# Roll Overpass



## BullyARed (Jun 19, 2010)

Got this email.







 Dear GCA Member: 
Rollover Pass property is in danger of being taken by Galveston County. Galveston County Judge and Commissioners will soon be deciding to vote on using their eminent domain authority to take the property away from the landowner, Gulf Coast Rod Reel and Gun Club.​ ​ As President of the Gilchrist Community Association, (we are the caretaker of Rollover Pass), we need a large number of people to go to the Commissioner Court on Tuesday, January 19th at 1:30 and take up to three minutes to say something to these people about why you don't want them to take the land for the Texas Land Office and close the Pass; (Commissioner George P. Bush).​ ​ If you can't make it, please get someone else to go in your place. Spread this message to all that you know. This is our chance to show Galveston County what we want! We all need to speak up and loudly, if you want the Pass to stay open. This may be our last opportunity to voice our opinion to keep Rollover Pass, an historical landmark, open for ALL to enjoy!!! ​ ​ Thank you,
​ Ted Vega​ Pres. Gilchrist Community Assoc.​ 713 545 6846​ [email protected]​ ​ Date: January 19th 2016​ Time: 1:30 p.m. (come at 1:15 meet me outside of the courthouse I will have a rollover staff shirt on)​ Location: 722 Moody St. Galveston, Texas 77550​ ​  follow on Twitter | friend on Facebook | forward to a friend ​
 _Copyright Â© 2016 Gilchrist Community Association, All rights reserved._ 
You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website or filled in a membership application requesting to be informed of news concerning Rollover Pass and the Bolivar Peninsula. 
*Our mailing address is:* 
Gilchrist Community AssociationPO Box 186
High Island, TX 77623

​


----------



## Swampus (Sep 1, 2005)

I will if I can!

Can't believe no post responses!! 

Hope it stays open.


----------



## SolarScreenGuy (Aug 15, 2005)

Many on this board have posted their opinions on the proposed closing of R.O.P. Seemingly, there are more who favor the closing than those who oppose. I happen to be one of the minority. I've learned that once someone has made up their mind on an issue such as this, there is no way to change them. This action will require the use of eminent domain to take the property from the rightful owners and it sounds like they are just about to do so. 
In spite of the fact that the studies used to justify the closing were proven to be flawed (to say the least), there seems to be a frenzy of desire to close this pass and the people and agencies who are behind it have the upper hand. Nothing short of a massive protest coupled with lots of media coverage and complete scientific data will stop this action. 
Aside from all the other reasons I oppose the closing, I don't like the idea of using eminent domain against property owners unless it is absolutely necessary. This one is not only unnecessary, it's government gone wild.
Give it a couple years after the closing and there will be a groundswell of people calling for the re-opening.

www.solarscreenguys.com


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

You should know who you are dealing with. The engineering firm they got (from Florida) is a hired gun for government projects. It's not surprising to me that the study came out exactly like the GLO wanted it to.

The founder of Taylor Engineering had been an exec with Tetra Tech. (Before they were TetraTech, they were reportedly International Technology, who got something like $300M from the government and then filed bankruptcy.) They were some sort of water cleanup company, then they became "experts" on damaged buildings after 9/11, then they became some sort of private bomb squad.

Bottom line, they're really good at giving the government whatever they want, in exchange for a lot of money. It's not the same company, but they've got TetraTech fingerprints all over them. Did I mention that it doesn't surprise me that the study came out the way the GLO wanted it to?


I honestly don't know what would be best to do with the pass. But I don't trust these people, and I don't like it when the deck is stacked by the government.


----------



## kickingback (Dec 20, 2013)

When the salinity and fish declination begin in the bay behind the pass if they close it I will be the first to laugh at their faces. Their "new" public project forecasted for that site will be a joke for years to come. Only stories will be told about the location of days past and fishing with family and friends. 
I would NEVER go there to visit ever in protest. Maybe they will get the idea after enough people avoid the area like the plague and the local anglers cuss them up and down for the stealing of this historic site.


----------



## irbjd (Aug 11, 2005)

I'm uneducated on the issue: How exactly is eminent domain being used to take private property in connection with closing ROP?


----------



## kickingback (Dec 20, 2013)

Do a search in here for "Rollover Pass" and read the posts in a few of the threads. There is some good information in them about how and why they are doing it along with court documents I think.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

It's the only way the state level bureaucrats can take over the Pass. 

They have to convince / coerce the county judge to condemn the property and then declare ED to take it over.

My question is "what are they condemning?...the sand?"

It's backroom, dirty politics to get what they, legally, don't have a right to possess.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

We are pretty much beating a dead horse as this topic has been gone over and over. I understand both sides of the argument.

The pass never should have been dredged in the first place and clearly has done more harm than good. It's bad for the reef, the marsh, flora and fauna in the East Bay ecosystem. It has caused beach erosion and transported an enormous amount of sand from the beach into the bay costing the taxpayer millions every year.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Yeah...EB is complete devoid of life and all of BP is gone because of ROP


----------



## capt.dave (Jan 3, 2007)

irbjd said:


> I'm uneducated on the issue: How exactly is eminent domain being used to take private property in connection with closing ROP?


From what I understand, if the pass is filled in, the land would be turned back over to the owner. So, using the term eminent domain is misleading as the government is not seizing anyone's property for public use. It's almost the opposite.

Now, does the Gov't have the right to come in and fill in the pass? Well, that's up for debate.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

If you got enough money and friends in high position you can do "whatever you want"


----------



## irbjd (Aug 11, 2005)

capt.dave said:


> From what I understand, if the pass is filled in, the land would be turned back over to the owner. So, using the term eminent domain is misleading as the government is not seizing anyone's property for public use. It's almost the opposite.
> 
> Now, does the Gov't have the right to come in and fill in the pass? Well, that's up for debate.


So the ROP proponents are upset the government isn't going to continue to dredge land they assert is private property?


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

COE doesn't dredge ROP...They cleaned it once following IKE to remove the cars and appliances


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

irbjd said:


> So the ROP proponents are upset the government isn't going to continue to dredge land they assert is private property?


No, they are claiming that ICW sils in because of Rollover. So they dredge the ICW not Rollover.

I will try to go, it is really a unique fishing location and gives a lot of people access that otherwise would not be able to enjoy fishing. Also by agreeing with the state then you are agreeing for them to take private property without the owners consent.

I have said before I know how good the East Bay fishing is with Rollover open, I am not sure if I want to "find out" if it is just as good closed.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

jampen said:


> It's the only way the state level bureaucrats can take over the Pass.
> 
> They have to convince / coerce the county judge to condemn the property and then declare ED to take it over.
> 
> ...


It is a very dirty deal. There are nasty politics that go much deeper than we probably know.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

No doubt promises of higher office have been made. 

If it goes through it will be interesting to see where the careers of the "Honorable" Mark Henry and Commissioners Dennard and O'Brian takes them


----------



## SKIPJACKSLAYER (Nov 19, 2013)

So why exactly do they want the pass closed? What is the sole motive of doing this?


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Get rid of that bridge that the county and state didn want to pay to rebuild after Ike and keep out the riff raff


----------



## 9121SS (Jun 28, 2009)

I lived in Gilchrist for 5 years back in my 20's. I have many memories there at the pass. Sadly their mind is made up. No matter the turn out at this meeting, nothing will change. The state has filed eminent domain on my home for the hwy 249 toll road. Been fighting this for two years with no results. There's about ten thousand acres that backs up to me. They refuse to bypass the 10 homes that will be removed for their project. If they want it, it's as good as gone.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Lots of bad info on here. There are many reasons for the closing of the pass but the main being the cost to constantly dredge the sand from the ICW that constantly pours through Rollover from the the Bolivar beaches.

Then there is the fact that the pass has altered the salinity levels of the bay and caused a loss in reef, marsh and underwater grasses.

It's what happen's when man decides he knows better than God and try's to improve on his plan.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

If you believe that God has a plan, then you must believe that it was His plan to build ROP

Now I wonder who is really behind closure efforts


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

jampen said:


> If you believe that God has a plan, then you must believe that it was His plan to build ROP
> 
> Now I wonder who is really behind closure efforts


Jampen,

Facts are facts. The opening of the pass has had negative effects on the reef, marsh, marine grass and beaches in East Bay. Then there is the continued cost to the taxpayer in the form of dredging.

As far as who is behind it? There is no conspiracy, no evil figure in the shadows making a fortune by closing the pass. Government agencies are acting in the best interests of the taxpayer.

It's done more harm than good.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Sure it has.

Just like Sabine, San Luis, Aransas and every other pass (including the new ones that people have paid BIG bucks to reopen) have completely destroyed the fishing and bays all along the coast. Pfft


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

jampen said:


> Sure it has.
> 
> Just like Sabine, San Luis, Aransas and every other pass (including the new ones that people have paid BIG bucks to reopen) have completely destroyed the fishing and bays all along the coast. Pfft


None of those passes were opened in the upper reaches of a bay. You do understand that their is a big difference between upper bays and lower bays?

No I guess you don't.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Like I said originally. 

There are no more, not 1 single fish left in EB. Especially no flounder, no trout and no redfish. And bait...Lord forget about bait...it's all gone, along with the oysters. 

A 100 square mile bay completely devastated and ruined by a 200' wide fish pass. They may as well drain EB and use it for pasture land.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Guess who else seized land from private owners

































Good company


----------



## irbjd (Aug 11, 2005)

I still don't understand how eminent domain is being used.


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

Its Catchy said:


> Lots of bad info on here. There are many reasons for the closing of the pass but the main being the cost to constantly dredge the sand from the ICW that constantly pours through Rollover from the the Bolivar beaches.
> 
> Then there is the fact that the pass has altered the salinity levels of the bay and caused a loss in reef, marsh and underwater grasses.
> 
> It's what happen's when man decides he knows better than God and try's to improve on his plan.


(I know my responses sometimes sound harsh. It's not my intent - especially this time. I just want to make some straightforward points for you and others to consider. You can disagree afterward, and we don't have to fight about it.)

Hopefully you acknowledge that the ICW, itself, is man-made and not part of God's plan. Unless you're suggesting that we ought to fill it back in, too? I think we're given the ability to modify our environment for a reason - our job is to be responsible about it. Just saying that it's not automatically "wrong" to dredge a channel.

Most people have a really bad habit of equating proximity with causality. eg - "Every time the wind is blowing, I don't catch fish - therefore wind makes fish stop biting". It happens so much they gave it a name - Post Hoc Argument. So the bay has declined in the 65 years since the pass was dredged? Really? Here's the thing - every body of water in Texas has declined in the 65 years since Rollover Pass was dredged. Maybe not in identical ways, but nothing is "like it used to be". And one thing is certain: none of the decline in those other bays could possibly have been caused by Rollover Pass. So I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that a lot of the decline in Rollover and East Bays would have occurred anyway.

So the question is - did the "study" take that into account? Or did they find a way to support an already-reached conclusion? See, I am an unapologetic believer in God. But I also believe that the only way to study His works objectively, is with a scientific approach. My observation is that many studies these days are agenda-driven, not science-driven. When everyone involved knows that it can only come out one way (or that it NEEDS to come out one way for them to get paid)... well, it tends to come out that way.

