- 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
re: Planned freshwater diversions will doom LA salt fishing
Posted on 3/27/13 at 1:54 pm to lsufishnhunt
Posted on 3/27/13 at 1:54 pm to lsufishnhunt
quote:
Didn't exactly answer my questions, but ok. I'm not sure how you can say that diversions destroy the balance needed for eggs/young to survive. The Caernarvon Diversion was opened in 1991, 22 years ago. There have been many life cycles of speckled trout during those 22 years. Year in/year out dozens of charter fisherman/shrimpers/oystermen make their living from the Reggio/Delacroix/Hopedale areas. Doesn't sound like the Caernarvon DIVERSION has destroyed any balance in the past 1/4 century.
This from a Ricks post on RnR:
Caernarvon was designed to adjust SALINITY levels to help the estuary and oyster production, and to help the environment, it wasn't designed to build land. It started operating in 1991 and until 1994 showed and improvement in oyster production and an increase in the trout and brown shrimp populations.
In 2009, the Corps of Engineers decided to modify the flow to make it a land building project, increasing the flow rates from and yearly average 0f 4000 cubic feet a second to 8000 cfs. That's when the problems really started. They changed the heartiness of the brackish water marsh soil to a completely weak freshwater soil. Not to mention, displacing brown shrimp and speckled trout at the prime time when they need the estuary to support the juvenile populations.
The first few years, they would pulse the freshwater in to mimmick what Mother Nature used to due in the spring when the river rose and overtopped the much lower levee system at the time. It was working to help the estuary. Now, they are destroying it!!!
According to information I have from the Dept. Of Interior, The Caernarvon-Delacroix area is considered a Resourse Category 2 Essential Fish Habitat. There may be some litigation the Corp. could face over the mis-management practices of the Caernarvon Diversion. Believe, me, Mike Lane and I are looking into it. There is the National Environmental Policy Act that states that if they harm the resources, they must "rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, and restore the affected environment".
4
Posted on 3/27/13 at 1:59 pm to Deege
Good luck. Even if the court order is in your favor and they are ordered to fix it they will want to design it themselves, then they will take forever and study it to death, then even if they do finally finish the design it will have a crazy price, and what's that? Oh they can't afford to build it...
But WAIT - the areas changed so much bc they took so long they have to start all over....
But WAIT - the areas changed so much bc they took so long they have to start all over....
Posted on 3/27/13 at 2:02 pm to eng08
Barges avoid sandbars for like 500 miles of the river. They avoid barges parked on the sides of the river. Why couldn't they avoid some pipes?
Maybe we are on different pages, but have you ever seen air pumped into any semi-solid or liquid? Have you ever sprayed your hose at dirt? That is exactly what I am talking about.
Pumping solids up is an energy intensive and inefficient thing to be doing. Why not let air or water do that for you?
I cam draw some more when I get home if you want a better idea of the implementation of it.
Maybe we are on different pages, but have you ever seen air pumped into any semi-solid or liquid? Have you ever sprayed your hose at dirt? That is exactly what I am talking about.
Pumping solids up is an energy intensive and inefficient thing to be doing. Why not let air or water do that for you?
I cam draw some more when I get home if you want a better idea of the implementation of it.
Posted on 3/27/13 at 2:05 pm to Deege
quote:
Caernarvon was designed to adjust SALINITY levels to help the estuary and oyster production, and to help the environment, it wasn't designed to build land. It started operating in 1991 and until 1994 showed and improvement in oyster production and an increase in the trout and brown shrimp populations.
In 2009, the Corps of Engineers decided to modify the flow to make it a land building project, increasing the flow rates from and yearly average 0f 4000 cubic feet a second to 8000 cfs. That's when the problems really started. They changed the heartiness of the brackish water marsh soil to a completely weak freshwater soil. Not to mention, displacing brown shrimp and speckled trout at the prime time when they need the estuary to support the juvenile populations.
The first few years, they would pulse the freshwater in to mimmick what Mother Nature used to due in the spring when the river rose and overtopped the much lower levee system at the time. It was working to help the estuary. Now, they are destroying it!!!
