- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Thoughts on Diversions and the Coastal Master Plan
Posted on 6/6/16 at 10:59 pm
Posted on 6/6/16 at 10:59 pm
I'm confused and wondering what y'alls thoughts are on sediment diversions and the coastal master plan. Memorial Day weekend, I fished the East side of the river and saw "Stop the Diversion" signs, but then you see articles like this: LINK , or Mitch Landrieu's speech from the State of the Coast Conference last week that are pro diversion and master plan. What are y'all's thoughts and where are you fishing out of?
This post was edited on 6/6/16 at 11:13 pm
5
Posted on 6/6/16 at 11:04 pm to SportsmanParadise
The anti diversion crowd is mostly commercial fisherman. The oystermen might be leading the pack.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 12:11 am to SportsmanParadise
Based on my understanding.
Dredging can show immediate land gains, but is more expensive. Diversions will be slow to create land initially but will be more effective over time.
One concern is that the diversions will cause superficial land gain. One study, while controversial and questionable, showed that nitrogen enrichment to wetland plants will cause them to have reduced root depth making marshes more vulnerable.
Also diversions have the perceived risk of short term reductions in fisheries. But fisheries soon recover if affected at all.
One aspect against dredging is the possibility that dredged soil doesn't have the proper microbial and soil properties needed for effective marsh growth, while diversion sediment does.
tl:dr The Master Plan is good.
Dredging can show immediate land gains, but is more expensive. Diversions will be slow to create land initially but will be more effective over time.
One concern is that the diversions will cause superficial land gain. One study, while controversial and questionable, showed that nitrogen enrichment to wetland plants will cause them to have reduced root depth making marshes more vulnerable.
Also diversions have the perceived risk of short term reductions in fisheries. But fisheries soon recover if affected at all.
One aspect against dredging is the possibility that dredged soil doesn't have the proper microbial and soil properties needed for effective marsh growth, while diversion sediment does.
tl:dr The Master Plan is good.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 12:46 am to SportsmanParadise
It is important to distinguish that there are two types of diversions currently in Louisiana: freshwater diversions like Caernarvon, Maurepas and Davis Pond and sediment diversions such as Pass a Loutre, Barataria and Breton. Freshwater diversions were never designed to build land, only to decrease salinity in areas that were historically freshwater. Critics use examples like MRGO to claim that diversions failed when they were never enacted to build land (straw man.) For the sake of rebuilding wetlands as it relates to the Master Plan I'll give you a little insight on sediment diversions.
Sediment diversions are our main weapon to begin rebuilding land that has subsided over the last few centuries. Historically, floods would happen, rivers would breach their banks, and water full of sediments (floodwaters carry higher sediment loads than normal flows) and silt would slowly spread out dropping their sediment to create new land. Since building the levee system after the flood of 1927, we have channelized the Mississippi rivers flow to the point that we capture almost zero of the available sediment, which is instead deposited off of the coastal shelf. Diversions try to capture the sediment present in those high water situations. Levees would be strategically altered to allow water to "breach" the levee (through crevasses) in a way that very much simulates floodwaters naturally breaching river banks, but only during times of high water when sediment loads are highest.
I am absolutely 100% pro diversion, the majority of people you find that oppose diversions are oysterman as Barf said. Areas that were historically freshwater have turned into more estuarine (for a number of reasons but the easiest to categorize it under being relative sea rise), allowing the cultivation of oysters in areas that would not have happened even 50 years ago. As a result, oyster farmers would have to move their current fishing grounds further away from the main land and that of course will come with its own issues as far as how the oyster farmers divvy up who is able to fish where.
I've armed myself with my fair share of knowledge on the subject of diversions and the truth is that there really is no way to oppose them if you look at what they can accomplish in relatively short amounts of time (Pass a Loutre converted over 100 acres of open water to marsh in under 10 years). Its a topic I'm quite passionate about and would love to discuss, I've not been exposed to very many people that are outright against diversions.
As an aside, here is a website I made with some info on diversions and a small survey from when I was studying them a few years ago:
LINK
Its rudimentary but can be informative for someone just starting to learn about diversions.
TL,DR : Diversions will save Louisiana's coast if we give them a chance.
