Thoughts on CCA meeting tonight on state of Calcasieu fishery

["W"]

Originally Posted by Smalls

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.

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

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by "W"

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

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.

[BuckingFastard]

Originally Posted by "W"

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

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

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by BuckingFastard

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

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

[Reggoh]

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

[MathGeek]

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.

["W"]

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

[BuckingFastard]

Originally Posted by "W"

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.

[redchaserron]

Originally Posted by "W"

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

If the land loss was strictly because of storm surge and hurricane winds, the subsidence should have stopped after the last hurricane (Ike) impacted the area, I can promise you it didn't stop then. The amount of land loss I've watched back there year of year without the influence of hurricanes is shocking and depressing.

[BuckingFastard]

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.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by BuckingFastard

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.

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?

yea things change, everything does.

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,

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

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.

[noodle creek]

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.

["W"]

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

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by "W"

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

Find where I've argued that all of the maps presented are correct. That's why pretty much every land loss figure is a plus or minus number. They aren't exact.

[BuckingFastard]

Yea and Toledo bend is never "all" the way closed either. Lmbo, I know the guy that manages the land that borders the weirs and he does a great job, much better than the crap so called weir authority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BuckingFastard]

You can blab on all you want trying to reword whatever you want smalls. Louisiana looses a lot more than a couple pieces of grass each year behind the weir.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by BuckingFastard

You can blab on all you want trying to reword whatever you want smalls. Louisiana looses a lot more than a couple pieces of grass each year behind the weir.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What am I rewording?

I know very well that Louisiana loses more than just what is behind the weirs. So does that mean we should just not worry about it, because we are losing more land elsewhere? What if we treated every watershed that way? Where would we be?

[CajunGuy]

Originally Posted by Smalls

I know very well that Louisiana loses more than just what is behind the weirs.

From what Leighann showed at the meeting the entire Calcasieu-Sabine basin lost land during the bad years, but 50% of the land loss occurred in the Cameron Creole watershed. It is the most vulnerable place in the entire basin and that is why it has the extra measures to protect it.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by CajunGuy

From what Leighann showed at the meeting the entire Calcasieu-Sabine basin lost land during the bad years, but 50% of the land loss occurred in the Cameron Creole watershed. It is the most vulnerable place in the entire basin and that is why it has the extra measures to protect it.

Exactly.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by CajunGuy

From what Leighann showed at the meeting the entire Calcasieu-Sabine basin lost land during the bad years, but 50% of the land loss occurred in the Cameron Creole watershed. It is the most vulnerable place in the entire basin and that is why it has the extra measures to protect it.

Right. But the question has been raised in the past regarding why the Cameron Creole watershed is more vulnerable than the region between Big Lake and Sabine.

1. That soil in that region started lower to begin with (1900ish).
2. The level of fresh water flowing in from the other side to counter act the salt flow from Big Lake is lower.
3. The soil in Cameron Creole is subsiding (sinking) faster than other areas in the Calcasieu/Sabine basin.
4. These factors gave saltwater intrusion a big head start from the 1930s to the 1980s and land losses tend to accelerate once they have begun unless the salt is effectively stopped.

Leigh Anne Sharp's presentation contained a lot of important information, and I am disappointed that so many anglers are so focused on their personal short term objectives that they are not taking the time or making the effort to consider this quality information. Perhaps it conflicts with some pre-existing biases.

In any case, good management means making use of the best available data driven science for the balanced interests of all stakeholders. From all I can tell, the current weir management is very close to accomplishing this.