Yeah i mean CCA is one way to do it but that money goes to the entire state and we see what has been done in the past 4 years. They have the data we saw last night way before we have seen it but have not addressed the problem until now. I have lost my trust in CCA for the time being, all we hear from any of the people that were at the meeting is we will look into it thats not good enough anymore. I dont live in lake Charles but they are a chapter that you would think could get things accomplished with as many people that live there and have some influence in govt.

Good point. Boat travel back and forth is not essential to the health of the fishery. High levels of exchange of shrimp, fish, and crabs are essential.

I know a lot of the guy's on the board and in this chapter. I hope to start making meetings and talking to them.

That said, if it don't work, I'll be glad to help form another organization and I have been involved in many and formed a few over my 37 years in the fire service. And I have formed many good relationships with legislators.

That said, if we want to try and get a bill on oystering in the upcoming session, we need someone from our area to put the bill foward and since the upcoming session is fiscal, each legislator only gets 5 such bills and it needs to be put in early, pre-filed is best.

It would be great if we can get Senator Morrish on board with this as he was the one that presented the other CCA bill to start with. A complete ban will not fly in my opinion. Will have to be some type of compromise. Also, here is a list of the Senate Natural Resource Committee that the bill will have to go through.

Natural Resources Committee
Committee Members

Senator Gerald Long (Chairman)
P.O. Box 151
Winnfield, LA 71483
(318) 628-5799
longg@legis.la.gov

Senator Rick Ward, III (Vice-Chairman)
3741 Highway 1
Port Allen, LA 70767
(225) 246-8838
wardr@legis.la.gov

Senator R.L. "Bret" Allain, II
600 Main Street
Suite 1
Franklin, LA 70538
(337) 828-9107
allainb@legis.la.gov

Senator "Jody" Amedee
2109 S. Burnside Ave.
Suite A
Gonzales, LA 70737
(225) 644-1526
amedeej@legis.la.gov

Senator Norbèrt N. "Norby" Chabert
P.O. Box 2417
Houma, LA 70361
(985) 858-2927
chabertn@legis.la.gov

Senator Jean-Paul J. Morrell
New Orleans Lakefront Terminal Building
6001 Stars & Stripes Blvd., Suite 221
New Orleans, LA 70126
(504) 284-4794
morrelljp@legis.la.gov

Senator Dan "Blade" Morrish
119 W. Nezpique Street
Jennings, LA 70546
(337) 824-3979
morrishd@legis.la.gov

Senator Page Cortez (Interim Member)
101 W. Farrell Road
Bldg. 5, Suite 100
Lafayette, LA 70508
(337) 993-7430
cortezp@legis.la.gov

Which has been my argument several times. I've stated before on this forum that there were slots in the weirs that kept the system from being 100% shut off. People didn't listen.

I don't think those underwater slats are always open. If there is a visible height difference in front and behind, there should be some observed current (though small) if the underwater slats are open. I've seen it dead still from close enough to be sure that no flow or exchange was occurring.

They are not on every weir and some are always opened. I believe the ones at Lamberts are always open.

Thanks for the clarification. I'll try and have a closer look next time I'm there.

I tend to think about the lake/marsh exchange as a percentage of the maximum possible on any given day. 100% on a given day would be all weirs having all their gates open. Then the percentage is lowered from there according to the proportion of the maximal cross sectional area that is actually opened and for what portion of the 24 hour day.

I know the focus is often on Lambert's and Grand Bayou weirs, but the West Cove weirs are also important from the viewpoint of feeding the lake via exchange with the marsh. The weirs over on that side have mechanical gates that can close and cover the slats.

I know 5% of the total area open is better than zero, but it's still a small fraction of the maximum possible exchange, and I bet whatever remains open at Lambert when all the gates are closed is less than 5%.

MG, the slideshow that CRPA did covers all of the weir operation. I found it very informative.

If I remember correctly, 2 of the 5 East side weirs only have upper gates and their fish slots are underwater where the lower gates would normally be. The other 3 weirs have fish slots on the sides and he said those lower gates are usually opened on lunar cycles even if the upper gates remain closed. Sometimes only the upper gates are opened. Sometimes all gates are opened.

Thanks.

Hopefully, they'll post the presentation to put all the definitive info in one convenient place.

http://coastal.la.gov/wp-content/upl...n-7-9-2014.pdf
http://coastal.la.gov/wp-content/upl..._CCA-final.pdf


BOOM!! Here ya go!

