Thoughts on CCA meeting tonight on state of Calcasieu fishery

[Smalls]

Overall MG, the points you made in your original post went largely unanswered. I will say I did not stick around for the oyster discussion (I had pretty much had enough and had a 2.5 hr drive back home to deal with), but the rest of it was about what I expected. From my point of view, the weirs appear to be operating as they were intended for the most part. I think the fact that some of the weirs may not appear open when they actually are complicates things. I was unaware that some of the structures could be opened below the surface.

Other than that, and who actually sits on the Cameron-Creole Advisory Committee, I learned very little from the discussion of the weirs. They said nothing that I didn't already know.

In my opinion, the management plan is in no way "outdated". With the exception of the marsh, not much has changed that can be controlled. The potential is on the table for some freshwater introduction in the future, but for now, the management plan seems to he effective enough to curtail any additional loss of land. If not for Rita and Ike, things may be progressing very well. The evidence was there in the data that the Cameron-Creole was freshening, and that is in line with other research I've seen. Rita and the subsequent years of misoperation by the USFWS set back a lot of progress.

The dredging discussion was almost pointless, except to reveal that the Corps is essentially wasting dredge material by depositing it outside the jetties in the gulf.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Overall MG, the points you made in your original post went largely unanswered. I will say I did not stick around for the oyster discussion (I had pretty much had enough and had a 2.5 hr drive back home to deal with), but the rest of it was about what I expected. From my point of view, the weirs appear to be operating as they were intended for the most part. I think the fact that some of the weirs may not appear open when they actually are complicates things. I was unaware that some of the structures could be opened below the surface.

Other than that, and who actually sits on the Cameron-Creole Advisory Committee, I learned very little from the discussion of the weirs. They said nothing that I didn't already know.

In my opinion, the management plan is in no way "outdated". With the exception of the marsh, not much has changed that can be controlled. The potential is on the table for some freshwater introduction in the future, but for now, the management plan seems to he effective enough to curtail any additional loss of land. If not for Rita and Ike, things may be progressing very well. The evidence was there in the data that the Cameron-Creole was freshening, and that is in line with other research I've seen. Rita and the subsequent years of misoperation by the USFWS set back a lot of progress.

The dredging discussion was almost pointless, except to reveal that the Corps is essentially wasting dredge material by depositing it outside the jetties in the gulf.

Thanks for the feedback, greatly appreciated. On the one hand, it is too bad that the dredge material can't be used to rebuild eroded land. On the other hand, putting it in the Gulf make it unlikely it will end up back in the channel and need to be dredged again. Rocking the length of the ship channel is a very expensive proposition.

I knew that the weirs had gates below the waterline both from personal observation as well as some of the reading materials. It would be nice if they could communicate to anglers when these were open, both for PR purposes and because fish are going to congregate in front of the weirs when the tide is flowing out if they are open.

I agree with you that I don't see where a management plan is outdated. If the science and data that went into the plan were good, the plan should still be good. "Outdated" is a cheap shot unless one can articulate precisely what scientific principles are better understood now than when the original plan was written.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Thanks for the feedback, greatly appreciated. On the one hand, it is too bad that the dredge material can't be used to rebuild eroded land. On the other hand, putting it in the Gulf make it unlikely it will end up back in the channel and need to be dredged again. Rocking the length of the ship channel is a very expensive proposition.

I knew that the weirs had gates below the waterline both from personal observation as well as some of the reading materials. It would be nice if they could communicate to anglers when these were open, both for PR purposes and because fish are going to congregate in front of the weirs when the tide is flowing out if they are open.

I agree with you that I don't see where a management plan is outdated. If the science and data that went into the plan were good, the plan should still be good. "Outdated" is a cheap shot unless one can articulate precisely what scientific principles are better understood now than when the original plan was written.

There have been many project over the years where the dredge material has been used to restore the marshes. Some on refuge land and some on privet land.

When dredging out in the gulf, the water/sludge mixture is pumped into a barge. Only a small % is heavy solids that settles out into the barge. The light "silt" like stuff flow out with the water and the Westward Gulf current carries it away from the channel that is being dredged.

I don't remember if she said what was done with the material in the barge. She did say that they get about 3 barge loads a day.

A representative from David Vittor's office was there to see what was going on at the meeting.

[T-TOP]

Originally Posted by Gerald

There have been many project over the years where the dredge material has been used to restore the marshes. Some on refuge land and some on privet land.

