East Side your Limit drop is comming

[Dink]

Yep

[Montauk17]

Stunning new data not yet publicly released shows Louisiana losing its battle with rising seas much more quickly than even the most pessimistic studies have predicted to date.

While state officials continue to argue over restoration projects to save the state’s sinking, crumbling coast, top researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have concluded that Louisiana is in line for the highest rate of sea-level rise “on the planet.” * Indeed, the water is rising so fast that some coastal restoration projects could be obsolete before they are completed, the officials said.
NOAA’s Tim Osborne, an 18-year veteran of Louisiana coastal surveys, and Steve Gill, senior scientist at the agency’s Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services, spelled out the grim reality in interviews with The Lens. When new data on the rate of coastal subsidence is married with updated projections of sea-level rise, the southeast corner of Louisiana looks likely to be under at least 4.3 feet of gulf water by the end of the century.

NOAA
Port Fourchon experienced serious flooding from Hurricane Ike, which made landfall in Galveston, Texas in 2008. Scientists say such flooding will become more common, even in smaller storms, as the coast sinks and sea level rises.

That rate could swamp projects in the state’s current coastal Master Plan, which incorporated worst-case scenarios for relative sea-level rise calculated two years ago— which the new figures now make out-of-date. (The state’s estimates of sea-level rise and subsidence are listed on page 83 of the Master Plan.)

The state plan, while “valuable and thoughtful,” has a major flaw, Osborne said.

“The problem is it’s a master plan for the restoration and conservation of a landscape that is moving downward at a faster rate than we realized when the plan was constructed—a rate faster than any place else we are seeing in the world for such a large land area,” said Osborne, who will be a speaker Saturday at Tulane University’s Summit on Environmental Law and Policy.

“With all due respect,” he said, “they have projects designed to last 50 years at one level of relative sea-level rise, when they should be building projects that can function for several generations as sea level rises twice as high, if not higher.”

Garret Graves, head of the state Coastal Planning and Protection Authority, did not respond to a request for comment. But in an earlier interview he said the uncertainty of future rates of sea-level rise was one of the biggest challenges facing the plan. The planners, he said, typically have incorporated the then-current “worst case” scenarios for sea-level rise at those locations.

Graves also pointed out that the plan was structured to adapt to changing circumstances. The Coastal Planning and Protection Authority must submit an updated plan to the state Legislature for approval every five years.

Yet NOAA’s new figures, contained in draft reports currently under peer review, will present a challenge because the numbers have changed so drastically. Even heavily populated areas, such as New Orleans, appear to be sinking faster than expected, in fact even faster than some areas along the coast.

More precise tools show coast sinking faster than expected
Southeast Louisiana—with an average elevation just three feet above sea level—has long been considered one of the landscapes most threatened by global warming. That’s because the delta it’s built on – starved of river sediment and sliced by canals — is sinking at the same time that oceans are rising. The combination of those two forces is called relative sea-level rise, and its impact can be dramatic.

For example, tide-gauge measurements at Grand Isle, about 50 miles south of New Orleans, have shown an average annual sea-level rise over the past few decades of 9.24 millimeters (about one-third of an inch) while those at Key West, which has very little subsidence, read only 2.24 millimeters.

For decades coastal planners used that Grand Isle gauge as the benchmark for the worst case of local sea-level rise because it was one of the highest in the world. But as surveying crews began using more advanced instruments, they made a troubling discovery.

Readings at a distance inland were even worse than at Grand Isle. “For example,” Osborne said, “we have rates of 11.2 millimeters along the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain—the metro New Orleans area. And inside the city we have places with almost [a half-inch] per year.

“So when we looked at the averages we were getting inside the coast, we realized the current figure we should be using for [southeastern] Louisiana is 11.2 millimeters.”

The news got only more bleak when NOAA began using the new technologies to update past rates of local subsidence and then fed those numbers into studies projecting future rates.

“What we see is that the [southeast] Louisiana coast averaged three feet of relative sea-level rise the last century,” said NOAA’s Steve Gill.

Prepare for ‘at least 4 feet’ of sea-level rise
The draft report of the quadrennial National Climate Assessment, finished by federal agencies in December, showed a steady increase in sea-level rise through the end of the century. Gill said the increase was due to the continued increase in the two main contributors: thermal expansion of marine water volumes as oceans continue to warm, and an increase in the melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice fields. That water eventually makes its way into the ocean, further increasing its volume.