The first is the history of the weirs and their operation... the 2nd is the scientific stuff that im sure you will spend hours poring over. ;)

The power point presentation has pictures of each weir and shows the under water gate design of each weir.

BOOM!! That was awesome. Thanks.

Mr. Perrodin did mention that the Grand Bayou structure has some type of flap structures underwater which allow water to flow out of the marsh but do not allow water to flow in. Like a check valve. I don't think he said how many there were or how big they were. He did not have a slide showing the layout of grand bayou weir... only the 1 picture of the boat bay.

Got that in a report. I'll try and scan it and post it.

Biggest thing to me in that second slide show is slide #11. From 1989 to 2004, 3300 acres of marsh were restored in the CCWS. One hurricane wiped it out. I would like to see what has happened since 2012, but I'm sure there's not enough data yet. So, when weirs are operated, marsh is gained. When they are not, marsh is lost.

Can this be disputed?

Yea marsh was lost in 2005 from hurricane Rita and Ike
And levee was blow out

Keeping weir gates open will not have that great of effect like you think

Are you nuts? Do you not see what you just said?

With the levee blown out, more saltwater would have been able to enter the marsh.

Why do you think all that marsh disappeared prior to 1988? Hurricanes every year?

Weren't the weirs not operated after Rita? Wasn't the argument y'all made that the fishing was better after the hurricanes because the weirs were open? Doesn't that also correlate with the increased land loss and increased salinity in the marsh after 2005?

Come on Waltrip. The proof is there that the weirs were working. Quit trying to argue that they weren't.

The "committee " hired the quacks to take the heat while the "committee " gets ready for duck season


Keeping Grand bayou open is not going to affect that marsh

Did you hear how many times they said " could"

Before Rita and Ike the weirs stayed open 90% of the time

Maybe so. Doesn't explain the difference between pre-1988 and post-1988.

None of that changes the fact that after the weirs and levee were in place, the land change was reversed, and land was gained. None of that changes the fact that salinities decreased after the levee and weirs were in place.

Where does it stop? All of your arguments are still proving false. After the weirs were installed, land was gained, salinities decreased. What else could have caused that? Hmmm? Can you find anything else that could have?

He isn't serious... Can't be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

y'all can argue weirs open weirs closed all day long. you can argue that the plan in place works or it doesn't. key point that Chuck and the lady with the severe head lean made last night is that the plan depends on fresh water for the marsh. The biggest factor in all of this that doesn't get brought up in weir discussion is the fact that the southwest portion of the main lake is now blown wide open. The salinity levels will never get down to a low enough level for a long enough period of time to make a difference in the marsh. If it does none of us will be worrying about fishing because we will be watching our homes wash away from flood waters coming down the river and 1000 year rain storms. They need and are depending on rain, straight from their mouths, RAIN. great plan in my opinion. Focus needs to be shifted from finding problems and pointing fingers to finding solutions for the problems

I completely agree. That's why I think MG's approach to this is a smart one, but he can't do it alone. I'm going to help him as much as I can, but I'm walking on floatant by getting in this. For reasons that MG understands, I've got to tread lightly, so we need all the vocal support we can get.

He is serious, the guy is a walking delusional contradiction packed in a little body with Napoleon syndrome.

Right, but even recognizing certain phenomena as real problems necessarily includes implicit suggestions regarding responsibility for those problems.

Recognizing historical long term saltwater intrusion and land loss implicitly suggests fault with dredging such a deep and wide ship channel with inadequate mitigation strategies. Recognizing recent land loss and saltwater intrusion implicitly suggests poor weir management from 2005-2011.

Recognizing oyster reef destruction since 2005 implicitly suggests inadequate regulatory oversight by LDWF and LWFC as well as mistaken priorities by local conservation groups pushing other agenda items. It also implicitly suggests that local oyster harvesters have put profit over habitat conservation.

"Finding solutions for the problems" requires parties that have erred in past policies and priorities shift their focus and make concerted efforts to address the problems. The required shift in focus is unlikely for parties that remain in denial about past mistakes.

Real progress is unlikely if CCA and LDWF continue to focus on management by limit reduction when the real priority needs to be habitat conservation. We have a generation of anglers who have been deceived that reducing limits is a sound method of "doing something for conservation" when the preserving the habitat is much more important.

Math geek, you've made multiple great suggestions, just wondering if you've considered the lobbyist route to deal with oyster situation. I'm sure the oyster fishermen have one they use, maybe look into obtaining a counter?

