|
|
|
|
|||||||
| General Discussion (Everything Else) Discuss anything that doesn't belong in any other forums here. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
08-17-2012, 03:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
La Coastal Master Plan
Listened to a speaker give a talk outlining the basics of the La Coastal Master Plan, there was some talks about what needs to be done at Sabine, if you click on this link there is a good map of the projects and you can then go on the same page and look at the details of the project. Click over on the parishes tab and it will list the parishes in alphabetic order with their assigned projects, looks like there are several projects for Cameron Parish
http://www.coastalmasterplan.louisia...date-projects/ Here were a couple: 1.Salinity control structure at Alkali Ditch, Crab Gully, and Black Lake Bayou 2. Shoreline stabilization in the West Cover area of Calcasieu Lake 3. Bank stabilization along the Calcasieu Ship Channel from the Gulf of Mexico to Calcasieu Lake 4. Salinity control structure in Calcasieu Ship Channel at the Gulf of Mexico 5. Spillway structures at East Calcasieu Lake 6. Creation of 7,604 acres of marsh southeast of Calcasieu Lake 7. Creation of 7,604 acres of marsh southeast of Calcasieu Lake Creation of 306 acres of marsh at Commissary Point Creation of 10,946 acres of marsh in Northwest Calcasieu Lake south of Hackberry Creation of 3,292 acres of marsh at Cameron Meadows Creation of 4,816 acres of marsh in Northwest Calcasieu Lake south of Hackberry Creation of 14,843 acres of marsh in East Calcasieu Lake and much more I didn't list you can check em out, lots of projects for the future, new water control structures, etc. 
|
|
#2
08-17-2012, 03:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
There was a really good talk about the marshes around Leeville before and following the oil spill. An entymologist was studying insects of the marsh before the spill and had good baseline data before the spill and when the spill was occuring she really ramped up her surveying to get in before the spill. At first there was an abundance of insects because the plants were stressed then almost nothing, but the insects were not showing oil on their bodies, so she introduced insects into the system and kept them in cages that rose with the tide and the only thing they had contact with was the actual air, no contact with the plants,e tc. They survived fine until until the temps rose to a certain degree 86 or something and they began dying rapidly, probably had to do with the volatilization of the oil in the marsh. She couldn't go into much due to legal issues and she is in the process of publishing much of her work, but it was very interesting.
|
|
#4
08-17-2012, 04:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#6
08-17-2012, 05:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
08-17-2012, 05:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
i was the one that asked the guy about the 131 year old water elm on Catahoula Lake  
|
|
#9
08-17-2012, 07:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yeah, I like it. I would love to stay with it, but I'm at the least looking to stay in wetlands and wetland management. I've learned a lot in the past few years, but I've still got a lot to learn. Its always interesting though.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I847 using Tapatalk 2
|
|
#10
08-21-2012, 11:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
i encourage y'all to send emails with questions on the website if you have them. people actually read and respond, i can promise that...
i think we have a great plan here to chart a course forward and also to show we are ready to finally move on large scale ecosystem restoration.
|
|
#12
08-22-2012, 08:48 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
This as well as any other restoration projects is driving by special interests and money. Although tax dollars will be used, it will be private property that we will not be allowed on.
|
|
#14
08-22-2012, 10:12 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Yes, a lot of it is. A lot of it isn't also. Point being, if my tax dollars are going to this, I should be able to use any of it. Their loophole is that it is helping protect public lands. Just as the weirs were constructed to improve public land and waters, those projects were driven directly by land owners and big money.
|
|
#16
08-22-2012, 12:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let me tell you something brah. I work in coastal restoration, and a lot of our projects happen to be on private land. But considering a lot of land is private, you can't effectively protect every Marsh or even the majority by just targeting public land. The objective of coastal restoration is not to provide new hunting grounds. The objective is protecting the infrastructure and the marshes already there. And also, the funding isn't all coming from tax dollars. A lot of it being routed via the Restore act from money paid by BP from the oil spill.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I847 using Tapatalk 2
|
|
#17
08-22-2012, 01:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Brah??? What the hell kinda language is that? I wasn't saying anything bad about people that do this. I'm just stating facts. If the land owners and big money interests wasn't involved, there wouldn't be near as much effort put into this. I'm not wanting new hunting ground. Just saying that our money is spent in ways that protect the special interests and headlined as coastal restoration. Before the weirs were in big lake there was way more fish in those areas. The weirs and levees down there was pushed hard by private big money land owners to protect their property, not for "coastal restoration". Do we need coastal protection? Yes. Should private entities direct its path? No.
Sent from Skyrocket 2 via Tapatalk. Fish Hard
|
|
#18
08-22-2012, 03:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Look up the reports for Cameron Creole watershed. Those weirs were installed for the purpose of protecting the Marsh on in Cameron prairie and surrounding area because thousands of acres of fresh and intermediate Marsh were lost due to saltwater intrusion. Had nothing to do with private interest. I'm sure some of them were on board with it though. As I said, if it weren't for private land involvement, you could not effectively protect the coast or preserve it. You can't expect to do all the restoration work on the ship channel and in the refuges and protect all the Marsh we have. If you don't do anything on the private land around the refuges, when that deteriorates, the refuge begins to deteriorate.
PS, its like bro, you know, but brah ...... Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I847 using Tapatalk 2
|
|
#19
08-22-2012, 05:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Is public vs private really an issue? When all the agencies that were behind the plan got together they looked at the entire landscape, not who owns what. They look at the areas that would need some type and then from there they begin to develop a plan. This has nothing to do with private landowners benefiting more than someone who does not own land. This benefits ALL OF US. Just because the project falls in private land, does not mean it is not going to benefit the public. There were multiple public meetings about the plan to let the writers of the plan know what was most important to them and get ideas for the plan. I don't care whose land it is own where marsh creation is performed, that benefits me in the long term. If the landowners kill 1000 ducks in that marsh next year, who cares. The big picture is what is best for Louisiana, and most of the land in Louisiana is privately owned, so it makes sense that these projects are going to fall on some private land.
|
|
#20
08-22-2012, 11:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
when the master plan was formed and published, there was never discussions on projects in regards to public vs private lands. the plan is purely science based, taking into account critical landscape features and projects that maintain or restore the most marsh for the least dollars and reduce the most surge damage for the least dollars. it is the most defensible way to chart a path forward and to communicate the state's needs to those who hold the purse strings. it is a reality that roughly 80% of coastal marshes are owned by private parties and they must be involved in the process, but the plan had to stand up in the scientific arena and therefore, inclusion of speculation regarding private landowners being agreeable to activity on their place was not considered. in reality, landowners can make or break projects and have halted projects in the past, but as land loss continues to be a dire and escalating problem, i cannot imagine too many landowners who wouldn't want their land protected. i think the perception of the landowners driving restoration efforts is incorrect. they have a necessary and valuable seat at the table, but they dont dictate to the state "do project a, not project b." as for who would own and have rights to the newly created lands...i will leave that to the lawyers. i can say that LA's laws regarding public vs private water bottoms and reclaimed lands are murky at best to the laymen. the master plan includes 50 billion dollars of projects of 50 years. this includes ecosystem restoration projects like marsh creation, risk reduction projects such as levees, and other "nonstructural" projects such as elevating homes to mitigate damages. these dollars will primarily come from BP fines and offshore oil revenues which will begin to be received by the state in 2017. little to no private citizen tax dollars are assumed in that 50 billion value. glad to see a healthy and lively discussion on the plan.
|
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