The assessment provides four scenarios for global average sea-level rise through the end of the century, based on varying scenarios of warming and ice melt:

The first shows current trends holding steady, resulting in about an eight-inch rise globally.
The second, or intermediate increase, results in about 15 inches globally.
The third, or mid-range, shows about 4.5 feet.
The fourth, or worst case, shows about 6.5 feet globally.

The NOAA researchers said they use the mid-range scenario in making local projections.
Southeast Louisiana fares much worse in all four scenarios because “we now know the entire area is sinking faster than any coastal landscape its size on the planet,” Osborne said.

“When you combine those two factors, update the rates from what we’ve found with the most recent data—and that is data, not computer models or theories—then you see this area, southeast Louisiana, will experience the highest rate of sea-level rise anywhere on the planet by the end of the century,” Osborne said.

“We’re talking probably at least four feet if not five feet in some sections of this coast. That’s what people here need to be planning for.”

Editor’s Note: This story was produced in conjunction with The Lens, a nonprofit online newsroom based in New Orleans, http://TheLensNola.org.

[YellaBlazer]

Originally Posted by Reefman

We've become our own worst enemy. To say that trout fishing is as good as it was 20 years ago is not facing the reality of fishing success, or lack there of, today. The presure placed on our resources of trout is infinitely higher than it was back then. I beleive that fishing presure has indeed impacted the fisheries. BL looks like a parking lot on weekends with all the boats beatin the waters. T Butte can have over 50 boats in a small area on calm days. Diamond not much better. The rigs out of
vermilion looks like LaFonda; you need a number to wait in line to fish live bait. Cocodrie is overcrowded on any given day.There are far more people fishing today than there were in the 80-90s.

History will repeat itself in trout fishing just as it did in bass fishing. There are too many competing for an over fished and over stressed trout population. Again, only my personal observations fishing trout for over forty years. I do agree that 10% of the fishermen out there do catch the majority of the fish. However there are 20 times better fishermen now than there were 20 years ago.

We are the custodians of our resources today. Every effort should be made to acknowledge what problems face our natural resources and act accordingly. Responsibilities lay with us to protect them. We need factual information by our WLF along with coastal scientific studies specific to trout populations made public. I just can't see our trout fishing taking the pounding it has over the past ten years continue without a colapse in this fisheries. Just MHO.....

I don't disagree that things aren't what they used to be 20 years ago. That's a painful reality. But over on our end, the decline is more environmental than anything. 20 years ago, there were nice, pretty islands dotting the bay. They all held trout. A combination of storms and a choked off river have cost us a lot of essential trout habitat. Big Island, Cat Island, Manilla Village... the list goes on. Trout will not stay in an environment that will not support them.

As far as having 20x better fishermen now, I highly doubt that when the average guy catches less than 10 trout per trip. The same 10% will catch all the fish.

Also, there are no guides over in Lafitte that use live bait. All of the trout are caught on artificial.

[Reefman]

Originally Posted by "W"

I don't know how good Buras area is year round but I see Matt Caire with loads of 3-5lb trout all the time .

I also know that areas farther east have never been known for large trout like grand isle/ cocodrie and parts of Venice


Trout will spawn at least once before reaching legal size of 12inchs . One thing is for sure. They better have solid hard facts before reducing trout limits , because once they go down , they will never come back up.

Again from a personal point of view. I've seen trout limits go from whatever your boat can hold to 25 and now 15 in BL. The reduction in BL limits have not effected the numbers of fishermen who enjoy fishing the lake. If it is proven that fishing pressure has adversely effected trout populations then a reduction in creel limits is surely called for. I have a hard time understanding why it is so important to some here to have a 25 fish limit. I love to eat trout, however i can't eat 25 to 50 a week!

[Dink]

What gets me pissed is guides that fish everyday and give their limit to their sports.....

Its illegal to do so with red snapper, and it should be for any sport fish

["W"]

Originally Posted by Reefman

Again from a personal point of view. I've seen trout limits go from whatever your boat can hold to 25 and now 15 in BL. The reduction in BL limits have not effected the numbers of fishermen who enjoy fishing the lake. If it is proven that fishing pressure has adversely effected trout populations then a reduction in creel limits is surely called for. I have a hard time understanding why it is so important to some here to have a 25 fish limit. I love to eat trout, however i can't eat 25 to 50 a week!