When dredging out in the gulf, the water/sludge mixture is pumped into a barge. Only a small % is heavy solids that settles out into the barge. The light "silt" like stuff flow out with the water and the Westward Gulf current carries it away from the channel that is being dredged.

I don't remember if she said what was done with the material in the barge. She did say that they get about 3 barge loads a day.

A representative from David Vittor's office was there to see what was going on at the meeting.

I agree this is what I heard. She said the material is to light to use, and it makes sense because of the westward currents. She said the 3 loads of heavier material they dump west of the channel in the gulf, I would assume what doen't settle out is taken away by the same westward currents.

[jlincecum]

Originally Posted by Gerald

There have been many project over the years where the dredge material has been used to restore the marshes. Some on refuge land and some on privet land.

When dredging out in the gulf, the water/sludge mixture is pumped into a barge. Only a small % is heavy solids that settles out into the barge. The light "silt" like stuff flow out with the water and the Westward Gulf current carries it away from the channel that is being dredged.

I don't remember if she said what was done with the material in the barge. She did say that they get about 3 barge loads a day.

A representative from David Vittor's office was there to see what was going on at the meeting.

it doesn't matter how light, fluffy, dense or heavy the material is, it is usable. It was once solid on the bottom and will be solid once again where ever they choose to dump it. The heavy stuff that you can actually move with a shovel is not the only viable substance that comes from this. If it stayed light and fluffy the need for that dredge to run 24/7 would not be needed because prop wash and turbulent waters that these large ships produce would keep it stirred up and these "strong western currents" that were brought up would just wash it all away. These materials being dumped right next to the channel being dredged is no the best use of this material, it is a waste. This is the point I tried to make last night but was just hit with the fluffy and cost too much reply. So which scenario costs more? Dredging and dumping next to your channel which requires equipment to never stop and no other benefit is gained other than a safe passage way for ship travel or getting the resource away from where you dig eliminating the chance of it going right back where it came from and rebuilding lost coast line with a side possibility of that channel not needing the dredge as often???

[T-TOP]

Originally Posted by jlincecum

it doesn't matter how light, fluffy, dense or heavy the material is, it is usable. It was once solid on the bottom and will be solid once again where ever they choose to dump it. The heavy stuff that you can actually move with a shovel is not the only viable substance that comes from this. If it stayed light and fluffy the need for that dredge to run 24/7 would not be needed because prop wash and turbulent waters that these large ships produce would keep it stirred up and these "strong western currents" that were brought up would just wash it all away. These materials being dumped right next to the channel being dredged is no the best use of this material, it is a waste. This is the point I tried to make last night but was just hit with the fluffy and cost too much reply. So which scenario costs more? Dredging and dumping next to your channel which requires equipment to never stop and no other benefit is gained other than a safe passage way for ship travel or getting the resource away from where you dig eliminating the chance of it going right back where it came from and rebuilding lost coast line with a side possibility of that channel not needing the dredge as often???

I thought she said to get that much material to the beach would be over 30 million? "HER" budget is 11-14 million.... they dont have the money even if it was good material. She basiclly said they beg for people to help find and fund useful ways to use the material and have used it on projects in the past...

[jlincecum]

Originally Posted by T-TOP

I thought she said to get that much material to the beach would be over 30 million? "HER" budget is 11-14 million.... they dont have the money even if it was good material. She basiclly said they beg for people to help find and fund useful ways to use the material and have used it on projects in the past...

to get money you have to push for money. Im not talking about building a 12 million dollar pipeline to build up a spot in Joe Blows privately owned marsh. Im talking about taking it the beaches and rebuilding lost coastline. Yes this takes money from our gooberment but if it is taken to them in a viable manor stating what good could be done for our coastline rather some private entity it may not fall on deaf ears. How many campaigns and groups are out there pushing to restore coastline??? If these government officials preach it but dont feel the need to act upon it when it is put in front of them then we have found a root part of the problem and it will be up to us, "the people", to help solve the problem.

[T-TOP]

Originally Posted by jlincecum

to get money you have to push for money. Im not talking about building a 12 million dollar pipeline to build up a spot in Joe Blows privately owned marsh. Im talking about taking it the beaches and rebuilding lost coastline. Yes this takes money from our gooberment but if it is taken to them in a viable manor stating what good could be done for our coastline rather some private entity it may not fall on deaf ears. How many campaigns and groups are out there pushing to restore coastline??? If these government officials preach it but dont feel the need to act upon it when it is put in front of them then we have found a root part of the problem and it will be up to us, "the people", to help solve the problem.

correct,