Last thing. People love to use the word "conspiracy" to invalidate someone else's argument. Note that I didn't say conspiracy. But there is often an agenda that the general public doesn't know about. The engineering firm who did this study, I don't trust. And when there are millions and millions of dollars involved, there are always people willing to cheat to get their hands on a share of it. Everyone insisted that the government lotteries could never be corrupted. But we recently learned differently. Large chunks of money make people get very... creative.

There are plenty of people I trust - but not these people. If they said to keep the pass open, I would question it. Just because of who and what they are.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Eminent domain has been used to build just about every road, highway, school and public park for years and years.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

Its Catchy said:


> Jampen,
> 
> Facts are facts. The opening of the pass has had negative effects on the reef, marsh, marine grass and beaches in East Bay. Then there is the continued cost to the taxpayer in the form of dredging.
> 
> ...


Cutting off freshwater flows and damning rivers played no part in that either right? Fertilizer run off and flood silt also not factoring in your results? There are alot more changes that have taken place since 1955 than just Rollover pass.

Why don't we fill in the ICW while we are at it because I think that might play a larger role in the changes to the bay and the beaches up and down the coast.

I know right now that I have enjoyed great fishing all over East Bay (From the channel to Rollover Bay and everywhere between) that is with the pass just the way it is. I honestly am not convinced that the fishing in East Bay could be improved at all. I like it just the way it is right now, don't mess it up.

Also I hate to burst your bubble but they will be dredging the ICW long after they close Rollover.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

pocjetty,

In debates like this it is OK to disagree. I think if you take the time to look at aerial photographs of the bay, read the literature, leave out emotion and look at the facts the conclusions are clear.

Rollover has changed the salinity of the bay.
It has caused beach erosion. We know where the sand is coming from (bolivar beaches)
Oyster reefs have declined
Marsh has been diminished
Marine grass has vanished
It's costing the taxpayer millions in dredging costs

What makes it particularly destructive is the location of the pass in relationship to East Bay's geography. The pass allows saltwater to enter and freshwater to leave at the head of the bay that for thousands of years was brackish estuary.

What would you expect to happen to the ecology of say Clear Lake, Lake Anahuac or any other brackish body of water if you dug a 100'W x 10' deep channel straight from the gulf into it?

Yes fishing has declined in just about every body of water on the coast. This is our chance to try and turn it around.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

fishinguy said:


> Cutting off freshwater flows and damning rivers played no part in that either right? Fertilizer run off and flood silt also not factoring in your results? There are alot more changes that have taken place since 1955 than just Rollover pass.
> 
> Why don't we fill in the ICW while we are at it because I think that might play a larger role in the changes to the bay and the beaches up and down the coast.
> 
> ...


Fishingguy,

Cutting off freshwater flows and damning rivers has played a huge roll. Closing Rollover will not be magic pixie dust that will fix everything. But it will help.

And yes they will still have to dredge the ICW. Just not nearly as often.


----------



## bowmansdad (Nov 29, 2011)

Hurricanes since Carla in 1962 have caused more beach erosion, changed the contours of the bay's and marshes, vegetation loss and sanding up the ICW than ROP does.
The last hurricane killed countless acres of marsh and pushed salt water miles up the rivers.
I would hate to see what shape our bays would be in if ROP wasn't there. Thank goodness it is the only outlet that affects the salinity of our bays, so say the reports and neigh sayers,
I'm betting Rollover Bay wouldn't be a "brackish estuary" now but a saltwater bay.
Fishing is just as good today as it was before ROP, lots more fisherman and fish caught. The major effect on fishing is those killer freezes we are subject to getting this time of year, TP&W is stocking which should help the fish rebound faster from the next freeze.
I hope they keep the pass open for its easy access to a good fishing hole for all. 

I respect everyone's opinions and this is mine based on personal experience , which reflects on my age. 

Food for thought: Who on here has seen what Rollover Bay looked like before and after Hurricane Carla? I have.


----------



## kickingback (Dec 20, 2013)

God created the earth. Mother Nature shapes her. We intervene but do not think it out in the long run on how to HELP mother nature transition the area we man-made.
It can be done BUT there needs to be research and studies done BEFORE change is set in motion. 
It will save a lot of time and money in the long run.
The earth always "heals" and "grows". If man wants to keep the pass they need to do a study like extending the east jetty at the pass to deflect the sand from flowing into the pass. A longer extending jetty deflects the sand to the west shore around the pass. Yes, some sand would still get in but it will help mother nature "heal" that area until it gets set in her way like God wants. 
Think about it, we are no match for the forces of the nature. It will decide how the earth will be at any given time or place. We just try to mold it to suit our needs. 
It can be done but research will tell.

I want the pass to stay open BUT I want studies and research done to see how it will effect the area for future generations. If we can put a man on the moon I think we can find a solution for all to be satisfied before we spend more money.


----------



## had2reg (Aug 25, 2005)

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/n...existed-a-long-time-before-the-cut-747111.php

According to this article, there was a natural pass at Rollover before it was dug deeper in 1955.

' Stanford's hand-drawn map is from 1885, and it clearly shows Rollover Pass with a line at the place name bisecting the Bolivar Peninsula between the Gulf and East Bay. ..... "Rollover is natural. All they did was dig it deeper, block it in and put a bridge over it," '


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

had2reg said:


> http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/n...existed-a-long-time-before-the-cut-747111.php
> 
> According to this article, there was a natural pass at Rollover before it was dug deeper in 1955.
> 
> ' Stanford's hand-drawn map is from 1885, and it clearly shows Rollover Pass with a line at the place name bisecting the Bolivar Peninsula between the Gulf and East Bay. ..... "Rollover is natural. All they did was dig it deeper, block it in and put a bridge over it," '


Maybe in storm tides but not an everyday pass like we have now. Legend has it that "Rollover" got its name during prohibition when bootleggers would take advantage of the short proximity from the Gulf of Mexico and East Bay. The story goes the rumrunners would offload barrels of whiskey from the bigger sea going ships on the gulf side and "roll the barrels of whiskey" over the peninsula to smaller bay boats that would bootleg it into Galveston and Houston.

I don't know if it is true but it makes sense.


----------



## had2reg (Aug 25, 2005)

*A Natural Rollover Pass Existed before 1955*

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hlg15

Texas State Historical Association's "The Handbook of Texas" states

' Rollover Pass was a natural pass that had been closed until 1955 '

From the histories and personal accounts, Rollover Pass existed in some form before 1955. Like most of you, I was not born yet in 1955 so I have to rely on what I have read. I am sure Rollover Pass has experienced many changes over its lifetime before the widening in 1955. At times, open enough to navigate small boats between the gulf and bay. At other times, dry and closed up.

Is there any 2coolers old enough to have personal memories of Rollover Pass before the 1950's?


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

had2reg,

I have seen old aerial photographs and it's dry ground prior to 1955 unless there was a storm in the gulf and a 3'+ high tide.


----------



## kickingback (Dec 20, 2013)

I read an article where they found a map from the 1880''s and it shows a "pass" or channel at rollover pass. It clearly showed the channel there. Supposedly they just dug it deeper and wider and it is what it is today.
The ICW is not natural but we maintain it for a reason. There has to be a way to maintain rollover if they put their heads together.

You are right about the rum runners. But from what I read they were not bootlegers but sea merchants delivering rum and they used the shortest land mass from gulf to bay and it happened to be at rollover pass. They would roll the barrels over the pass and load them on boats in the bay and bring to shore since there was not a major waterway for ships back in the day.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

How far is Baffin Bay from a major pass ? Lot's of big fat trout caught in Baffin year in & year out.

I can't understand why people think closing Rollover will be the death of East Bay. Come on Man !!!!!


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

The single biggest threat to our bays is enough freshwater to maintain the balance required for our estuaries.

Yet there are those who believe a saltwater superhighway straight from the Gulf to the upper reaches of East Bay "aint doing no harm"?

Come on Man!!!!

And cigarettes are good for you! Rollover is the equivalent of a two pack a day habit for East Bay

http://texaslivingwaters.org/wp-content/uploads/2004/10/bays-in-peril_report.pdf


----------



## had2reg (Aug 25, 2005)

Its Catchy said:


> had2reg,
> 
> I have seen old aerial photographs and it's dry ground prior to 1955 unless there was a storm in the gulf and a 3'+ high tide.


Can you post these photographs please? What years were the photographs from?

And yes. Storms and floods can cut passes; and, passes can be silted in over time.

Since aerial photographs is a very recent thing geologically speaking. I do not believes that photographs proves that Rollover Pass did not ever exist naturally.

There is a map, personal accounts and histories supporting at some point in time ,predating 1955, Rollover Pass existed as a natural pass connecting the bay to the gulf.


----------



## mchildress (Jul 11, 2009)

had2reg said:


> Can you post these photographs please? What years were the photographs from?
> 
> And yes. Storms and floods can cut passes; and, passes can be silted in over time.
> 
> ...


http://texascoastgeology.com/passes/rollover.html


----------



## had2reg (Aug 25, 2005)

mchildress said:


> http://texascoastgeology.com/passes/rollover.html


The earliest photograph I found from the link you provided was taken in 1961.

What I find remarkable is the little change in the Rollover Pass' photograph from 1961 to the Rollover Pass' 2011 photograph despite experiencing major hurricanes Carla and Ike over that time.

Please post the pre-1955 photographs Its Catchy mentioned showing 'dry ground' and no Rollover Pass.


----------



## WLShafor (Jul 26, 2014)

This!!!



jampen said:


> Guess who else seized land from private owners
> 
> View attachment 2715554
> 
> ...


I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.

-Thomas A. Edison


----------



## had2reg (Aug 25, 2005)

*Rollover Future Plans*









I have seen this plan for the revisal of Rollover if the pass remains open.

Has anyone seen a plan for the proposed pier(s) if the pass is closed?

Read this please.
http://www.crystalbeachlocalnews.com/keep-rollover-pass-open/


----------



## monkeyman1 (Dec 30, 2007)

I guess I'll never understand how the federal government attained the authority to use eminent domain to acquire private or state property without the approval of the states.

The constitution and Bill of Rights was all about limiting the power of the Feds. The Feds have picked away at the wall so long that it has become the norm for them to take land that they have no constitutional authority to take.

The Feds own 640 million acres of land in the US. This concerns me more than the fate of ROP.


Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus purchased selling eggs.


----------



## mchildress (Jul 11, 2009)

Here is a 1879 map. Can blow up pretty interesting. http://www.texmaps.com/galveston-bay-1879.html


----------



## had2reg (Aug 25, 2005)

mchildress said:


> Here is a 1879 map. Can blow up pretty interesting. http://www.texmaps.com/galveston-bay-1879.html


Interesting map. The Rollover area topography shows something. Maybe a low swampy or tidal area. A legend of topographical symbols used are not provided on the map.

And who knew Lake Anahuac is really Turtle Bay?


----------



## fritz423 (Jul 4, 2015)

So help a brother understand this. I will likely never fish ROP, so no dog in the race.

But people raised all kinds of hell to get Cedar Bayou opened; people seemed to think that was good.

Now closing Rollover Pass is supposed to be good. Why different arguments for two similar situations?

EDIT: I measured the distance from each of these to the center of the closest pass. Almost exactly 20 miles for each.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

fritz423 said:


> So help a brother understand this. I will likely never fish ROP, so no dog in the race.
> 
> But people raised all kinds of hell to get Cedar Bayou opened; people seemed to think that was good.
> 
> ...


