish in the lake, and the more days the weirs are open, the happier and healthier and fatter the fish will be. In the short term, the more days a year the weirs are open, the more fish there will be. But in the long term, you're trading a real increase on the order of 20% over a few years but sacrificing the long term (10+ years later) potential of the fishery by 50% or more.

Opening the weirs really does more in terms of making the fish predictable and easy to catch than it does in actually increasing the number and health of the fish.

How do you know this??? Weirs were open for years and years and marsh stayed healthy??

Only took a beaten after two hurricanes but it's back to normal