SaltyCajun.com
Page 6 of 6 12345 6
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

SaltyCajun.com (http://www.saltycajun.com/forum/index.php)
-   Inshore Saltwater Fishing Discussion (http://www.saltycajun.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Redfish and Specks Benefit from Limited Weir Closings (http://www.saltycajun.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56201)

wishin i was fishin 01-30-2015 11:04 AM
to define save a bit more, the Atchafalya delta is rebuilding land but only in a relatively small area. Internal systems in VB are still eroding. I do not know the speed. Studding maps, the areas that are eroding are areas with little to no shell reef protection. To save from erosion coastal protection needs to be installed in these areas.

There is an impact to these reefs by the flow of fresh water out of the delta. Just curious what the long term impact will be to these reef systems. I don't know if any studies are being conducted on the reefs south of marsh island. Theoretically, if there is less fresh water the reef systems should be healthier due to the rise in salinity. Target species would be in these areas more as well. keep in mind oysters begin their life as parasites in fish. that is why they ate usually found together.

also as MG says hypoxia is a big issue. that will no doubt continue to plague us all of the Louisiana coast for a while.

Duck Butter 01-30-2015 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wishin i was fishin (Post 738912)
to define save a bit more, the Atchafalya delta is rebuilding land but only in a relatively small area. Internal systems in VB are still eroding. I do not know the speed. Studding maps, the areas that are eroding are areas with little to no shell reef protection. To save from erosion coastal protection needs to be installed in these areas.

There is an impact to these reefs by the flow of fresh water out of the delta. Just curious what the long term impact will be to these reef systems. I don't know if any studies are being conducted on the reefs south of marsh island. Theoretically, if there is less fresh water the reef systems should be healthier due to the rise in salinity. Target species would be in these areas more as well. keep in mind oysters begin their life as parasites in fish. that is why they ate usually found together.

also as MG says hypoxia is a big issue. that will no doubt continue to plague us all of the Louisiana coast for a while.
the Atchafalaya is building is due to manmade canals but shows that it can be done. If only u can convince people in southeast Louisiana that they can work
There are some artificial oyster reefs right at the pass of VB but they are not doing well due to the low salinity most of the year. The hypoxic zone graph can be a little misleading. One can look at the graph and think nothing lives there but that is not the case always. It's mostly on the bottom. The fertilizer issue MG spoke of is a very big deal though and I wish we could get rid if the ethanol mandate for any reasons but mainly due to virgin prairies being converted to corn. That's our duck factory and it's really really easy to go from prairie to corn but really really hard to go from corn back to a functioning prairie. And farmers nowadays don't leave much buffer between the crops and the ditches and the fertilizer comes straight down the creek. A little 25 ft buffer of native grasses planted alongside the ditches works wonders in nutrient runoff protection as well as the added habitat for wildlife but no one wants the government telling anybody what to do on their land:grinpimp: or tell them they can't smoke in a bar for that matter:rotfl:

Goooh 01-30-2015 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 738905)
I think everyone is working with their own understanding about what it means to "save" an area. Some mean (including Smalls, I think) of saving an area by preserving the land and marsh from becoming open water. In this sense, preserving the flow of silt through the Atchafalaya is important.

But local fishermen and oystermen often enjoy much better years when there is less flow of freshwater and silt through the river, so they come to see reduced flow as a good thing.

Another point is that the river is not just bringing the silt needed to rebuild land and marsh, it is also bringing all the other crap that is flowing down the Mississippi, including pretty heavy nutrient loads, pesticides, antibiotic residues, hormone residues, etc. Recall that 30% of the flow of the Mississippi River is diverted to the Atchafalaya.

I am of the view that the benefits of the silt outweigh the negatives of the nutrient loading, fresh water, and chemical residues. But the attached pic shows the zone of hypoxic bottom water ("dead zone") that formed in the Gulf in the summer of 2013 which is largely attributable to the nutrient loading.

Probably the most tangible step to reducing Gulf hypoxia would be to reduce nutrient loading by ending ethanol subsidies and fuel requirements, since the artificially high corn prices encourage farmers to use more fertilizer which washes down and contributes to the problem. Lower corn prices would also reduce pressure on cattle feed operations to boost feed efficiency with heavy use of antibiotics and hormones. Ending ethanol subsidies and requirements would also increase demand for domestic oil.

LIKE


Sent

MathGeek 01-30-2015 01:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wishin i was fishin (Post 738912)
also as MG says hypoxia is a big issue. that will no doubt continue to plague us all of the Louisiana coast for a while.
Hypoxia is a real issue, but it is not as big as some of the Chicken Little voices make it out to be.

Nutrient loading from the Mississippi River has actually caused a tremendous increase in Louisiana fishery production as a whole, but there is a real risk that increased nutrient loading could negatively impact the fishery in the future.

There is no compelling need to saddle farmers with increasing regulations regarding how and where they use their land and how much they fertilize. Allowing corn prices to be dominated by market forces without government subsidies or ethanol mandates will greatly reduce corn demand, thus the price, thus the acres planted and the use of expensive fertilizers.