Fritz,

To get a full grasp on why one is a good thing (Cedar Bayou) and the other a bad thing (Rollover) you have to understand the difference between upper bay and lower bay ecology.

Upper bays is where fresh water mixes from rivers, creeks and bayous. It provides the brackish estuary that is crucial to the development shrimp, crab, shellfish, marsh and marine grasses. Without it our bays suffer.

The problem with Rollover is it allows saltwater to pour into the upper reaches of East Bay that were historically brackish estuary.

Just as important but for different reasons is the flow of water from the gulf into the lower bays. The incoming and outgoing tides bring a migration of shrimp, fish and crab larvae to and fro.

The problem with Rollover is it circumvents mother natures plan of a gentle mixing and allows salty gulf water direct access to an area that once was brackish estuary.


----------



## Worm Drowner (Sep 9, 2010)

The thing that has always made me wonder about the whole ROP question is that there are millions more people in the area than there was when the pass was created. It would seem that there is now much more freshwater runoff (cement doesn't absorb water!) than there was 50-60 years ago. Would this not be a factor in analyzing closing vs keeping it open? I really don't know the answer and I don't fish the area very often.


----------



## Brian Castille (May 27, 2004)

Worm Drowner said:


> The thing that has always made me wonder about the whole ROP question is that there are millions more people in the area than there was when the pass was created. It would seem that there is now much more freshwater runoff (cement doesn't absorb water!) than there was 50-60 years ago. Would this not be a factor in analyzing closing vs keeping it open? I really don't know the answer and I don't fish the area very often.


Cement actually does absorb water - if you mix the two together with sand, you get mortar. Mix them with aggregate and you get concrete. Hehe.


----------



## Brian Castille (May 27, 2004)

mchildress said:


> Here is a 1879 map. Can blow up pretty interesting. http://www.texmaps.com/galveston-bay-1879.html


Very cool.

They have other maps on there too. Interesting that Rollover is not shown as a pass in the 1852, 1856, 1879 nor 1908 map.

I assume those maps are legitimate anyway.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Rollover was not a pass until 1955. It was a low spot on the peninsula.

As for there being more concrete? Yes but too much of it was poured in the form of Dams forming huge freshwater lakes, restricting the flow to the bays.


----------



## Brian Castille (May 27, 2004)

Its Catchy said:


> Rollover was not a pass until 1955. It was a low spot on the peninsula.


Aren't there some arguing that the pass is natural, is shown on old maps and was only widened in 1955?


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

The salinity in EB, yes even the far upper reaches, is not "too" high. It's like Goldilocks porridge, some times it is high, sometimes low, sometimes just right. 

The BS test that the state presented were run for a couple of week period in August during a drought to skew the results in their favor. So yes at that specific moment in time the salinity was higher than ideal but even then, was in the acceptable range for oysters and bait.

Every reasonable person knows that the salinity fluctuates seasonally and according to the strength of the tide, amount of rainfall, run-off etc. like all other bays and estuaries. That's what makes it so good.

Your never gonna have a brackish / freshwater EB with Houston ship channel and the ICW. Who would want that anyway besides duck hunters


----------



## weimtrainer (May 17, 2007)

Bocephus said:


> How far is Baffin Bay from a major pass ? Lot's of big fat trout caught in Baffin year in & year out.
> 
> I can't understand why people think closing Rollover will be the death of East Bay. Come on Man !!!!!


It's myth. No big trout in Baffin Bay.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Brian Castille said:


> Aren't there some arguing that the pass is natural, is shown on old maps and was only widened in 1955?


Historical maps don't support this claim.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

This is directly from TPWD website









http://tpwd.texas.gov/fishboat/fish/didyouknow/oysterarticle.phtml


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Here is the sampling info for salinity averages in the area


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

As you can see there is a about a 5 square mile area directly at ROP that averages slightly higher But still not unusually high and certainly not "THE" highest salinity.

All of that yellow there is gonna stay yellow no matter what happens in Gilchrist


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

What oysters and seagrass cannot tolerate is being covered in silt and mud from Hurricanes, tropical storms, construction activities and barges


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Notice how along West Bay you got 10 times the seawater coming through SLP, higher salinity, the same marshes and wetlands and yet MORE oysters. 

How can it be that be that the salinity is the same or lower in EB than WB, same proximity to the marsh yet somehow more detrimental??


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Jampen,

If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.

It's pretty well established fact but here it is with link:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...w_and_Oyster_Abundance_in_Galveston_Bay_Texas

Positive Relationship between Freshwater Inflow and Oyster Abundance in Galveston Bay, Texas

David Buzan
David Buzan
Wen Lee
Wen Lee
Jan Culbertson
Jan Culbertson
Nathan Kuhn
Nathan Kuhn
Lance Robinson
Lance Robinson
Estuaries and Coasts (Impact Factor: 2.54). 12/2008; 32(1):206-212. DOI: 10.1007/s12237-008-9078-z
ABSTRACT

Analysis of fisheries-independent data for Galveston Bay, Texas, USA, since 1985 shows eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica) frequently demonstrate increased abundance of market-sized oysters 1 to 2years after years with increased freshwater inflow
and decreased salinity. These analyses are compared to Turnerâ€™s (Estuaries and Coasts 29:345â€"352, 2006) study using 3-year running averages of oyster commercial harvest since 1950 in Galveston Bay. Turnerâ€™s results indicated
an inverse relationship between freshwater inflow and commercial harvest with low harvest during years of high inflow and
increased harvest during low flow years. Oyster populations may experience mass mortalities during extended periods of high
inflow when low salinities are sustained. Conversely, oyster populations may be decimated during prolonged episodes of low
flow when conditions favor oyster predators, parasites, and diseases with higher salinity optima. Turnerâ€™s (Estuaries and
Coasts 29:345â€"352, 2006) analysis was motivated by a proposed project in a basin with abundant freshwater where the goal of the project was to substantially
increase freshwater flow to the estuary in order to increase oyster harvest. We have the opposite concern that oysters will
be harmed by projects that reduce flow, increase salinity, and increase the duration of higher salinity periods in a basin
with increasing demand for limited freshwater. Turnerâ€™s study and our analysis reflect different aspects of the complex, important
relationships between freshwater inflow, salinity, and oysters.


----------



## capt.dave (Jan 3, 2007)

fritz423 said:


> So help a brother understand this. I will likely never fish ROP, so no dog in the race.
> 
> *But people raised all kinds of hell to get Cedar Bayou opened; people seemed to think that was good.
> 
> ...


Simple answer...

Cedar Bayou was a natural pass filled in by man.

Rollover was dredged by man.

In other words, without man's interference, one would have existed while the other wouldn't. I'm not really for or against closing Rollover per say, but these really are two difference sets of circumstances and shouldn't be compared apples to apples.


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

*This was the email I recieved from TPWD about rollover. 
*

Fri 10/3/2014 10:05 AM
Inbox
Hide recipients
Cc:
Glen Sutton ([email protected]);
Amy Ringstaff ([email protected]);
Rebecca Hensley ([email protected]);
Winston Denton ([email protected]);
Evernote
Good morning,

Your question regarding Rollover Pass was routed to my office.

As you are probably aware, Rollover Pass is a man-made tidal inlet located on the Bolivar Peninsula near Gilchrist, Texas on 22 acres owned by the Gulf Coast Rod, Reel and Gun Club of Beaumont, TX. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department holds the title to the bulkheads and channel. Construction of the Pass was completed in February 1955 and was permitted as an 80 foot wide, 8 foot deep channel with a retaining wall at the southwest Gulfside end extending into the Gulf 100 feet. Since construction, erosion on the Gulf side of the pass and high sedimentation rates in the Intracoastal Waterway have proven very costly. Legislation approved during the 81st Legislative session in 2009 gave the Texas General Land Office (GLO) the authority to close a man-made pass if, 1) itâ€™s found that the pass causes or contributes to significant erosion of the shoreline of the adjacent beach; 2) the pass is not a public navigational channel constructed or maintained by the federal government and; 3) the GLO receives legislative appropriations or other funding to close the pass.

Impacts to East Bay resulting from the proposed closure of Rollover Pass are difficult to quantify. Changes to the ecological dynamics of East Bay will occur just as the opening of the pass changed the ecosystem in the 1950â€™s. Rollover Bay has become shallower as a result of sediment deposition from the Pass (private oyster leases were common in Rollover Bay prior to the Pass opening). Ingress and egress of larval and adult finfish and shellfish through the Pass will be lost with a closure; however, the loss would be very small relative to the pathway available through Bolivar Roads. Salinities within the area of East Bay adjacent to the Pass should drop with a closure, resulting in conditions closer to historic levels, at least since construction of the Intracoastal Waterway in the early 1930â€™s-40â€™s. These lower salinities should stimulate submerged aquatic vegetation growth, increase marsh productivity and may benefit oyster production by reducing the incidence of oyster parasites and predators. This could be especially important for the recovery of oyster habitat in East Bay considering the significant losses (approximately 80% of oyster habitat) that occurred as a result of Hurricane Ike.

Perhaps the biggest impact of closing Rollover Pass will be the loss of fishing access for recreational anglers. Prior to Hurricane Ike, Rollover Pass was a heavily utilized fishing access location and represented one of the few sites within the Galveston Bay complex where walk-up fishermen had access to coastal waters. The site is still popular for shore-based recreational anglers though hurricane damage to parts of the area still limit some access and sheet pilings are rusted and jagged. Should Rollover Pass be closed, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is committed to working with the Texas General Land Office to ensure recreational fishing access at the site is maintained through the use of fishing piers, paddle craft launching sites, and wade fishing access.

I hope this addresses your question regarding Rollover Pass. Should you have others please feel free to contact me at this email or one of the numbers below. Questions regarding the actual closure of Rollover Pass should be directed to Ray Newby with the General Land Office (512-475-3624; [email protected]).


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

You are correct that there is a marked increase in oyster production 1-2 years following a freshet (freshwater inflow) that lowers the salinity.

However if that freshet continues for a prolonged period (say a couple of years) it will kill the reef.

It says so in your own quote if you read down far enough. This is from your post above









i assume you understand the meaning of mass mortality


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Your posts doesn't dispute what I have written...it confirms it.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Wow you found somebody on the state's payroll that kinda, sorta agrees with the GLO position....that must have been very taxing


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Jampen,

You have "selective reading skills". Yes freshwater inflows can kill oyster reef and so can the opposite. What you fail to grasp is the results of the analysis, which is:

"Turnerâ€™s (Estuaries and
Coasts 29:345â€“352, 2006) analysis was motivated by a proposed project in a basin with abundant freshwater where the goal of the project was to substantially
increase freshwater flow to the estuary in order to increase oyster harvest."

And this from TPWD: 

"Salinities within the area of East Bay adjacent to the Pass should drop with a closure, resulting in conditions closer to historic levels, at least since construction of the Intracoastal Waterway in the early 1930â€™s-40â€™s. These lower salinities should stimulate submerged aquatic vegetation growth, increase marsh productivity and may benefit oyster production by reducing the incidence of oyster parasites and predators."

Are you saying an increase in marsh productivity, oyster production and submerged aquatic are bad things? Because your argument is falling flat on its face and goes against biological data.


----------



## stdreb27 (Aug 15, 2011)

jampen said:


> Notice how along West Bay you got 10 times the seawater coming through SLP, higher salinity, the same marshes and wetlands and yet MORE oysters.
> 
> How can it be that be that the salinity is the same or lower in EB than WB, same proximity to the marsh yet somehow more detrimental??


