Thoughts on CCA meeting tonight on state of Calcasieu fishery

[Nickt87]

Originally Posted by Reggoh

I asked about the Speckled Trout Stock Assessments data. The last guy (I think his name was Harry Blanchette?) said that they continually collect data and that they have the data but that it is only posted every 3-5 years.

I asked that question specifically because of all the talk on SC. I couldn't remember what the historical postings of this data was during the meeting so I asked if it was historically posted annually and he said no.

After the meeting I was pondering that response and it hit me that maybe it was historically posted every 3 years in the past? 2004 - 2007 - 2010... Either way if they are saying 3-5 years it should be published soon.

Agreed. My second concern is the area in which the data is gathered. They are taking generally aquired data and applying it to centralized zones. I fish from the The Biloxi Marsh down to Venice and over to Big Lake every year and they are all totally different ecosystems. It is erroneous to think that wide range data is accurate for centralized zones.

[Reggoh]

Originally Posted by Nickt87

Agreed. My second concern is the area in which the data is gathered. They are taking generally aquired data and applying it to centralized zones. I fish from the The Biloxi Marsh down to Venice and over to Big Lake every year and they are all totally different ecosystems. It is erroneous to think that wide range data is accurate for centralized zones.

I was thinking quite a bit about this last night too.

LDWF obviously understands that different ecosystems should impact the management of those systems because they do this for Whitetail deer. The ecosystem on the west side of the state is totally different from the area along the Mississippi River and it is managed differently.

I think they need to explore different management regulations for the different estuaries based on the science and data from each area.

I've heard on here a number of times people comparing Sabine to Calcasieu... These are close together but they are also very different systems and probably should be managed differently.

[meaux fishing]

Originally Posted by Reggoh

I asked about the Speckled Trout Stock Assessments data. The last guy (I think his name was Harry Blanchette?) said that they continually collect data and that they have the data but that it is only posted every 3-5 years.

I asked that question specifically because of all the talk on SC. I couldn't remember what the historical postings of this data was during the meeting so I asked if it was historically posted annually and he said no.

After the meeting I was pondering that response and it hit me that maybe it was historically posted every 3 years in the past? 2004 - 2007 - 2010... Either way if they are saying 3-5 years it should be published soon.

It's Blanchet... Ive had a few discussions with him about fisheries data in the last few months and he told me they are working on getting the best data possible and hope to release it soon

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by meaux fishing

It's Blanchet... Ive had a few discussions with him about fisheries data in the last few months and he told me they are working on getting the best data possible and hope to release it soon

Blanchet is a quality fellow, first rate biologist. I'm not sure he would fall on his sword in the face of LDWF stupidity, but he has a solid track record of good science on spotted seatrout.

[neus]

Yea, I liked the "I'm not from Texas guy". Educated and well spoken.

["W"]

I like the map that the guy said of we take away the marsh and just leave land this is what we have

Hell my camp is not even on solid land it's on floating water as per those magic maps they all use

[saute86]

Nothing will be done about big lakes oysters. All on committee members are processors and oyster farmers from the east side of the state. Looks like they want to eventually have a monopoly.
Oyster Advisory Committee Members

Garret Graves
Chair

Al Sunseri
Oyster Processor

Peter Vujnovich
Oyster Farmer in Jefferson and Lafourche Parish

Shane Bagala
Oyster Farmer in Terrebonne, St. Mary and Vermilion Parishes

Brad Robins
Oyster Farmer in Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes

Byron Encalade
Oyster Farmer in Plaquemines

Kenny Fox
Oyster Farmer in Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes

Lauren Estopinal
Oil and Gas Association

Channing Hayden
Port of Lake Charles (Representing Maritime and Navigation)

Jerome Zeringue
Executive Director, Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority

King Milling
Chair, Governor’s Advisory Commission on Coastal Protection, Restoration and Conservation

Norby Chabert
Louisiana State Senator – District 20

Ray Garofalo
Louisiana State Representative – District 103

Lenar Whitney
Louisiana State Representative – District 53

Robert Barham
Secretary, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Randy Pausina, Designe

[jchief]

One other thing, they are looking at diverting some of the ICW into the marsh.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by jchief

One other thing, they are looking at diverting some of the ICW into the marsh.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

That would be great if they could work out the technical challenges to ensure one way flow so that salt does not get into the ICW. It might be expensive.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

That would be great if they could work out the technical challenges to ensure one way flow so that salt does not get into the ICW. It might be expensive.