According to information I have from the Dept. Of Interior, The Caernarvon-Delacroix area is considered a Resourse Category 2 Essential Fish Habitat. There may be some litigation the Corp. could face over the mis-management practices of the Caernarvon Diversion. Believe, me, Mike Lane and I are looking into it. There is the National Environmental Policy Act that states that if they harm the resources, they must "rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, and restore the affected environment".
Ok, I'm not going to get in to whether everything you stated is correct or not, but assuming it is correct:
Isn't this attack on ALL diversions a little misguided? If it was indeed a mistake that the USACE made, shouldn't the blame be placed on them? Why attack a plan the the State has put together and assume that the same mistakes will be made again? From your previous post it sounds like you agree that, when operated correctly, diversions can prove to be valuable in the restoration process.
Posted on 3/27/13 at 2:07 pm to Hammertime
No I understand exactly what you are talking about, was just saying remember to have a small footprint (<edit) for whatever it is you suggest.
I did a senior design project using that method to move water from a treatment pond back into a bayou. Moved it and re-aerated it at the same time.
Might be a decent option, problem is you need to get the sediment to go where you want it, if all you want do is re-suspend they already do that in the river (edit2) with the current dredging.
Also you can suspend it but the flow won't keep it suspended unless its high.
Damn typing on phone...
I did a senior design project using that method to move water from a treatment pond back into a bayou. Moved it and re-aerated it at the same time.
Might be a decent option, problem is you need to get the sediment to go where you want it, if all you want do is re-suspend they already do that in the river (edit2) with the current dredging.
Also you can suspend it but the flow won't keep it suspended unless its high.
Damn typing on phone...
This post was edited on 3/27/13 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 3/27/13 at 2:11 pm to Deege
quote:
This from a Ricks post on RnR:
Who is this Rick you keep parroting?
Posted on 3/27/13 at 2:16 pm to lsufishnhunt
quote:
From your previous post it sounds like you agree that, when operated correctly, diversions can prove to be valuable in the restoration process.
Its my understanding that the future diversions will not have control structures.
Posted on 3/27/13 at 2:18 pm to eng08
Finding choke points and bends in the river isn't hard at all. That flow along with the re-suspension of oil sediment should be enough to pull it out. Obviously not 100% of it, but a decent amount for not that much cost compared to dredging
Correct me if I am wrong, but dredging and not removing sediment just creates problems down river. They are just gonna have to do it again where it stacks up.
Stirring up the bottom will significantly add to the sediment load in the river now. It's not like it doesn't have some sort of bottom.
Would be a good project, and it would be nice to see it through
I took some brain medicine earlier today, and it seems to be working. Normally I would've gotten a brain fart hours ago
Correct me if I am wrong, but dredging and not removing sediment just creates problems down river. They are just gonna have to do it again where it stacks up.
Stirring up the bottom will significantly add to the sediment load in the river now. It's not like it doesn't have some sort of bottom.
Would be a good project, and it would be nice to see it through
I took some brain medicine earlier today, and it seems to be working. Normally I would've gotten a brain fart hours ago
Posted on 3/27/13 at 2:19 pm to Jester
quote:
Yes, I will push back against Mike Lane and his band of merry selfish tards.
They are becoming obnoxious to the point where the fishing report part of the site is useless. I really loved when he posted the flow rates and posted how fast it would fill the superdome. The icing on the cake was the fact he had 2 engineers and 2 high school math teachers confirm it, lol. They are pushing scare tactics 100%.
Posted on 3/27/13 at 2:19 pm to Deege
There is some less than accurate information in his argument... for starters
The structure details from USGS
2010 - 3,160 cfs averaged annually
2011 - 1,400 cfs averaged annually
Today's Reading 1,250 cfs
And they base the Caernarvon operation on the salinity levels at the USGS Crocked Bayou guage and the Cow Bayou (I think) guage. They use one during the winter months and one during the summer months. They open and close it based on the salinity readings at those two guages down stream, it opens and closes throughout the year.
The structure details from USGS
2010 - 3,160 cfs averaged annually
2011 - 1,400 cfs averaged annually
Today's Reading 1,250 cfs
And they base the Caernarvon operation on the salinity levels at the USGS Crocked Bayou guage and the Cow Bayou (I think) guage. They use one during the winter months and one during the summer months. They open and close it based on the salinity readings at those two guages down stream, it opens and closes throughout the year.