Because it's the water.

What gets these guys is rapid changes in osmotic pressure.

Closer to gulf water flows you're going to (I'd assume) have a more stable. Salinity year round.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Your not stopping droughts by closing ROP. 

As written earlier, with the "possibly, maybe" exception of that small "5 square mile" area directly by ROP, there will be no salinity changes to the water flow in EB. That yellow area on the map is gonna stay yellow

What will definitely happen is the bait and gamefish in that whole 100 square mile area will not have access to the Gulf except via HSC or ICW. That's a long swim. 

It won't be long before there are little to no gamefish in the east-end of EB.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

jampen said:


> Wow you found somebody on the state's payroll that kinda, sorta agrees with the GLO position....that must have been very taxing


Lets see I can go with scientific studies and biological data or Jampen's uninformed opinion.

Think I will take go with the data.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

jampen said:


> Your not stopping droughts by closing ROP.
> 
> As written earlier, with the "possibly, maybe" exception of that small "5 square mile" area directly by ROP, there will be no salinity changes to the water flow in EB. That yellow area on the map is gonna stay yellow
> 
> ...


Really? Because the bay was devoid of gamefish before Rollover?

When your in a hole quit digging.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

If the fishing was so great back then why did they want a fish pass??


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

jampen said:


> Wow you found somebody on the state's payroll that kinda, sorta agrees with the GLO position....that must have been very taxing


Jampen, the biologist that sent that is a very well respected individual. I for one am not going to question his credentials or his integrity. I simply posted that to show where TPWD stands on the issue. You can interpret the info however you want, and play armchair Jaques Cousteau, but the opinion of TPWD carries considerable more "weight" than yours.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Regardless of how you judge me, there are a LOT of very smart people with the same position. I have made no claims without support or citation. 

On the other hand, we have the state's position, supported by a couple of reports from a "for profit" research group. 

Reports that have proved nothing and have been shown to have used wrong and inaccurate models


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I'm not making any assertions about the TPWD guy. I'm sure he is a peach

That email is nothing more than a little factual historical date and his opinion. He say directly that impacts of closure of ROP on EB are "difficult to quantify".

So neither he, you, nor anybody else can say, with even a fractional amount of certainty, that this action will positive for EB ecology. 

It will definitely be detrimental to tax-paying citizens that own and use ROP


----------



## mchildress (Jul 11, 2009)

Just looking back the oysters and fishing came back after Carla with the pass open. Kind of makes a person go hmmm...


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

jampen said:


> Regardless of how you judge me, there are a LOT of very smart people with the same position. I have made no claims without support or citation.
> 
> On the other hand, we have the state's position, supported by a couple of reports from a "for profit" research group.
> 
> Reports that have proved nothing and have been shown to have used wrong and inaccurate models


TPWD is a "for profit" research group?

Wow


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Now who is uninformed


----------



## SolarScreenGuy (Aug 15, 2005)

I'll say it again. After closing ROP, give it say 2-3 years and everyone will be clamoring to re-open it. The accurate study ( not the half truth study) demonstrated that the salinity levels in that part of the bay will become too low to support a viable saltwater fishery. And for those who claim that saltwater is damaging the oyster beds, your just way off. How salty is the water that supports the oyster beds along the ship channel? Naysayers may get their wish but they won't like the results. Want to wade the shoreline at the wildlife refuge? Better go now, because soon you will be catching mudcats only if big brother has his way.

www.solarscreenguys.com


----------



## Tomahawg (Aug 5, 2015)

I'm a little late to the game here, but something is puzzling to me.
Why did they spend money to open one pass, Ceder Bayou, and are willing to close another up the coast? 

Seems to me the same logic would apply in both cases.


----------



## SolarScreenGuy (Aug 15, 2005)

Tomahawg said:


> I'm a little late to the game here, but something is puzzling to me.
> Why did they spend money to open one pass, Ceder Bayou, and are willing to close another up the coast?
> 
> Seems to me the same logic would apply in both cases.


It does! No rocket science required. Gulf passes are always a good thing.

www.solarscreenguys.com


----------



## had2reg (Aug 25, 2005)

Hey Its Catchy. You posted 'The problem with Rollover is it allows saltwater to pour into the upper reaches of East Bay that were historically brackish estuary.'

Please post any data supporting this. Is this like the pre-1955 photographs you mentioned?

.....And this from TPWD:

"Salinities within the area of East Bay adjacent to the Pass should drop with a closure, resulting in conditions closer to historic levels, at least since construction of the Intracoastal Waterway in the early 1930â€™s-40â€™s.

Are salinities returning to true 'historic levels' or salinities SINCE the construction of the Intracoastal Waterway? Where is the pre-1955 historical data?

In Sept. 1818, a hurricane flooded Jean Lafitte's colony 'Campeche' on Galveston destroying four ships and most buildings.

Around 1885, one of the worst droughts in Texas history occurred. Around the time of the old maps presented in this thread.

There was the Great Galveston Storm of 1900. In 1915, a stronger storm stuck the area. Both of which covered Bolivar in storm surge. Do you not believe the lowest and thinnest portion of Bolivar peninsula experienced erosion, cutting and pass formation.

Also this from Texas State Historical Association.

http://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/rrb06

'Important man-made features on the peninsula include Bolivar Lighthouse, near its western end, and Rollover Fish Pass, reopened by the Texas Game and Fish Commission (later merged into the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department) in 1955 to reintroduce sea water in East Bay to increase salinity and help marine life to and from the bay's spawning and feeding areas'

Key word here is 'reopened.'


----------



## timothywpothier (Dec 27, 2015)

Thanks for letting know and glad to know about it right on the perfect time. Looking forward to join in.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

had2reg,

The most detailed maps we had from the time come from the GLO (General Land Office). You can go to their website and browse. It's pretty clear there is no permanent pass at rollover, just a dip in peninsula.

Attached are two aerial photos from google earth. One recent and one from 1974. The sedimentation of the bay is clearly visible.

As far as the salinity is concerned? That is a no brainer. We know it has increased in East bay due to Rollover. This is evident in the dark color on the map indicating higher salinity in Rollover Bay.

I will work on the aerial photos of the time. The GLO has an extensive archive dating back to 1943 of most of the Texas coast but it's missing shots from the Rollover area pre 1955.

Before you make up your mind spend a couple of hours on google searching key words like East Galveston Bay Salinity, Rollover pass salinity, Oyster reef East Galveston Bay, Marsh etc.

Then make up your mind.

http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth88570/m1/1/zoom/?q=galveston county


----------



## Stalkin Spots (Jan 12, 2014)

jampen said:


> What will definitely happen is the bait and gamefish in that whole 100 square mile area will not have access to the Gulf except via HSC or ICW. That's a long swim.
> 
> It won't be long before there are little to no gamefish in the east-end of EB.


It is a long way from Packery Channel to the Mansfield jetties, and a lot of excellent fishing exists between the two. Except for Baffin Bay which is completely devoid of any life. There are no fish in Baffin.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

SolarScreenGuy said:


> It does! No rocket science required. Gulf passes are always a good thing.
> 
> www.solarscreenguys.com


I guess we don't need things like "estuary". Lets just open 100 more passes all up and down the coast. The fishing will be great!


----------



## Stalkin Spots (Jan 12, 2014)

I'm confused.... Am I supposed to believe Jampen who says that ,with the exception of the area immediately around ROP, salinity levels will stay the same (high), or do I believe SolarScreenGuy who says that salinity will be so low that EB will no longer be a viable salt water fishery?


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Stalkin Spots said:


> It is a long way from Packery Channel...


Baffin is very remote, fraction of the pressure that EB gets. I would say more people fish EB over July 4th weekend than fish Baffin in the whole year.

Also there are 1000s of barges, tankers and container ships every day that skirt EB churning up silt mud and pollution. When was the last barge you saw down there?

Speaking of Baffin...giant trout, acres of sea grass, highest salinity levels to be found along the coast. So remind me again how bad 20ppm of salinty is for EB??


----------



## Rubberback (Sep 9, 2008)

This talk has been going on forever. Just leave it alone. Problem solved. People catch trout there ask Jean. I've caught some nice fish in East Bay. Back when troutmasters was happening the winners seemed to always come from EAST Bay.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

jampen said:


> Baffin is very remote, fraction of the pressure that EB gets. I would say more people fish EB over July 4th weekend than fish Baffin in the whole year.
> 
> Also there are 1000s of barges, tankers and container ships every day that skirt EB churning up silt mud and pollution. When was the last barge you saw down there?
> 
> Speaking of Baffin...giant trout, acres of sea grass, highest salinity levels to be found along the coast. So remind me again how bad 20ppm of salinty is for EB??


How many oysters are in Baffin? Fresh Water Marsh? Comparing Baffin with East Bay is apples to oranges.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Stalkin Spots said:


> I'm confused....


No doubt...that is common condition for several of ya'll

I never said salinity was too high. In fact I have repeatedly said it is in the normal range for the area. Lower than WB for example.

The immediate area around ROP (maybe 5 sq/m) will surely drop a few points.

The salinity in the rest of EB will stay exactly the way it is now. Additionally bait and gamefish in far eastern end won't have easy access to Gulf water so the migration pattern will be disrupted and very likely diminished.

And instead of trout green you will end up with silty brackish chocolate milk fresh...can't wait


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

jampen said:


> No doubt...that is common condition for several of ya'll
> 
> I never said salinity was too high. In fact I have repeatedly said it is in the normal range for the area. Lower than WB for example.
> 
> ...


Dr. Jampen,

How did the fish migrate prior to 1955?


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Apparently not to the satisfaction of those locals and state officials that worked to open ROP back in the day


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I'm sure that we all want the same thing here. The best possibly EB that there can be. 

Lots of oysters, tons of bait, thriving fish populations.

You have not and cannot offer one shred of evidence that closing ROP will improve on any of that.

All you can say is "Let's seize private property, hurt local businesses, and deny a fantastic fishing opportunity to elderly, handicap, boat less, beginners, families (voted #1 spot in all of Texas BTW) and maybe, perhaps, it might eventually lower salinity in a very localized area and then that could possibly be good thing for the marsh". 

That's wrong


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Jampen,

There have been studies posted by PHD's, endless testimony from experts, TPWD letters posted that have all stated closing Rollover will lower the salinity and have positive effects on East Bay reefs, marsh and marine grasses.

You choose to ignore them.

Then there are the costs of continued dredging on the taxpayer and erosion of the bolivar peninsula which is clearly evident.

You choose to ignore it.

No doubt we all want the the same thing here. The most productive EB as possible. I just think you need to look at everything with an objective eye.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Paid experts

I have read tons of literature on the subject and have formed my opinions based on information from a variety of sources including TAM, TPWD, NOAA and countless other sources.

I don't argue the dredging issue (although it also is no more serious than dozens of other locations) but the erosion issue is the one legitimate problem that needs to be addressed. 

The original plans for ROP called for a jetty. It was never built most likely because it is non-navigable fish pass. There needs to be a jetty.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Without the warming tidal flow of Gulf waters in winter and limited distant access to the Gulf, just let a hard winter freeze hit and last for a couple of days.

You'll see some fish alright


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Many have the notion that EB is some pristine, "unmolested by the hand of man" location that is being desecrated by a 200' fish pass.