This alone will likely be sufficient to stop conversion of prairie into cropland and maintain levels of nutrient loading that provide outstanding enhancements to Louisiana fishery productivity without the hypoxic zones growing to the size where the fishery suffers. Reducing nutrient loading too far (through government regulations) would actually decrease Louisiana fishery production.

redchaserron 01-30-2015 01:10 PM
Wow, I was too busy fishing to come here for a while and I had completely missed this thread. MG thanks for the work, for bumping it and for your always thoughtful and intelligent post. There have also been some good replies here, however reading replies from some people, I have to wonder who ties their shoes for them in the morning.

capt coonassty 02-02-2015 08:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wishin i was fishin (Post 738869)
True dat Smalls, true dat. The increase in diversion projects there is a finite amount of water and sediment to feed them. our only hope is that will reduce the water flowing through the Atchafalaya diversion. i could go on for a while but don't want to hijack the thread.

So, back to the weirs...Has anything changed from last year?
Historically(before people started messing with things) the Atchafalaya has allays been a distributary of the Miss. river. I may be wrong but I wold imagine that a huge swing in salinity from reducing the flow at the peak growing time like when the river is at its highest would have negative impacts on the plant community. This could lead to higher erosion rates due to stress on the plants that are holding the land together.

Smalls 02-02-2015 09:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by capt coonassty (Post 739166)
Historically(before people started messing with things) the Atchafalaya has allays been a distributary of the Miss. river. I may be wrong but I wold imagine that a huge swing in salinity from reducing the flow at the peak growing time like when the river is at its highest would have negative impacts on the plant community. This could lead to higher erosion rates due to stress on the plants that are holding the land together.
That's pretty much spot on. When you combine that with all the other impacts, like hurricanes and herbivory by nutria and even geese, you would have something even worse than what we currently see on Marsh Island. I wholeheartedly believe that a majority of the effort in the Vermilion Bay area should be put into Marsh Island. If that island goes the way of the barrier islands in southeast Louisiana, its going to be bad for central Louisiana. I think this is why CPRA originally planned to build levees around the larger communities in Vermilion Parish. They must not believe Marsh Island can be saved, or that anything they do will not be enough.

capt coonassty 02-02-2015 09:44 AM
Well, CPRA thourgh CWPPRA did spend 23 million on it.

http://lacoast.gov/new/Projects/Info.aspx?num=TV-21

Smalls 02-02-2015 10:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by capt coonassty (Post 739181)
Well, CPRA thourgh CWPPRA did spend 23 million on it.

http://lacoast.gov/new/Projects/Info.aspx?num=TV-21
Yeah, but you probably won't see much going forward. I can't recall if any work is proposed through the Master Plan, and if so how much.

And from what I've heard and seen, if it's not in the Master Plan, it's likely not going to happen.

capt coonassty 02-02-2015 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smalls (Post 739186)
Yeah, but you probably won't see much going forward. I can't recall if any work is proposed through the Master Plan, and if so how much.

And from what I've heard and seen, if it's not in the Master Plan, it's likely not going to happen.
Well this is true. Besides the two "reefs" and shoreline protection, no marsh creation will happen because of the 2012 MP. This may change with the 2017 but I,m not sure that's going to happen.

This year three shoreline protection projects have been proposed through CWPPRA. Two on the west side of the bay and one on the north eastern side of Marsh Island.

BuckingFastard 02-02-2015 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by capt coonassty (Post 739188)
Well this is true. Besides the two "reefs" and shoreline protection, no marsh creation will happen because of the 2012 MP. This may change with the 2017 but I,m not sure that's going to happen.

This year three shoreline protection projects have been proposed through CWPPRA. Two on the west side of the bay and one on the north eastern side of Marsh Island.
even if the money is found to support anything else, it will just be miss-used by the 1%ers as usual.

Didnt Jindal just do that? Take the money that was supposed to be for conservation?

capt coonassty 02-02-2015 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckingFastard (Post 739199)
even if the money is found to support anything else, it will just be miss-used by the 1%ers as usual.

Didnt Jindal just do that? Take the money that was supposed to be for conservation?
This program is federal money with 15% state cost share.

A list of projects that have been completed or in design.
http://lacoast.gov/new/Projects/List.aspx

This program has already put one Billion dollars into coastal restoration in Louisiana.

Smalls 02-02-2015 11:55 AM
Yeah, its done some good, but there have definitely been examples that didn't do so hot.

Glad to see there are some good projects still going on. I was highly skeptical of that Master Plan. Still am, given what they put in it.

wishin i was fishin 02-02-2015 08:10 PM
Here is a list of projects that will involve Vermilion Bay.

http://www.saltycajun.com/forum/show...al+Restoration


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:40 PM.
Page 6 of 6 12345 6
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - [ARG:3 UNDEFINED], Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vB.Sponsors
All content, images, designs, and logos are Copyright © 2009-2012,
Salty Cajun, LLC
No unathorized use is permitted