First let's make one thing clear , Big Lake 15 trout limit had Zero to do with facts, this was 100% politics at its finest . A few rich office fisherman who spend 20 days a year on the water listen to a few other rich guys who have homes on the lake , and said let's make big lake a " Trophy Lake" by cutting limit to 15
Before the 15 trout limit we had 10lb trout getting caught every year of the STAR and it took a 8-9lb trout to win the shootout .
Now 6 years into the trout reduction our over all big trout population had declined due to over population of trout .
Bio. said big lake could support a 30 per person limit

["W"]

If you want to stop over catching ban live or dead bait ....

[Hey Ted]

Originally Posted by Montauk17

Loss of habitat for the young fish has a huge effect as well....

Winner, winner, chicken dinner! Look at the landscape of southeastern Louisiana today compared to 10 and 20 years ago. Even though there are more fishermen today most of them couldn't catch a limit of trout even if they were fishing on a charter in W's boat. That's also one of the reasons why everything fishing related costs an arm and a leg.

[Dink]

Think maybe more fish are being caught cause of the increase of fisherman so trout dont live long wnough tot get as big?

[fishinpox]

live swimps, 40 lb big game , steel leaderzz, upside down 4000 series spinning gear reeling backwards! rape dat shizzzzzz

["W"]

I know a lot of people think that trout have to have a estuary to reproduce but millions of trout lay eggs offshore along beaches and islands. I'm sure the Gulf of Mexico holds billions of trout that most never go inland and live there whole life near beaches or close platforms or reefs

[Montauk17]

Originally Posted by fishinpox

live swimps, 40 lb big game , steel leaderzz, upside down 4000 series spinning gear reeling backwards! rape dat shizzzzzz

LOL it still makes me laugh seeing people reeling spinning reels upside down. Good cheap comedy

[Montauk17]

Originally Posted by "W"

I know a lot of people think that trout have to have a estuary to reproduce but millions of trout lay eggs offshore along beaches and islands. I'm sure the Gulf of Mexico holds billions of trout that most never go inland and live there whole life near beaches or close platforms or reefs

So what yours saying is................................................ .....

[Reefman]

Originally Posted by YellaBlazer

I don't disagree that things aren't what they used to be 20 years ago. That's a painful reality. But over on our end, the decline is more environmental than anything. 20 years ago, there were nice, pretty islands dotting the bay. They all held trout. A combination of storms and a choked off river have cost us a lot of essential trout habitat. Big Island, Cat Island, Manilla Village... the list goes on. Trout will not stay in an environment that will not support them.

As far as having 20x better fishermen now, I highly doubt that when the average guy catches less than 10 trout per trip. The same 10% will catch all the fish.

Also, there are no guides over in Lafitte that use live bait. All of the trout are caught on artificial.

I think this applies to most of our coastal waters. Check out Montauk's post...scarey. Enviromental issues have played an ever increasing role in fish dynamics. Our waters cannot support what was once thriving estuaries that were growing until we started building levees everywhere.

Its all relative Blazer...there are 20 times more fishermen out here now which also raises the number to 20 times good fishermen.

[Montauk17]

Originally Posted by Reefman

I think this applies to most of our coastal waters. Check out Montauk's post...scarey. Enviromental issues have played an ever increasing role in fish dynamics. Our waters cannot support what was once thriving estuaries that were growing until we started building levees everywhere.

Its all relative Blazer...there are 20 times more fishermen out here now which also raises the number to 20 times good fishermen.

Fish don't need habitat....cause "W" said so

["W"]

Originally Posted by Montauk17

So what yours saying is................................................ .....

We don't have a trout shortage , we have an abundance of people who can't catch fish

Like said above you can put people on fish and some still can't catch, if you talk to 2000 full time guides they will tell you they catch 75 % of the fish

[Reefman]

Originally Posted by "W"

First let's make one thing clear , Big Lake 15 trout limit had Zero to do with facts, this was 100% politics at its finest . A few rich office fisherman who spend 20 days a year on the water listen to a few other rich guys who have homes on the lake , and said let's make big lake a " Trophy Lake" by cutting limit to 15
Before the 15 trout limit we had 10lb trout getting caught every year of the STAR and it took a 8-9lb trout to win the shootout .
Now 6 years into the trout reduction our over all big trout population had declined due to over population of trout .
Bio. said big lake could support a 30 per person limit

In your opinion W, do you think the absense of 9lb trout lately has been caused by that creel limit or the destruction of oyster reefs and surrounding estuaries in BL. Over oyster harvesting would be my answer.