That is a absurd. Those seagrass beds and oyster reefs didn't decline because of ROP. They have declined all over GB complex, as well as many other places.

















http://galvbaydata.org/Habitat/Seagrass/tabid/732/Default.aspx

Read and learn son...read and learn


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

http://www.chron.com/opinion/king/article/Galveston-Bay-s-muddy-waters-solely-our-fault-5610001.php


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Not just ROP, not just EB...the whole GB Complex...gone









http://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_r0400_0041.pdf


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Yes TPWD official annual published reports agree...who woulda thunk it??









http://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_r0400_0041.pdf


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Want to know what kills sea grass...here you go. Not one mention of increase salinity from passes. Thanks TPWD for the confirmation









https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_r0400_0041.pdf


----------



## Rubberback (Sep 9, 2008)

Back when I started fishing with my dad in the 60's in west galv bay, he told me the bay use to be full of grass & oysters. I asked him what happened & he told me it was from the refinery's dumping chemicals into the bay. Just what he told me.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

In review, what we have learned from TPWD and others (or at least should have learned)

1. Oyster thrive in salinty between 10 - 30 ppm (with occasional shots of fresh)
2. Sea Grass thrive in salinity above 18 ppm, no less
3. Monster trout seem to do very well in higher salinity environment
4. EB salinity (inc. ROP) average 15-25 ppm

Enough with the salinity talk already. We have put that red herring to rest


----------



## Stalkin Spots (Jan 12, 2014)

jampen said:


> Baffin is very remote, fraction of the pressure that EB gets. I would say more people fish EB over July 4th weekend than fish Baffin in the whole year.
> 
> Also there are 1000s of barges, tankers and container ships every day that skirt EB churning up silt mud and pollution. When was the last barge you saw down there?
> 
> Speaking of Baffin...giant trout, acres of sea grass, highest salinity levels to be found along the coast. So remind me again how bad 20ppm of salinty is for EB??


Exaggerate much???

You're right.... No barge traffic at all through the ULM and LLM. That 20+ mile long ditch, the Land Cut, is just a fish pass.

My reference to Baffin was in the context of rebutting your statement that in a couple of years there would be little to no gamefish in the east end of EGB, not the salinity. In response though, the ULM and LLM have evolved to be hyper-saline fisheries. We do not have the watershed or the rain to flow water to the bays that the upper bay complexes do. Never have. That's the reason we don't have marshes.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Which part?

Fishing pressure or traffic?


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Somewhat dated report. I'll keep looking for others. But assuming that traffic patterns have grown at about the same rate...GBC get more than 6 times more fishing traffic then the SAB system (Baffin must a very small fraction of that) and by your own admission 100% more commercial traffic...Not that much of an exaggeration (perhaps July 4th and Memorial Day together then)









http://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/mds_coastal/Series 1_MDS59.pdf


----------



## Stalkin Spots (Jan 12, 2014)

jampen said:


> No doubt...that is common condition for several of ya'll
> 
> I never said salinity was too high. In fact I have repeatedly said it is in the normal range for the area. Lower than WB for example.
> 
> ...


I never said "too" high, I simply said high. I don't have it in front of me, but I seem to recall that historically the salinity in that area pre-ROP was in the 10-15 ppt range.

The point I was making earlier when noting the distance from the Port Mansfield Jetties and Packery Channel is precisely to your statement of there being no fish (and apparently now lack of easy Gulf access to those that survive) if ROP is closed. It is roughly 23 miles from the mouth of Galveston Bay to the back of EGB. It is roughly 35 miles from the JFK causeway to the mouth of the land cut. Add several more miles going up into Baffin.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

1. Do the majority of the fish make that journey or do they stay in, or close to, Baffin?


2. Would you like to see 10,000 more boats per year in Baffin? (admittedly a wild-*** guess)


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Jampen,

I guess we have reached an impasse. No point in wasting anymore server space with the back and forth.

I'm going to side with TPWD, the GLO and the Galveston Bay Foundation. Our bays just are not what they used to be. Every river has been damned, ship channels have been dredged and the ICW intersects all of our bays. 

Freshwater inflow and increased salinity is a major cause of the downturn.

Closing Rollover will not fix everything but it's a step in the right direction.


----------



## Stalkin Spots (Jan 12, 2014)

jampen said:


> Somewhat dated report. I'll keep looking for others. But assuming that traffic patterns have grown at about the same rate...GBC get more than 6 times more fishing traffic then the SAB system (Baffin must a very small fraction of that) and by your own admission 100% more commercial traffic...Not that much of an exaggeration (perhaps July 4th and Memorial Day together then)
> 
> View attachment 2722922
> 
> ...


Somewhat dated? Seriously? May 1974 - May 1983?

Coastal Fishing has changed dramatically since then. 35 years ago most fishing was by those who lived on or near the coast (think population density). Today, people who live in SA, Austin, even DFW don't think twice about running down often for a long weekend. I run as often as I can 130 miles each way for a day trip.

And as far as the commercial traffic..... I guess you don't recognize sarcasm. No it is not near that of the Houston area, but it does exist.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

BS...you're wrong...TPWD and galbaydata.org published reports prove it.

GLO can go suck an egg...Hasta la Vista :walkingsm


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Half of all fish harvested, came from GBC...at the time of that report









http://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/mds_coastal/Series 1_MDS59.pdf


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

This is a heavy-handed political maneuver, predicated on BS GLO "hired gun" reports, using shoddy science.

And the little guys get screwed again


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

jampen said:


> 1. Do the majority of the fish make that journey or do they stay in, or close to, Baffin?
> 
> 2. Would you like to see 10,000 more boats per year in Baffin? (admittedly a wild-*** guess)


Crickets??


----------



## had2reg (Aug 25, 2005)

Its Catchy said:


> had2reg,
> 
> The most detailed maps we had from the time come from the GLO (General Land Office). You can go to their website and browse. It's pretty clear there is no permanent pass at rollover, just a dip in peninsula.
> 
> ...


You miss the point Its Catchy. No one is saying Rollover is a permanent pass which has always forever existed in time. Only, in some point(s) in history, Rollover was a natural pass connecting bay to gulf.

The salinities maps presented are very recent and offer no comparison to salinities pre-1955. What about salinities from 1818, 1900 or 1915?

Maps are but a snapshot in time. Do you believe things have not changed from the late 1800's compared to 1818, 1900, 1915 and the present?

I request of you a third time to post the aerial photographs from pre-1955 showing no Rollover Pass and 'dry ground' you mentioned. I do not think aerial photographs exist of the Rollover area soon after the storms of 1818, 1900 and 1915.

As far as sedimentation, it exists. However, the shorelines east and west of Rollover appear relatively unchanged over the forty years(1974-2013). The channel itself does not look radically different despite Hurricane Ike in 2008. The main difference I noted was improved resolution of the 2013 photograph and lack of the clouds in the 2013 photograph apparent in the 1974 photograph.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

I Got Nuttin...Just wanted to post on this fine thread about the good, bad, & stuff about ROP...


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

had2reg said:


> You miss the point Its Catchy. No one is saying Rollover is a permanent pass which has always forever existed in time. Only, in some point(s) in history, Rollover was a natural pass connecting bay to gulf.
> 
> The salinities maps presented are very recent and offer no comparison to salinities pre-1955. What about salinities from 1818, 1900 or 1915?
> 
> ...


had2reg,

At some point in history all of the barrier islands were inundated with the water from storm surges. Are you considering them "natural passes"?

There is not much salinity data from the bay prior to the 1960's nor is there many aerial photographs of the region. None that I know of prior to around the early 1940's. But data from the maps indicate there was no flow on a normal tide. Hence the bootleggers had to "roll" their illegal cargo "over" the narrow spot in the peninsula that became known as Rollover.

But with what little data we have we do know the salinity has come up from pre Rollover Pass norms.

You are kind of wandering. Are you claiming the pass has not caused an increase in the salinity of EB? It has not caused a decrease in reef, marsh etc?


----------



## Stalkin Spots (Jan 12, 2014)

jampen said:


> Crickets??


1. I believe most trout do not migrate through passes to the surf. Those near passes may go in and out.

2. No thank you.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

That's what I already knew. 

In Baffin majority of fish do not move very far and a big increase in traffic (like exist in EB) would be catastrophic.

In EB "LOTS" of trout use ROP. If it's closed that will stop (DUH). 

With all the fishing pressure, it won't take long to really put a dent in the numbers with little or no replenishment.

That is why I wrote what I did


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

Surf trout and bay trout are not the same.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Does anyone find it odd that the CCA and Galveston Bay Foundation among others are fighting for freshwater inflows to our bays yet there are other people that would argue for a saltwater pipeline right into East Bay?

From the front page of the CCA website:

CCA Texas has been engaged in hundreds of local, state, and national programs and projects related to marine conservation, such as initiating scientific studies, supporting local marine law enforcement, working to pass pro-resource legislation, funding marine science scholarships, initiating habitat-restoration projects, funding state-of-the-art hatcheries, _*and fighting for quality and quantity of freshwater inflows for coastal bays & estuaries.*_


----------



## bowmansdad (Nov 29, 2011)

Its Catchy said:


> had2reg,
> 
> At some point in history all of the barrier islands were inundated with the water from storm surges. Are you considering them "natural passes"?
> 
> ...


So with"not much salinity data from the bay prior to the 1960's", we are certain that "we do know the salinity has come up from pre Rollover Pass norms."

Quite a extrapolation based on so little information.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

bowmansdad said:


> So with"not much salinity data from the bay prior to the 1960's", we are certain that "we do know the salinity has come up from pre Rollover Pass norms."
> 
> Quite a extrapolation based on so little information.


What do you think happens when you add salt water from the gulf to brackish water from the bay? Does the salinity go down?


----------



## bowmansdad (Nov 29, 2011)

Its Catchy said:


> What do you think happens when you add salt water from the gulf to brackish water from the bay? Does the salinity go down?


Lots of variables to consider on how much it goes up and where is the base line data? Just looking for facts, did it go up 2, 5,10 ppm, etc., after ROP opened?

We are not going to agree and I can respect that.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Mud Cats*



SolarScreenGuy said:


> I'll say it again. After closing ROP, give it say 2-3 years and everyone will be clamoring to re-open it. The accurate study ( not the half truth study) demonstrated that the salinity levels in that part of the bay will become too low to support a viable saltwater fishery. And for those who claim that saltwater is damaging the oyster beds, your just way off. How salty is the water that supports the oyster beds along the ship channel? Naysayers may get their wish but they won't like the results. Want to wade the shoreline at the wildlife refuge? Better go now, because soon you will be catching mudcats only if big brother has his way.
> 
> www.solarscreenguys.com


That's a pretty ignorant statement. What makes you think the water is going to be that fresh. Care to explain you logic behind that statement


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Numbers*



jampen said:


> Half of all fish harvested, came from GBC...at the time of that report
> 
> View attachment 2722970


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

SolarScreenGuy said:


> I'll say it again. After closing ROP, give it say 2-3 years and everyone will be clamoring to re-open it. The accurate study ( not the half truth study) demonstrated that the salinity levels in that part of the bay will become too low to support a viable saltwater fishery. And for those who claim that saltwater is damaging the oyster beds, your just way off. How salty is the water that supports the oyster beds along the ship channel? Naysayers may get their wish but they won't like the results. Want to wade the shoreline at the wildlife refuge? Better go now, because soon you will be catching mudcats only if big brother has his way.
> 
> www.solarscreenguys.com


How far is upper Trinity Bay from the Galveston Jetties ????? Do you dare compare the amount of fresh water coming down the Trinity River into Trinity Bay to the amount coming into East Bay from Oyster Bayou ???