Posted on 3/27/13 at 2:23 pm to Deege
quote:
Its my understanding that the future diversions will not have control structures
100% wrong. where are you getting your info
Posted on 3/27/13 at 2:37 pm to diplip
quote:
100% wrong. where are you getting your info
The highly biased posters of that other outdoor board. If you own an outdoor board, you must be an expert, right? I got my money on Chicken as next LSU AD
Posted on 3/27/13 at 2:38 pm to diplip
As someone with intimate knowledge of the Coastal Master Plan, its assembly, studies, and details, I can assure you all future diversions will be controlled.
Secondly, I am glad to see so many knowledgeable posters here accurately discussing thins like bed load capture importance and the infeasibitly of only dredging schemes due to cost.
Thirdly Deege, I would trust the several engineers and scientists in this thread in their judgements on future sediment diversions, they love the coast as much as you do. The worldwide scientific community is all in agreement here...I would trust them over a few local charter guides and the owner of a website.
I pose this question to the dredge-only strategy supporters every time and never get an answer:
let's say I want to build a million dollar house but I only have 25k. Should I A) invest the 25k in a vehicle that will make me a million in a few decades to build the house or B) should I just build one closet of the million dollar house immediately?
Our problem is the same. We only have a little money, which is not enough to dredge and rebuild the whole coast. We can blow it on a little expensive dredging that won't do much and will subside and erode since its not being replenished, or we can invest it in diversions that will build a land each year that will never go away since it is continually replenished.
Secondly, I am glad to see so many knowledgeable posters here accurately discussing thins like bed load capture importance and the infeasibitly of only dredging schemes due to cost.
Thirdly Deege, I would trust the several engineers and scientists in this thread in their judgements on future sediment diversions, they love the coast as much as you do. The worldwide scientific community is all in agreement here...I would trust them over a few local charter guides and the owner of a website.
I pose this question to the dredge-only strategy supporters every time and never get an answer:
let's say I want to build a million dollar house but I only have 25k. Should I A) invest the 25k in a vehicle that will make me a million in a few decades to build the house or B) should I just build one closet of the million dollar house immediately?
Our problem is the same. We only have a little money, which is not enough to dredge and rebuild the whole coast. We can blow it on a little expensive dredging that won't do much and will subside and erode since its not being replenished, or we can invest it in diversions that will build a land each year that will never go away since it is continually replenished.
This post was edited on 3/27/13 at 2:40 pm
Posted on 3/27/13 at 2:44 pm to Jester
Capt George Ricks, who is so single minded that he is using the sig "DREDGE DON'T DIVERT" on his novels he fills RNR with. He's a fishing guide in that area.
This is not a "single idea" fix. Diversions alone won't fix it, dredging alone won't fix it, killing nutria alone won't fix it. People need to get their heads out their asses.
This is not a "single idea" fix. Diversions alone won't fix it, dredging alone won't fix it, killing nutria alone won't fix it. People need to get their heads out their asses.
Posted on 3/27/13 at 2:46 pm to Deege
quote:You need to step back from RNR and listen/read some actual debate/discussion on the topic.
Its my understanding that the future diversions will not have control structures.
Posted on 3/27/13 at 2:49 pm to man in the stadium
quote:
Man in the stadium
I'm assuming you work in this area of topic?
Posted on 3/27/13 at 2:53 pm to man in the stadium
quote:
Secondly, I am glad to see so many knowledgeable posters here accurately discussing thins like bed load capture importance and the infeasibitly of only dredging schemes due to cost.
Ahmen!!!
Posted on 3/27/13 at 2:59 pm to diplip
quote:
quote:
Its my understanding that the future diversions will not have control structures
100% wrong. where are you getting your info
My bad, you are right, looks like all but one will have controls. Thats what I get for freelancing. Will try to stick to citing links and articles.
That's my intent, separate facts from fiction. Looks hard to do. So many of you are passionate about this from both sides.
Posted on 3/27/13 at 2:59 pm to jimbeam
I do as do apparently a number of other posters in this thread.
Posted on 3/27/13 at 3:00 pm to man in the stadium
Might see if you can hire me after college 
This post was edited on 3/27/13 at 3:01 pm
Page 6 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News