Sediment diversions are our main weapon to begin rebuilding land that has subsided over the last few centuries. Historically, floods would happen, rivers would breach their banks, and water full of sediments (floodwaters carry higher sediment loads than normal flows) and silt would slowly spread out dropping their sediment to create new land. Since building the levee system after the flood of 1927, we have channelized the Mississippi rivers flow to the point that we capture almost zero of the available sediment, which is instead deposited off of the coastal shelf. Diversions try to capture the sediment present in those high water situations. Levees would be strategically altered to allow water to "breach" the levee (through crevasses) in a way that very much simulates floodwaters naturally breaching river banks, but only during times of high water when sediment loads are highest.
I am absolutely 100% pro diversion, the majority of people you find that oppose diversions are oysterman as Barf said. Areas that were historically freshwater have turned into more estuarine (for a number of reasons but the easiest to categorize it under being relative sea rise), allowing the cultivation of oysters in areas that would not have happened even 50 years ago. As a result, oyster farmers would have to move their current fishing grounds further away from the main land and that of course will come with its own issues as far as how the oyster farmers divvy up who is able to fish where.
I've armed myself with my fair share of knowledge on the subject of diversions and the truth is that there really is no way to oppose them if you look at what they can accomplish in relatively short amounts of time (Pass a Loutre converted over 100 acres of open water to marsh in under 10 years). Its a topic I'm quite passionate about and would love to discuss, I've not been exposed to very many people that are outright against diversions.
As an aside, here is a website I made with some info on diversions and a small survey from when I was studying them a few years ago:
LINK
Its rudimentary but can be informative for someone just starting to learn about diversions.
TL,DR : Diversions will save Louisiana's coast if we give them a chance.
This post was edited on 6/7/16 at 12:48 am
Posted on 6/7/16 at 5:49 am to MrBobDobalina
Well written. 
I also have been curious for quite some time if the diversion of some or most of the nitrogen rich sediment that flows out of the mouth of the Mississippi due to channelization would aid in reducing the dead zone in that area.
That may be a little too simplistic a view but it seems like it would help a little.
I also have been curious for quite some time if the diversion of some or most of the nitrogen rich sediment that flows out of the mouth of the Mississippi due to channelization would aid in reducing the dead zone in that area.
That may be a little too simplistic a view but it seems like it would help a little.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 6:53 am to Barf
quote:
The anti diversion crowd is mostly commercial fisherman. The oystermen might be leading the pack.
Living out of state so I don't get a lot of info anymore, but are these diversions ever going to happen?
Posted on 6/7/16 at 6:56 am to MrBobDobalina
Definitely pro diversion etc.... If they don't do something soon places like Reggio, Delacroix and hopedale will be one big bay. It is amazing to see the land loss in Reggio over the last 10 years. Places 5 years ago where you could barely pass a pirogue through can now be passed in a 22 ft bay boat if needed. Places where duck blinds were built on the edge of a pond on land and now 15ft off the bank if not more.
Talking with people down there lends itself to believe it's the oyster fisherman leading the charge as others have said. Basically, they don't want to have to move the beds farther out to where they were years ago. The crabbers, shrimpers etc are all on the anti train. It's them against the world and no one cares about them. My argument to them in the places I've mentioned is what they hell are they going to do when the duck hunting alone gets so bad that the area loses all of that money coming in during the winter months? Who keeps the last stop open during the winter? The locals buying cigs and a 22oz or the hunters/fishermen buying food, beer, ice etc every morning, noon and evening?
Again... I'm concentrating on that area b/c that's where we hunt and fish a good bit and have for years now and it disappoints me that it's withering away b/c just like the rest of this county is going everyone has to cater to the one person who gets upset about something they don't agree with..
Welp, 10 oyster fishermen say they can't afford to move their beds and the gas cost too much. Guess we can't try to save an entire Eco system and the local economy cause everyone has to be happy. I'd put good money on one of those guys saying frick it, I'll buy everyone out and starts to make real good money if the others don't want to put in the work.
Talking with people down there lends itself to believe it's the oyster fisherman leading the charge as others have said. Basically, they don't want to have to move the beds farther out to where they were years ago. The crabbers, shrimpers etc are all on the anti train. It's them against the world and no one cares about them. My argument to them in the places I've mentioned is what they hell are they going to do when the duck hunting alone gets so bad that the area loses all of that money coming in during the winter months? Who keeps the last stop open during the winter? The locals buying cigs and a 22oz or the hunters/fishermen buying food, beer, ice etc every morning, noon and evening?
Again... I'm concentrating on that area b/c that's where we hunt and fish a good bit and have for years now and it disappoints me that it's withering away b/c just like the rest of this county is going everyone has to cater to the one person who gets upset about something they don't agree with..