Trinity Bay is one of the best Bays for fishing along the Gulf Coast, and massive amounts of fresh water come into that Bay routinely after upstream deluges all the way to Dallas that feed into the Trinity River. And even so after Trinity Bay is douched out it ALWAYS recovers and the fishing is outstanding once the tides bring the salt water back in from the Gulf. And Jack's Pocket is a hell of a lot farther from the Gulf than upper East Bay.....

Your statement is ridiculous....and your grasping at bullchit to try and support your side of the issue.

Come on Man !!!!!



gater said:


> That's a pretty ignorant statement. What makes you think the water is going to be that fresh. Care to explain you logic behind that statement


Yes, it was very ignorant !


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

You're kinda focusing on the minutia and overlooking the big point. 

The fishing right now, today, in EB, is great. Certainly, as good as anywhere else in all of GBC. 

The salinity topic is a lame-*** smoke-screen. Cooked up by a bunch of bureaucrats, who's only objective is to seize private property. TPWD and numerous other reports have been cited to support this fact, despite what a few of the communist supporters here think.

When the Trinity kicks up extra fresh, as it has the majority of this year, where do you go? Let me guess...EB reefs. If and when EB ends up as fresh as Trinity. You will go to WB. Why...because that is where the fish will be.


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

Everyone can find the counties agenda items for their meeting on the19th they are located ar www.saverolloverpass.com
All of us have our different views on the issue RP is a great facility for tens of thousands of visitors, yes the George P. Bush finally got their permit with flawed data, they are now pressuring the county to take by force 16 acres of land that the state wants but doesnt have the authority. The GCA is here for the fisherman. and families along with.all of the wildlife that make this area their home. We have declared war against George P. Bush and Galveston County and will fight for private property rights, For those that support us, I thank you, for the others may god bless you.
Our battle cry is WE WILL NOT ROLLOVER
Ted Vega
Pres. Gilchrist Community Association
ted.vega,@gmail.com


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Go out today during the outbound tide and check the salinity at ROP.

It's as fresh as tapwater


----------



## dan_wrider (Jun 21, 2011)

tedvega said:


> Everyone can find the counties agenda items for their meeting on the19th they are located ar www.saverolloverpass.com
> All of us have our different views on the issue RP is a great facility for tens of thousands of visitors, yes the George P. Bush finally got their permit with flawed data, they are now pressuring the county to take by force 16 acres of land that the state wants but doesnt have the authority. The GCA is here for the fisherman. and families along with.all of the wildlife that make this area their home. We have declared war against George P. Bush and Galveston County and will fight for private property rights, For those that support us, I thank you, for the others may god bless you.
> Our battle cry is WE WILL NOT ROLLOVER
> Ted Vega
> ...


I have not had the pleasure of meeting you yet Ted. 
I am a new property owner in canal city. It is just a piece of land at this point and will be a long term project to create a retirement home for my wife and I. 
A large part of the reason we chose this area was the fishing in east bay and rollover pass. 
It sounds like many who live there are against closing the pass. That in itself should tell you something. 
Thank you for your efforts.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Mr Vega, know that many, many people are very appreciative of your efforts, indeed of all the folks down there, on the front line of this long battle.

If you know of anyone in the Houston area that plans on attending the county hearing, Mr. Scurtu from Romania would like to go. He needs a ride if some one would be so generous.

He can be PM'd from here to make arrangements


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Make that bridge over ROP a toll bridge and the Rebubbas will be lining up to fix it up and keep the pass open


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Pass*



jampen said:


> Go out today during the outbound tide and check the salinity at ROP.
> 
> It's as fresh as tapwater


So what does that tell you


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

That small sample sizes, limited data and inaccurate models are a waste of paper


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

gater said:


> So what does that tell you


Exactly! Without Rollover that water would still be in the bay slowly mixing with saltwater as it did for millennia.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

So it's your position that it is not mixing now? Chuckle


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

jampen said:


> So it's your position that it is not mixing now? Chuckle


It's kind of hard to mix when its pouring right out into the gulf.

:headknock


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I don't want to speak for you so, do you think that all the of the freshwater, every drop, coming in to EB goes directly out through ROP and only the saltwater stays behind??

Is that accurate?


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

jampen said:


> I don't want to speak for you so, do you think that all the of the freshwater, every drop, coming in to EB goes directly out through ROP and only the saltwater stays behind??
> 
> Is that accurate?


Jampen,

It boils down to common sense. No, not every drop of fresh water pours out of Rollover. But we do know that our bays health is better with adequate freshwater inflows. Our estuaries need it.

Every gallon of freshwater that pours out of Rollover Pass is a gallon that won't be in the bays.

I don't think we are ever going to agree on this one. I believe the damage done by Rollover is to high and the Con's far outweigh the Pro's.

You don't agree and it's probably better to just agree to disagree and let some other folks weigh in on this.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Mixing*



jampen said:


> So it's your position that it is not mixing now? Chuckle


First of all saltwater and freshwater do not mix and in the grand scheme of things the amount of water going in and out the pass means very little to the health of the bay. The bay needs freshwater which the upper part gets from the Trinity river and the lower part gets from Oyster Bayou and Spindletop. It's not a large volume of water but it's enough to keep the bay healthy. The water is going to go in and out everytime the tide changes, it's just going to take a different route.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

jampen said:


> You're kinda focusing on the minutia and overlooking the big point.
> 
> The fishing right now, today, in EB, is great. Certainly, as good as anywhere else in all of GBC.
> 
> ...


And how long does that last ???.....forever ???

Hell no, in a month or so Trinity Bay is salty again, and I and others are catching fish in the upper end of the bay. 

The douching of Trinity Bay ?....I've been playing out this scenario for decades my friend, you can't bullchit me that East Bay will be ruined if Rollover is filled in. Also Trinity seems to thrive after one of the flushings.

Here's another true story. My Dad fished East Bay before Rollover was dredged. He told me stories of vast grass flats & pristine clear water.....and the fishing was some of the best he'd ever seen in the Galveston Bay complex.

Take your "the sky is falling" drama elsewhere. You have NOTHING to prove East Bay will suffer if the pass is filled in.

I have no dog in this hunt, I don't care either way. But don't you, or anyone else use the lame logic that fresh water influx will kill East Bay...that's laughable !!! :rotfl:


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

So this is how I interpret what you just wrote. 

Fishing is great until you get too much freshwater...then just wait a month or so for the freshwater to go away and the fishing returns. That's Trinity...your stuck that way. 
Where do you go when Trinity sux?? 

Go ahead and say it...we already know


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

The point is that EB doesn't have that freshwater problem like Trinity. There ain't no waiting a month for the freshwater to go away.

Close ROP and that very well may change...not for the better


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)




----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

At it's absolute best, can you honestly say that Trinity is substantially better (more productive) than EB?

If not then what is the point? Cause I guarantee, there are times when ROP is absolutely world-class


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Regarding your daddy and the grass. Where is the grass in Trinity and WB??

Did ROP ruin it there also?

EB still is "some of the best fishing in all of GBC"


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

All of GBC used to be clear. 

That was a lot of oyster reef harvesting, dredging, pollution and commercial boat traffic ago.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

jampen said:


> At it's absolute best, can you honestly say that Trinity is substantially better (more productive) than EB?
> 
> If not then what is the point? Cause I guarantee, there are times when ROP is absolutely world-class


Take your blinders off. Do you think Rollover, or East Bay is the only place to catch fish.....LMAO !!!!!!!!

I just wish I had a dollar for every fish I've caught in Trinity Bay...good God how I wish !!!!!


----------



## Rubberback (Sep 9, 2008)

I'm just guessing but if I was a gambling man. If they want to close that pass, they will close it. Sounds like the pass is causing the ICW to need dredging & the cost is killing them. 
We all know its all about the almighty dollar.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

The dredging / erosion problem is a legitimate issue and can be easily fixed without filling in the pass and no private property rights and small businesses get trampled on.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

The sole objective of the bureaucrats was to close ROP.

No other discussions, no other considerations, no other options. F them


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Fix*



jampen said:


> The dredging / erosion problem is a legitimate issue and can be easily fixed without filling in the pass and no private property rights and small businesses get trampled on.


That pass can't easily or cheaply be fixed or it would have already been done.
There is not a fix for it, the only way to fix the problems it causes is to close it.

Look I don't want to see any fishing spots lost just as much as you but there is not a logical cheap way of correcting it other than filling it in


----------



## Goags (May 28, 2004)

I'm not convinced that closing it will improve anything, other than littering. My bet is the ICW will ALWAYS need dredging, etc.


----------



## BBCAT (Feb 2, 2010)

No dog in this fight. I just crack up every time I see the OP's title Roll "Overpass".


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

If by some miracle the oysters explode, and the sea grass gets so thick it has to be mowed, and the trout are jumping in the boat like those flying carp videos, I will be the first to admit I was wrong and closure was a good.

I haven't seen any evidence or argument that any of that would likely happen and I'm not for trampling on the ownership rights of others to experiment


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

What we will end up with, is a low, swampy, mosquito-infested area, prone to flooding, where families now camp and fish and a muddy, mostly fresh, back bay, that may hold a few reds and hard heads but not much else


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

You know thinking about it, we have 2 really good analogs for comparison.

West Bay has more tidal flow, less freshwater, higher salinity and Trinity is much less salinity, much more freshwater, more of a back bay type environment. 

Really, 2, nearly opposite, environments to use as comparison.

WB has more oysters and grass...we know that both hold fish...but given an ultimatum of 1 or the other...which do you choose? You can only pick one.

Please disregard driving proximity or familiarity


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Oysters*



jampen said:


> If by some miracle the oysters explode, and the sea grass gets so thick it has to be mowed, and the trout are jumping in the boat like those flying carp videos, I will be the first to admit I was wrong and closure was a good.
> 
> I haven't seen any evidence or argument that any of that would likely happen and I'm not for trampling on the ownership rights of others to experiment


It highly unlikely that any seagrass will grow in east bay unless it's planted just like it was in West Bay, if it does great. The oysters will still thrive like they do now. Jampen, if anything happens it will be for the better not worse.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Bay*



jampen said:


> You know thinking about it, we have 2 really good analogs for comparison.
> 
> West Bay has more tidal flow, less freshwater, higher salinity and Trinity is much less salinity, much more freshwater, more of a back bay type environment.
> 
> ...


Trinity hands down and I live on West Bay. Trinity only has fresh water during flood events which we had plenty last year. Normal river flows do not effect the fishing. And since fresh and saltwater don't mix you can still catch fish in Trinity when you can smell the fresh water


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I'll have take your word for it that the fishing is better in Trinity, but I have been on some big schools of trout in WB


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Trinity*



jampen said:


> I'll have take your word for it that the fishing is better in Trinity, but I have been on some big schools of trout in WB


There are plenty of Oyster in West Bay but a good portion is what you see and there are fish in West Bay. However the live, thriving deep water beds, both clam and oyster in Trinity hold much more fish than West Bay and the same holds true for East Bay. The fresh water keeps a fine balance and supplies nutrients and plenty of bait.