My view is that it is better for scientists themselves to provide data and sound science that may suggest certain policy changes, but it is better for more direct stakeholders to have the more assertive role in advocating for those policy changes.

CCA has the clout and bank account to go the lobbyist route at the magnitude that is likely required for success. ($12M annual budget and a dozen TX residents pulling in six figure salaries.) Lobbyists are expensive.

Grass roots movements can be much more cost effective, especially when they are joined by existing organizations with the clout and $ for legislative action.

Y'all don't get it: CCA doesn't need to hire a lobbyist because it IS a lobby organization.

CCA is a conservation organization. They have lobbyists; every large conservation organization has lobbyists (DU, Delta, Quail Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, N***, Sierra Club, Hipsters United, etc. etc. etc.). You have to have them to go and well..lobby to politicians. Politicians ultimately make the rules, so someone has to go and speak on the organizations' behalf to educate them on specific items.

An email to a senator or congressperson usually gets a very generic response, but when you go and sit down with that person, they get the point. It is what it is. You can write your congressperson all day, but a face to face meeting is a much better strategy.


nice first post, and welcome

that *** is N W T F by the way

I feel it is important to note, lest someone try to take these words out of context, that the weirs were put in place as the mitigation strategy. Dredging operations and saltwater intrusion have continued, but from 1988-2004, marsh was gained. This was due to the system put in place.

I would partially agree with this. While the weirs were mismanaged from late 2005 through 2011, these were not the primary cause of landloss in the Cameron-Creole watershed. Many reports have been released on the land loss across the coastal zone from 2005 to 2008, and land loss across the entire coastal zone was substantial during this time. In the Chenier Plain, from 2004 to 2008, there was an approximate loss of 433 square kilometers (roughly 106,000 acres). So land loss was not unique to the Cameron-Creole, and the primary cause was not the weirs.

Now, switch the subject to salinity change in the Cameron-Creole, and you can attribute this to the mismanagement of the weirs. There was clearly a trend of freshening conditions in the Cameron-Creole after 1988. What is the one thing that changed? The installation and operation of the weirs.

Can some of the land loss from 2005-2011 be attributed to the weirs? Certainly, but I'm certain it is not the overwhelming majority of that, but more likely a small percentage.

You're probably right. Perhaps the more detrimental impact of leaving the weirs open from 2005-2011 is that it allowed anglers' skills to deteriorate as they became overly dependent on the effect of open weirs concentrating fish in locations were they were easy to find and catch.

Easy pickings at the weirs diverted angler attention from the destruction of essential oyster reef habitat on the E side (mostly summer 2010) and created the widespread misperception that wide open weirs are an essential part of sufficient forage in the lake, when the reality was more just making fish easy to catch.

The weirs were open far less in 2014, yet 2014 is the year where we've observed the best fish condition in specks and redfish. It seems that ample forage is entering the lake through the narrow fish slots, from the open Gulf, and being produced in the main lake itself without the need to put the marsh at risk with dangerously high salinities from keeping the weirs open.

Small from 1988-2004 marsh was gained while the weirs were open 90% of the time . I can't ever recall in the 90,s of the weirs ever being closed

Prove it. Its easy to say something, its another thing to prove it.

They were also in a different Phase of operation, as I've previously pointed out. The current Phase does not allow for 90% openings.

Also keep in mind from 2005-2008 open or closed didn't really matter because the levee was broken.

Don't take my word for it just ask anyone who has been fishing big lake since 1988

I recall a few times the bay boat was closed but the gate was open allowing water flow

I use to catch a limit of reds every time I fished in the late 90s at Conni weir that was always flowing

One factor to consider is that before hurricane Rita in 2005, there was a much more significant land mass on the eastern edge of the ship channel which reduced the salt water flow into the southern end of the lake. Hurricane Rita and subsequent erosion destroyed that land mass and greatly increased the coupling of salt from the Gulf to the eastern part of Big Lake.

Consequently, prior to 2005, the salinity levels in the lake permitted the weirs to be open most of the time and only a prolonged period with less than average rainfall would raise the salinity in the lake sufficiently to require closing the weirs. (The levees themselves and the open weirs had already reduced saltwater intrusion sufficiently without closing the weirs.)

After 2005, higher salinity levels in the main lake require closing the weirs more often, to the degree that average or higher than average rainfall is usually needed for the weirs to be open 30 days in a month.