Would probably involve a similar design as the flap gates at Grand Bayou. Allows for one way water flow.

[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...

[Gerald]

Just read all these post.

MG..... the question was asked and we were told that some or all of the power point presentation will be posted on the CPRA [Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority] web site. www.coastal.la.gov I talked with Chuck Perrodin after the meeting and he said it might take a couple of days before he can it it posted. He said to find the information: start by clicking on "calendar". Chuck's phone # is 225 342-7615 or 225 768-8882 cell.

There was a post earlier today about the meeting room was going to be "packed"......and it was. There were quite a few people standing in the back and just a couple of empty seats. I made a ruff estimate that there could have been 250 people there.

In the last few minutes of the meeting [with 30-40 people still there] the subject of using data to decide if limits need to be changed was discussed. I tried to get the speaker to say that the LDWF biologist 10 years ago, when the Big Lake limit was lowered, said that a change is not needed. He said that this was not said by the LDWF.

FYI.... Texas is now consider lowering the Trout limit [on the lower half ?] of their coast. Get this........ because there is major land loss and they think they should lower the limit now. Does that sound like the same "bull" we were told 10 years out about Big Lake.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Gerald

Just read all these post.

MG..... the question was asked and we were told that some or all of the power point presentation will be posted on the CPRA [Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority] web site. www.coastal.la.gov I talked with Chuck Perrodin after the meeting and he said it might take a couple of days before he can it it posted. He said to find the information: start by clicking on "calendar". Chuck's phone # is 225 342-7615 or 225 768-8882 cell.

There was a post earlier today about the meeting room was going to be "packed"......and it was. There were quite a few people standing in the back and just a couple of empty seats. I made a ruff estimate that there could have been 250 people there.

In the last few minutes of the meeting [with 30-40 people still there] the subject of using data to decide if limits need to be changed was discussed. I tried to get the speaker to say that the LDWF biologist 10 years ago, when the Big Lake limit was lowered, said that a change is not needed. He said that this was not said by the LDWF.

FYI.... Texas is now consider lowering the Trout limit [on the lower half ?] of their coast. Get this........ because there is major land loss and they think they should lower the limit now. Does that sound like the same "bull" we were told 10 years out about Big Lake.

Thanks for the report. CCA has also been pushing for additional limit reductions in TX and FL. FL releases enough of their data to see that additional restrictions were unnecessary, and they even recently raised their limit on slot reds slightly, as indicated by the data. TX has been moving consistently toward lower limits. I have not seen the TX data justifying this, but frankly I have not looked as hard, as I have much less interest in Texas regulations compared with Louisiana.

Since there were probably not any Texas government officials at the meeting last night, I would not be overly confident that you received accurate information regarding why lowering the limit is being considered. In the best case, you may have received accurate information regarding why CCA thinks the Texas speck limit needs to be lowered. Since the CCA-TX people also have tremendous influence over CCA-LA, pressing CCA for the data regarding their position on TX and FL changes should be useful in helping discern their true motives moving forward if they try and represent their position to be changed in Louisiana. The TX move lowering the limit on bull reds to one per year is not justified in the data.

[PaulMyers]

Gerald, thanks for the added information. I'm at work and was not able to attend tonight.

Thanks to everyone that relayed information to us people that were not able to make the meeting

["W"]

Key words I got from meeting

Weirs-committee
Dredge- fluffy
Oysters -red tape power