----------



## scdoty83 (Jul 4, 2014)

Have you given any thought to contacting the CCA?


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Not looking to revive this thread but I found this 5 year TPWD oyster study following the flood year of 1973. In it is salinity data for all of GBC. Interesting that for 5 full years the two EB sampling stations closest to ROP (Moody and Frenchy) trended exactly average with all the other sampled areas. Always within 5-6 ppm from other stations and lower than many including Trinity stations. And except for 1973, the flood year, and spring / summer of 1975, both times when salinity was "too low", all data points are exactly in the sweet spot for oyster spat set.

















So much for ROP causing excess salinity in EB


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Full report

https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/mds_coastal/Series 1_MDS51.pdf


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Here is the map


----------



## ossnap (Jan 4, 2010)

I really have no say in the matter. However, I hate to see such a historic site be shut down and filled in. Heck, I still wish Parkers Cut was open in Matagorda. Will the fishing improve or get worse? who knows? I do know they have been catching fish there for many years. There is more to the reason for them to shut it down than the state of the fishery in that area. Govt has big hands.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Yep I know. I just like disproving all the claims abt ROP ruining EB

It's all I can really do


----------



## ossnap (Jan 4, 2010)

jampen said:


> Yep I know. I just like disproving all the claims abt ROP ruining EB
> 
> It's all I can really do


We all should know, there was no way that the pass was hurting East Bay. The more inlets/outlets the better. This was just political.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

The state and county don't want to rebuild and maintain that bridge that was very nearly destroyed by Ike, and the ongoing erosion and dredging issue needs to be fixed.


----------



## ossnap (Jan 4, 2010)

jampen said:


> The state and county don't want to rebuild and maintain that bridge that was very nearly destroyed by Ike, and the ongoing erosion and dredging issue needs to be fixed.


You are correct. It is unfortunate. Those in charge did not plan for what is occurring and therefore this is the outcome. Some will agree with the decision to close, and others will not. Time will move on, we will adapt, and so will that bay system.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

After closure I doubt we ever go to Bolivar again...really sad


----------



## ossnap (Jan 4, 2010)

jampen said:


> After closure I doubt we ever go to Bolivar again...really sad


The good thing is, your memories cannot be closed by imminent domain.


----------



## Profish00 (May 21, 2004)

So is this all about the fishing?


----------



## Goags (May 28, 2004)

Profish00 said:


> So is this all about the fishing?


Pick a side, Mark!


----------



## RogerBTX (Oct 25, 2015)

I read many of these post and see comments that the bay will become too fresh and no redfish will be there. I fish old cypress swamps near the south end of Beaumont. The water is brackish and many times not very salty at all. We have reds, crabs, and shrimp all year long. We have caught flounder, reds, specks, black drum, and sheepshead in those shallow flats. If the pass is closed, the water will not be as salty as the gulf, but it will be plenty salty enough and the water should clear up. 

If the sea grass and other vegetation grows back, you would make a fortune owning a boat ramp and bait shop.


----------



## Profish00 (May 21, 2004)

Goags said:


> Pick a side, Mark!


I did, west bay


----------



## Finn Maccumhail (Feb 16, 2009)

RogerBTX said:


> I read many of these post and see comments that the bay will become too fresh and no redfish will be there. I fish old cypress swamps near the south end of Beaumont. The water is brackish and many times not very salty at all. We have reds, crabs, and shrimp all year long. We have caught flounder, reds, specks, black drum, and sheepshead in those shallow flats. If the pass is closed, the water will not be as salty as the gulf, but it will be plenty salty enough and the water should clear up.
> 
> If the sea grass and other vegetation grows back, you would make a fortune owning a boat ramp and bait shop.


I've talked to a number of guys from that area who's families have been there for 100 years and while the ICW damaged the system Rollover hurt the upper part of East Bay substantially (as in near Oyster Bayou).

Pre-Rollover most of EB had huge grass beds. It wasn't the turtle grass which is what most of the grass from POC south is. It's widgeon grass which thrives in lower salinity waters with some shoal grass.

There were also a greater abundance of oysters. The salinity had less of a direct effect on the oysters than the increased harvesting but the dramatic increases in salinity allowed the parasitic oyster drill snail to proliferate which damaged the oyster population even further.

So you had an increase in sediment flowing into EB via Rollover and increased salinity, both of which were very damaging to the two primary means by which the water was filtered.

So what was once much cleaner, clearer water with lots of grass & oysters was pretty much wiped out.

While the fishing at Rollover is great because it concentrates bait which attracts the predators it's been damaging to the overall health of EB.

I sympathize with shore-bound anglers who will be losing their go-to spot but the facts are that the state has every right to close the pass, nobody is actually losing private property, and it will ultimately benefit East Bay.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

If it's not private property then why does the state have to jump through all these legal hoops and the county have to pay for it or use eminent domain??

It is definitely private property...no question


----------



## Finn Maccumhail (Feb 16, 2009)

jampen said:


> If it's not private property then why does the state have to jump through all these legal hoops and the county have to pay for it or use eminent domain??
> 
> It is definitely private property...no question


Because the surrounding property is private and they have to cross it to get to Rollover and they have to park construction equipment on it to close it. And to create the park which will replace Rollover.

Right now the club owns the surrounding land and the underlying ground below the pass. However, the club granted the state a perpetual easement for the creation of the pass. The easement is essentially ownership. However, the state can terminate their easement and restore the land to it's previous condition but they cannot create improvements (ie- the proposed park).

Technically the state isn't using eminent domain to close the pass but to create the park- and here's the rub that neither you nor any of the other opponents have been able to address- the state will have to pay fair market value for that land where they create the park.

These "hearings" and public comment periods are just a dog & pony show so the state can provide the proverbial "belt & suspenders" to closing the pass and making it an airtight legal position.

In other words, once the engineering reports proved closing the pass was going to be good for East Bay all the rest was just kabuki.


----------



## fastpitch (Oct 15, 2004)

Finn Maccumhail said:


> I've talked to a number of guys from that area who's families have been there for 100 years and while the ICW damaged the system Rollover hurt the upper part of East Bay substantially (as in near Oyster Bayou).
> 
> Pre-Rollover most of EB had huge grass beds. It wasn't the turtle grass which is what most of the grass from POC south is. It's widgeon grass which thrives in lower salinity waters with some shoal grass.
> 
> ...


This is exactly how EB was described to me by my Father and Uncle Joe. Both of them went to their graves saying ROP ruined East Bay.


----------



## kickingback (Dec 20, 2013)

Quote..."Nobody is losing private property"...The rod and gun club are losing property THEY OWN and are being forced to sell! 
And the pass itself is the only land the state owns but they made sure they could access to dredge and do other things to maintain it so they slapped the govt immanent domain on the property next to it so they could get on the property to keep it up. You need to read and understand before you start spouting off.
The govt is the bad guy here. They can use the land to fill in the pass back in and it's a done deal. They get their land back after filing it in and all is well. The govt now is taking the WHOLE property they don't own from the owner forcing him to sell. He should not have to.
I hope none of you "high horse" posters ever have your property taken away by imminent domain. Your thinking would be totally opposite. You'd change your tune in here REAL QUICK!!


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Pass*



kickingback said:


> Quote..."Nobody is losing private property"...The rod and gun club are losing property THEY OWN and are being forced to sell!
> And the pass itself is the only land the state owns but they made sure they could access to dredge and do other things to maintain it so they slapped the govt immanent domain on the property next to it so they could get on the property to keep it up. You need to read and understand before you start spouting off.
> The govt is the bad guy here. They can use the land to fill in the pass back in and it's a done deal. They get their land back after filing it in and all is well. The govt now is taking the WHOLE property they don't own from the owner forcing him to sell. He should not have to.
> I hope none of you "high horse" posters ever have your property taken away by imminent domain. Your thinking would be totally opposite. You'd change your tune in here REAL QUICK!!


Who is "him"


----------



## Finn Maccumhail (Feb 16, 2009)

kickingback said:


> Quote..."Nobody is losing private property"...The rod and gun club are losing property THEY OWN and are being forced to sell!
> And the pass itself is the only land the state owns but they made sure they could access to dredge and do other things to maintain it so they slapped the govt immanent domain on the property next to it so they could get on the property to keep it up. You need to read and understand before you start spouting off.
> The govt is the bad guy here. They can use the land to fill in the pass back in and it's a done deal. They get their land back after filing it in and all is well. The govt now is taking the WHOLE property they don't own from the owner forcing him to sell. He should not have to.
> I hope none of you "high horse" posters ever have your property taken away by imminent domain. Your thinking would be totally opposite. You'd change your tune in here REAL QUICK!!


Eminent domain can suck but I guess you don't ever drive on highways or any public road and run your home completely on a self-contained solar power system, right? And you're surely on a private well with septic too, right? Because if you use any of those forms of infrastructure, eminent domain was used to build roads and allow for the infrastructure to deliver utilities to your home.

So let's just say that the state decided to fill in the pass and give the land back to the rod & gun club and not build a park- you think you or any of the people down there would be cool with that?

Because that could have happened. Rollover and the damage it causes to the beach & ICW are expensive to maintain. The state could have just said, "screw it- fill it in and let it go back to the club."

At present the club holds title to about 17 acres including the pass itself. Most of which is unable to be developed due to the eroding beach and extremely narrow stretch of land between the Gulf and Rollover Bay. In fact, it's only a 1/4 of a mile from the furthest point of the Rollover pilings into the Gulf back to the bay.

Bottom line, Rollover is detrimental to the health of the beach, the bay, and damaging to the ICW. All of which costs a lot of money to maintain. The closure of the pass and making it a park is making the best of a bad situation for the most people.


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

> Bottom line, Rollover is detrimental to the health of the beach, the bay, and damaging to the ICW. All of which costs a lot of money to maintain. The closure of the pass and making it a park is making the best of a bad situation for the most people.


I would think that if the above statement is true that the State would have done something about it a long time ago.

The engineering survey was a farce to begin with.

Oh well all done and they got what they wanted or someone did.

TH


----------



## kickingback (Dec 20, 2013)

Sorry, but bottom line for MANY is that the govt stole land from a taxpayer and American. 

Who cares about the pass. It was there or not there long before man was there. 

An American citizen bought that land and the govt said they would do one thing and did something different resulting in the taking of land from a simple American.
You can ramble on about the bay and the pass and stuff you know nothing about unless you are biologist or environmentalist but I know when to raise the BS flag.

Again, I hope you or your family never has go through what the rod and gun club has gone through.


----------



## bowmansdad (Nov 29, 2011)

Finn Maccumhail;16494330
So let's just say that the state decided to fill in the pass and give the land back to the rod & gun club and not build a park- you think you or any of the people down there would be cool with that?
Bottom line said:


> As far as the park, they may as well keep the money. The main reason people come to ROP is to fish, so those many, many people are SOL. "Build it and no one will come." There will be no reason for the fisherman to make the trip and I won't go for sure and I'm not alone.


----------



## Finn Maccumhail (Feb 16, 2009)

kickingback said:


> Sorry, but bottom line for MANY is that the govt stole land from a taxpayer and American.
> 
> Who cares about the pass. It was there or not there long before man was there.
> 
> ...


Good Lord, it's like I'm talking to a 4-year old. You're a Trump supporter aren't you?

Firstly, the pass wasn't there. It was just a low spot that periodically flooded. The state cut the permanent pass.