BTW, LSU just won in the bottom of the 9th...

[YellaBlazer]

Originally Posted by Reefman

I think this applies to most of our coastal waters. Check out Montauk's post...scarey. Enviromental issues have played an ever increasing role in fish dynamics. Our waters cannot support what was once thriving estuaries that were growing until we started building levees everywhere.

Its all relative Blazer...there are 20 times more fishermen out here now which also raises the number to 20 times good fishermen.

Agreed. It's sad to watch what's going on down here. Small islands that held trout in the springtime are gone by the fall. It's like having to re-learn the area all over again.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Reefman

In your opinion W, do you think the absense of 9lb trout lately has been caused by that creel limit or the destruction of oyster reefs and surrounding estuaries in BL. Over oyster harvesting would be my answer.

Creel limit for sure , only 40% if that is oyster harvest in big lake and the heavy harvest was only 3 years ago when dredging was allowed for the 1st time.
That had no effect on our trout size as our lake is over abundant with bait year around . You can not fish a day with out finding bait..

[Wide Open]

Originally Posted by Reefman

Right you are W; however, look at what they're catching and how they're catching. Juvenile to maybe 14 inch fish. Guides reluctant to leave landing without live shrimp. Trout that haven't reached spawning age. It's a numbers game as you well know. I'll take 10 fish from BL or VB anyday over what the 25 they catch east of here. Do we really need to be catching 100 trout a day to call it a successful trip. Those guides might be catching a bunch now but look at the other 99.99% of fishermen in those same waters. They're not catching those numbers today like they did years ago.

Reefman, you seem like a very knowledgeable sportsman, but not all people on the eastside catch small fish!!! and no it does not take livebait to catch bruiser trout! I will agree that 90% off the guides are leaving the dock with live, but some do not and are very sucessfull with out. I personaly fish live at times, but stick with the plastic until they dont want it anymore. Lake P holds big fish 100% of the year, grand isle jetties, and camanada pass hold 3-5lb trout in june/july, spring and fall hold solid 16-22 in fish in delecroix/hopedale, Buris/Empire has georgous fish in the early summer months up to 7lb's, venice has fallen off the last 3 years for size, and they had a rough summer, but banner fall. I personally caught 2-4lb fish in venice this year in oct./nov. on arty. more than 20 times during begining duck season. the beaches of portsulfur/empire are know for 2-4 pound trout in late spring all on arty. with fish as big as the occasional 5-7 being landed. Breton sound is mule trout stomping grounds for the better part of the summer. I could go on, but it already seems like a rant. Vermillion and Big lake obviously are 2 of the states better ponds to catch quality fish in, but the east side is a far cry larger with more area to catch small fish. Few captains in the east side marshes actually target big fish, and the select few do. Most are looking for the numbers to see smiles and repeat service. I like the size more than the numbers myself, but sometimes have to settle for the smaller fish wich is a plus because they eat better. Yes I do belive there are fewer fish than 20-30yrs ago, because in my short 32yrs ive seen it. I grew up fishing where the STAR rodeo fish was caught this past year. My family had a camp on the rigoletts for many years and i cut my teeth fishing that very same spot. I can also remember as a little man always catching fish when we went, and for the life of me I can not remember all the damn people fishing that are today. My father has a photo album of his father and uncle's and his three brothers with endless amounts of fish 30 plus years ago.
Maybe the change will be for the best, maybe not, but I feel the fishing is still exactly the same as it has been in the east for the last 10 yrs.

I'll leave it at this i have targeted Barataria bay a lot in the last 7-10 yrs, and witnessed the worst of the oil spills impact first hand every day for 120 days+, I was out there every day for a long time. Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagned the estuary and fishing to bounce back the way it did. I caught more fish last year out there than any other year in the last 10. The fish are healthy, and still taste good, and I still only have 3 legs
Please excuse me for the poor gramar this fith of crown reserve is making me feel funny Cheers!