Welp, 10 oyster fishermen say they can't afford to move their beds and the gas cost too much. Guess we can't try to save an entire Eco system and the local economy cause everyone has to be happy. I'd put good money on one of those guys saying frick it, I'll buy everyone out and starts to make real good money if the others don't want to put in the work.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 7:18 am to KamaCausey_LSU
Wax Lake outlet looks to be a good model for a diversion that is making land.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 7:36 am to MrBobDobalina
all one has to do is look to the quality of the estuaries where diversions be it man made or nature made(like mardi gras cut) and compare to places with NO diversion to see the answer.
restore some of the historic flows of the ms river now.. or watch us wash and sink away
restore some of the historic flows of the ms river now.. or watch us wash and sink away
Posted on 6/7/16 at 8:15 am to MrBobDobalina
quote:
MrBobDobalina
Well said!
I've said before, but if you want another case study launch your boat at Delta Marina in Empire. Lock through and head east across the river to see where there is some natural river influence on the marsh, mimicking sediment diversions. Take a note of the terrestrial and aquatic vegetation, the species of birds and other wildlife you see. Then head back west, lock back through, and run around Empire marsh, make the same mental notes of the flora and fauna on the west side.
West side has zero river influence, east has plenty... the contrast mind blowimg.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 8:23 am to SportsmanParadise
As a side note. The state made an serious mistake in not factoring in or addressing the socioeconomic impact the diversions would have. They failed to see it or failed to educate those it would affect. They were all about the science of the project and did not seem (on the outside) to take into account the potential change in lifestyle it would have on some. I.e. oyster fisherman
Posted on 6/7/16 at 8:25 am to Dock Holiday
Crazy to think that it wasn't taken into account.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 8:52 am to Barf
The oystermen might be leading the pack.
This
This
This post was edited on 6/7/16 at 8:52 am
Posted on 6/7/16 at 9:07 am to MrBobDobalina
quote:
MrBobDobalina
quote:
I am absolutely 100% pro diversion, the majority of people you find that oppose diversions are oysterman as Barf said.
Something about this made me laugh my arse off. A very well written, eloquent sentiment about a complex engineering topic...just as Barf said.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 9:13 am to Dock Holiday
quote:
They were all about the science of the project and did not seem (on the outside) to take into account the potential change in lifestyle it would have on some. I.e. oyster fisherman
To be fair, they are harvesting oysters from areas that wouldn't have oysters if it were not for saltwater intrusion. Is it really the states responsibility to educate fisherman on their own fishery? What motivation does the state have to inform people of something they already know? The diversions are happening regardless, it's not like we can have restoration and keep the oystermen happy at the same time. It's bad enough that oyster boats can come onto public land and harvest undersized oysters to seed their private beds, now we have to take their feelings into account every time a restoration project is implemented?
Posted on 6/7/16 at 9:24 am to sloopy
quote:
Crazy to think that it wasn't taken into account.
It was taken into account, it just didn't change anything. The oystermen already sued for BILLIONS so there really is no point in even entertaining the conversation. The alternative would be to only put diversions in places that wouldn't affect commercial fishing and to focus on dredging. The issue with dredging is where you dump the material. Who's property gets the dredged material, your property? But what abut my property? See the problem?
Or, we could just let things continue the way they are currently going. Pretty soon we will be fishing redfish and harvesting oysters in Lake Maurepas.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 9:27 am to Barf
quote:
Or, we could just let things continue the way they are currently going. Pretty soon we will be fishing redfish and harvesting oysters in Lake Maurepas.
Sadly, I believe this will be the outcome.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 9:31 am to KamaCausey_LSU
quote:
One aspect against dredging is the possibility that dredged soil doesn't have the proper microbial and soil properties needed for effective marsh growth, while diversion sediment does.
I don't agree with this. If the sediment for dredging is coming from the river, why wouldn't the soil be able to create effective marsh growth?
I've seen a bunch of dredging projects create a lot of land south of Venice (some of it on my family's land). The marsh grows up nice and in a few years fills up with willow trees, brush, mangrove trees,etc on the higher land and along the edges you get marsh grass (fly grass, cut grass, Roseau canes,etc.).
I'm for both dredging and diversion. I've seen it work south of Venice. Just wish they would do more of it all over the state.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 9:33 am to JasonL79
quote:
I've seen a bunch of dredging projects create a lot of land south of Venice (some of it on my family's land)
Therein lies the rub.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 9:39 am to Barf
quote:
Therein lies the rub.
What is that supposed to mean?
Also, I notice someone is down voting most of our posts.
Page 1 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News