Second, nobody is stealing anything or taking anything from a "simple American." Do you even know what an easement is or how it works? In this case, the club voluntarily signed over an easement to the state for the state to dig and maintain the pass for as long as they chose to do so. But the easement includes termination rights where the state can chose to close the pass and terminate the easement. The club disputes this which is why the state chose to use eminent domain to close the pass. Nothing is being taken from private citizens. To claim as such is completely absurd.

Thirdly, I'm not a biologist but I can read the studies and gather anecdotal evidence while also personally witnessing the health of similar fisheries.


----------



## Finn Maccumhail (Feb 16, 2009)

Trouthunter said:


> *I would think that if the above statement is true that the State would have done something about it a long time ago.*
> 
> The engineering survey was a farce to begin with.
> 
> ...


Why?

The state knew a long time ago that keeping Cedar Bayou closed was unhealthy and did nothing about it for years.

And how is the engineering study a farce?


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

BS data from BS models and small sample size.

Rigged from the onset to yield the results that GLO wanted

It's all in the lawsuit, if you cared enough to consider the other side of the argument


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Finn Maccumhail said:


> ...the club voluntarily signed over an easement...
> 
> ...for as long as they chose to do so. But the easement includes termination rights where the state can chose to close the pass and terminate the easement.
> 
> ...gather anecdotal evidence while also personally witnessing the health of similar fisheries.


1. The "Club" did not sign the easement. The original owner did and BRG received the property after he died.

2. You need to support this claim. I have never heard from anyone that there was a state option to close the pass. If that is true then why all the legal fuss.

3. The value of "evidence" is commiserate with the price to acquire it. "Anecdotal evidence" has no place in a legal dispute. Memories fade and are notoriously inaccurate

The original easement docs are at UT Port Aransas but I have not read them


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

It was my understanding that the Club owns the land the State owns the water. And I am not sure if it matters if the state is using the right of Eminent Domain.


----------



## monkeyman1 (Dec 30, 2007)

Finn Maccumhail said:


> So let's just say that the state decided to fill in the pass and give the land back to the rod & gun club and not build a park- you think you or any of the people down there would be cool with that?
> 
> Because that could have happened. Rollover and the damage it causes to the beach & ICW are expensive to maintain. The state could have just said, "screw it- fill it in and let it go back to the club."


And you need to read up on the Fifth Amendment. One of the 4 prerequisites to taking property by eminent domain is that the public must have use of the land afterwards. You can compare ROP to highways and water lines all you want, but this is apple and oranges to those analogies.

"We're going to take your property, private citizens. Then we're going to build you a brand new T-head pier. No, really, we are going to build the pier - we promise". BS they will.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Domain*



monkeyman1 said:


> And you need to read up on the Fifth Amendment. One of the 4 prerequisites to taking property by eminent domain is that the public must have use of the land afterwards. You can compare ROP to highways and water lines all you want, but this is apple and oranges to those analogies.
> 
> "We're going to take your property, private citizens. Then we're going to build you a brand new T-head pier. No, really, we are going to build the pier - we promise". BS they will.


Let the State fill the pass in and keep your land. The State could care less about the land, they just need access to he pass.

Someone posted and idea in another thread that probably makes the most sense
and would stop all the bs. That idea is for the Corps to build a bulkhead at the ICW and let the pass fill in naturally. By doing that the people that want to keep it open can't complain about the great land grab and the Rod and Gun club still has its land.

Got to give Part Timer credit for that idea, smartest thing I heard today


----------



## kickingback (Dec 20, 2013)

Finn Maccumhail said:


> Good Lord, it's like I'm talking to a 4-year old. You're a Trump supporter aren't you?
> 
> Firstly, the pass wasn't there. It was just a low spot that periodically flooded. The state cut the permanent pass.
> 
> ...


LMAO...4yr old...a 4yr old will lash out at others that make them look bad. You point a finger and you have 3 pointing back at you. Sorry you can't take facts or criticism too well. Don't attack others or you will be banned. I promise.

As for the pass not being open...there is a map they found from the 1880's where the pass was open at one time probably by mother nature. If you took the time to research your facts you wouldn't look so inept. The pass has probably been open and closed MANY times throughout the Earth's years of existence. You are naive if you think the pass was never open. Think about it seriously. If at one time it was open by mother nature wouldn't all the sand fill it back in? Common sense...but you don't think. You just want to shove your non-facts in everyone's face.

Again the Rod and Gun club did not want this. You can spit and sputter all you want but the govt took their land. You cannot hide nor deny the fact....er...I guess you can...you probably think Hillary is innocent and want her to be your next president. Can you say indictment! LMAO. That's how your level of thinking is sounding.

Liberals...can't talk to them becasue they close their minds to every thing they disagree with.


----------



## Finn Maccumhail (Feb 16, 2009)

jampen said:


> 1. The "Club" did not sign the easement. The original owner did and BRG received the property after he died.
> 
> 2. You need to support this claim. I have never heard from anyone that there was a state option to close the pass. If that is true then why all the legal fuss.
> 
> ...


The club did sign the easement. The club purchased 22 acres in the early 1940's and in 1954 they signed the easement with the state. Under the agreement the state maintains the pass and the club was required to maintain the adjacent areas and keep it free access to the public.

Then in 1987 or '88 the state directly leased the adjacent parcels from the club for a park and has been that way until recently when I believe the local community took it over (recently being in the last 5-10 years).

The state option required going through the federal government because while the state executed the easement with the club the Corps of Engineers permitted it's construction so closing it requires going through the permitting process with the COE which the COE cannot grant without the proper authority hence the eminent domain proceedings as the COE is not party to the easement agreement.

And it's funny how here in the complaint filed by the club and the Gilchrist area they never say the state doesn't have the right to fill in the pass because of private property rights, only that they think closing the pass will be detrimental to the health of the bay, have minimal impact in curbing erosion, and result in the loss of recreational access for those with disabilities.

http://www.guidrynews.com/14February/03414Complaint.pdf



monkeyman1 said:


> And you need to read up on the Fifth Amendment. One of the 4 prerequisites to taking property by eminent domain is that the public must have use of the land afterwards. You can compare ROP to highways and water lines all you want, but this is apple and oranges to those analogies.
> 
> "We're going to take your property, private citizens. Then we're going to build you a brand new T-head pier. No, really, we are going to build the pier - we promise". BS they will.


I'm quite familiar with the 5th amendment and eminent domain proceedings. The fact you think they can proceed with it here without already having the plans and appropriations in place is odd.


----------



## Finn Maccumhail (Feb 16, 2009)

kickingback said:


> LMAO...4yr old...a 4yr old will lash out at others that make them look bad. You point a finger and you have 3 pointing back at you. Sorry you can't take facts or criticism too well. Don't attack others or you will be banned. I promise.
> 
> As for the pass not being open...there is a map they found from the 1880's where the pass was open at one time probably by mother nature. If you took the time to research your facts you wouldn't look so inept. The pass has probably been open and closed MANY times throughout the Earth's years of existence. You are naive if you think the pass was never open. Think about it seriously. If at one time it was open by mother nature wouldn't all the sand fill it back in? Common sense...but you don't think. You just want to shove your non-facts in everyone's face.
> 
> ...


Sure, it was open intermittently on storm or bull tides but never navigable and never the 20'+ deep pass it is now. It's well documented the pass got its name from rum runners rolling barrels over a narrow spit of land to ships on the other side. It was about like 3 Mile Cut on Matagorda- a low spot that occasionally floods.

And the club voluntarily signed the easement documents. I'm not sure what compensation they got at the time because that's not public record but they did so voluntarily.

The fact that all you've got is emotion and wild conjecture as your arguments shows you're clearly the liberal here.


----------



## Finn Maccumhail (Feb 16, 2009)

gater said:


> Let the State fill the pass in and keep your land. The State could care less about the land, they just need access to he pass.
> 
> Someone posted and idea in another thread that probably makes the most sense
> and would stop all the bs. That idea is for the Corps to build a bulkhead at the ICW and let the pass fill in naturally. By doing that the people that want to keep it open can't complain about the great land grab and the Rod and Gun club still has its land.
> ...


Haha- I've said the same thing as far back as 2 years ago. I mean how much could it cost to stick several thousand tons of granite jetty rocks at the north end of the pass and let it silt itself in?


----------



## TX1836 (May 5, 2014)

What happened to the road along the shoreline on that led to the mouth of Oyster Creek? 
Blame that on the Pass too?


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

> You should read the entire thread


pocjetty posted this on the first page I believe.



> You should know who you are dealing with. The engineering firm they got (from Florida) is a hired gun for government projects. It's not surprising to me that the study came out exactly like the GLO wanted it to.
> 
> The founder of Taylor Engineering had been an exec with Tetra Tech. (Before they were TetraTech, they were reportedly International Technology, who got something like $300M from the government and then filed bankruptcy.) They were some sort of water cleanup company, then they became "experts" on damaged buildings after 9/11, then they became some sort of private bomb squad.
> 
> Bottom line, they're really good at giving the government whatever they want, in exchange for a lot of money. It's not the same company, but they've got TetraTech fingerprints all over them. Did I mention that it doesn't surprise me that the study came out the way the GLO wanted it to?


TH


----------



## Finn Maccumhail (Feb 16, 2009)

Trouthunter said:


> pocjetty posted this on the first page I believe.
> 
> TH


Lot of conspiracy theories and baseless accusations there.

I don't really know anything about Tetra Tech but they've been around for 50 years and are publicly traded so I doubt that unless POC is talking about something from the early-1960s.

And claiming somebody is a "hired gun for government projects" is sort of a ridiculous accusation. I've been involved in public works projects and the government, especially the COE is extremely difficult to satisfy.


----------



## fritz423 (Jul 4, 2015)

Very contentious issue. Lots of hard feelings on both sides. I hope nobody loses fishing buddies over it.


----------



## kickingback (Dec 20, 2013)

Finn Maccumhail said:


> Sure, it was open intermittently on storm or bull tides but never navigable and never the 20'+ deep pass it is now. It's well documented the pass got its name from rum runners rolling barrels over a narrow spit of land to ships on the other side. It was about like 3 Mile Cut on Matagorda- a low spot that occasionally floods.
> 
> And the club voluntarily signed the easement documents. I'm not sure what compensation they got at the time because that's not public record but they did so voluntarily.
> 
> The fact that all you've got is emotion and wild conjecture as your arguments shows you're clearly the liberal here.


Liberals will argue until the cows come home about stuff they know nothing about.....You should really stop while you THINK you are ahead. You are just digging yourself deeper.....LMAO

Only one showing emotions is you. *Just you.* Your emotions are definitely getting hurt with everyone telling you the truth. You can't handle it so you lash out. Pitiful.
You should find a new occupation rather than coming in here and putting others down!!

Liberals will always start arguments rather than fix a problem. They throw out "facts" they think are true based on something they read out of a liberal magazine and go around spouting lies they think are the truth rather opening their minds and finding the real truth. They just aren't capable of helping a fellow American. They are so selfish and self centered and when cornered they lash out and call people names becasue in the end they have nothing.....:spineyes:

And if you feel you are not liberal you should really sit back and read what you wrote a few times. Then go to watch MSNBC and feel loved...

Oh and I know you will write something again...it don't matter. I am done with you and your lies. This thread is closed and deleted as far as I and others are concerned. I wont read what you write so have fun spouting off to nobody....!!! LMAO


----------