In summary, pre-2005 you needed rainfall levels well below average to force closing the weirs.
Post-2005, you need above average rainfall to permit opening the weirs.

Given that all I've heard this year is the weirs aren't open, and CPRA's data suggests the opposite, AND what I know of how the weirs can be opened, I don't know what the truth is.

No one called out Leigh Anne on that data, so I assume its true.

Everything I see tells me the weirs being there benefited the marsh. I assume they were operated correctly because salinities decreased over time, and they have increased since 2005. I also imagine that they were not opened 90% of the time, because they haven't been in the last 3 years.

Was it D&D or the SCA? Fighting in armor? If it was the SCA its ptetty hard core stuff. I used to be a fighter in the SCA. Getting beat with an 1 1/4" diameter stick of ratan can be very painful. Fun as hell though.

Painful and fun in same paragraph. Why am I knot surprised.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

:funny: Ya get to hit back too

My first fighter practice my left butt cheek and the back of my left leg was a solid bruise to the crease of my knee. I took a beating that day.

thats what i remember! even if they were closed, they were still open!

I can't even make sense of that.....

Easy the bay boat board was down so you could not pass but gates were wide open

Like a I said ; you ask any guides who have been on this lake since late 90s they will say the same thing !!

The gates were always open Hell from 2001till hurricane they were always open and I know that for a fact because my data books have many trips back there on redfish

We just did not lose all that marsh because of the levee breaks we also just had a 22ft tidal surge 2 out of 5 years

That's what caused the marsh loss pure gulf water and 100mph winds

maybe everyone else forgot about the hurricanes.
your nailed it, thats what i meant. i lived on big lake from 94-05
my grandpaw and dad grew up on it making a living since the sun was invented. both talked of the destruction over all the decades of politics and industry. this isnt some NEW idea that we just found out about. theres been corruption amidst for generations... it just keeps getting more powerful.

yea things change, everything does.

water would flow so the bait could go where they have been going forever, into the marshes. now they stop it completely where not a dang thing can enter.

It doesn't matter how much land is gained, next hurricane that dumps straight ocean water on the marsh is going to kill it all and it will all open back up. They need to be pumping lots of water from intracoastal into the marsh. There is a small blowout west of Gibbstown bridge right now, but if they had big weirs and maybe a pump or too I think that would help tremendously. Until then, their plan is "wait for rain." Not a very strong plan in my opinion.

Smalls thinks because his crew had a history lesson power point that showed my camp floating on water ( according to the map) that we lost marsh because the weirs were open

They have data from when to when and shows they gained thousands of acres and the weirs were opened all the time with flow and only after two major hurricanes we had a loss of marsh

They can keep weirs open and not lose anything but

maimi corp is getting ready for another great duck season

I laughed

100% False. The structures are never 100% closed because of the fish slots. Were you even at the meeting or did you even look at the presentation with the layout of the weirs in it?

So are you in favor of it converting to open water? Because that is legitimately what is at stake. However you argue it, once the weirs were constructed, the marsh was coming back.

Hey Waltrip, what were your observations about the weirs in 1990-1991?

I have a report right here that indicates less openings that we have seen in the last 3 years. I would estimate the overall percentage of gates open at less than 50%. In fact, the only time that greater than 50% of the weirs were open occurred in February and Mid-March to Mid-April 1990, and from Mid-January to March 1991. From Mid-April to Mid-October 1990, the percentage of gates open was less than 50%. From June to October 1990, the percentage of gates open was less than 25%.

So, maybe this statement,

isn't completely false, but it isn't completely true either. If over the course of 15 months there weren't even 50% of the total gates open, I seriously doubt over the course of 16 years that the entire system was open 90% of the time. The 75% openings you see in early 1990 were reportedly due to high water in the Cameron-Creole. Take that away, and you may not even have 50% total gate openings over that time period.

Of course this is only 15 months of a 16 year time period we are talking about, but I seriously doubt that you could have achieved 90% openings over the course of 16 years (that is approximately 172 months, or 14.4 years).

Now, if what you are saying is that 90% of the time there was at least 1 gate open, then I will agree with you on that. But that isn't what you said.

Also, keep in mind, the figure that Leigh Anne showed was the Boat Bay Openings. My understanding is that the management is in Phase 2. If this is in fact the case, then only the Boat Bay would be left open, unless salinities become to high. This seems to be consistent with what has happened in the last 3 years, without looking at salinity data and fully basing that on the number of days the boat bay has been open.