In earlier posts, I have referred to, and used extensively, the critical contributions of the USGS that are vital to the risk analysis and decision-making associated with the plans for "The Great Wall of Louisiana." And I have expressed concerns that these studies - conducted in their usual thorough and objective way by the people who, after all, know this issue best - have not received the attention that they deserve. Yes, a USGS group has just released the results of its (depressing and alarming) analysis of the volume of the spill, but with respect to management of the response, the headlines have been conspicuous by their absence. Yet the USGS is, arguably, in the best position to be the lead agency in what should be a concerted and coordinated urgent and multidisciplinary blitzkreig on the spill. In the words of Marcia McNutt, Director of the USGS, speaking before the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, the U.S. House of Representatives on May 27 (this is just the introduction, the whole thing being well-worth reading):
The USGS is home to a breadth of multidisciplinary science expertise, an extensive, national, on-the-ground presence, and a wealth of biologic, geologic, geographic, and hydrologic monitoring capabilities and existing data, in scales ranging from microscopic to global. It is USGS’ long-term monitoring capabilities, supported and championed by this Subcommittee, that have positioned the USGS to understand changes in our environment – from water quality to ecosystem composition. The USGS brings its brightest minds and best monitoring and modeling capabilities to issues that present crucial natural resource management challenges. It is this broad capacity combined with a presence in all 50 States and Puerto Rico that enables the USGS to bring science immediately to bear not only in natural hazards such as earthquakes, floods, and volcanoes but also in environmental hazards such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. For more than a century, the USGS has been on point in response to natural disasters; it is this experience and expertise that uniquely prepares the agency for dealing efficiently and effectively with the challenge that lies before us today and the challenges that will face us in the weeks, years, and decades to come.
I am not by any means alone in my frustration over science taking a back seat to politics and money. At the end of last week, I received an informative and supportive e-mail from Jim Flocks, a Research Geologist at the USGS Coastal and Marine Science Center in Florida, to which I have referred before. I really appreciate his taking the time to get in touch and giving me permission to copy the following from his message:
Also worthy of note, today was the last day of the State of the Coast conference in Baton Rouge: http://www.stateofthecoast.org/ This could not have been a more timely meeting of scientists from all disciplines concerned with the health of the Louisiana coastal environment. If you scroll through the agenda you will see that the speakers represent regional experts from industry, government, and academia. Although organized long before the Deepwater Horizon explosion, during the coffee breaks all conversations ultimately drifted toward the obvious, and most speakers (including myself) slipped a spill-related slide or two into their presentations. I talked to biologists, ecologists, engineers, and geologists, in this venue we were able to exchange opinions, integrate knowledge and, of course, spread rumors. Will it provide sediment to a sand-starved littoral system? Yes. Will it protect nesting birds on the beach? Maybe. However, not a single person I talked to supported the opinion that the berm could achieve it’s proposed function: to prevent oil from reaching the marsh. The conference was concluded with a special plenary session about the oil spill. The session was recorded on video and I hope it will be posted online soon, as it provides succinct opinions by a panel of experts who know what they are talking about. Irving Mendelssohn (LSU) introduced an excellent video that describes potential biological impact of the spill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syGM13egoc0
Regarding the berm. Greg Stone (LSU) suggested a limited berm, with the closing of smaller tidal channels along the southern shoreline. I am concerned this might somehow extend the low-water exposure of the marsh-plant root-system to oil, Dr. Mendelssohn explained such exposure would result in plant mortality and land-loss. I talked to Dr. Stone about this after the session, he did not think the tidal exchange would be affected. He did subscribe to the general concern that blocking tidal flow in some tidal inlets will increase scour in others. Already I hear they are placing berms in Quatre Bayou Pass and Pass Abel. To maintain equilibrium of the tidal prism, this may widen and deepen Caminada Pass, ironically one of a very small number of major inlets in Louisiana that actually have homes along their shore. But, as panel member Edward Overton (LSU) put it during the plenary session: the oil-spill mitigation plan isn’t about good results versus bad results, it’s about terrible results versus bad results. No matter what mediation action is taken there will be negative consequence, hopefully the incident team and state managers will listen to scientific opinion and at least minimalize the inevitable impact. Not sure how much rational thought is making it to the implementation stage as there is definitely a sense of urgency in the air. The prevailing statement from the state government is that the time for studies and questions is over and it is time for action. Ironically, one of the panel members said, and I know this doesn’t help the situation but I have to repeat it: “if we had been properly maintaining our barrier island and marsh environment all along, this would not be as big of a problem”.
The conference was covered by Louisiana's Daily Comet, but the website Jim links to is worth a visit and I sincerely hope that session video will be posted on line. And note that Jim also pointed me to a useful blog that is worth following, the lacoastpost that tracks "all things coastal." The blog was started by Len Bahr who had been the director of Louisiana's Applied Coastal Science Program, and I particularly enjoyed his post titled "Like sand through the hour glass, so are the dunes of our lies."
It should be appreciated that the USGS has probably been instrumental in diverting the original berm plan, to dredge a linear trench one-mile offshore for borrow material, toward targeting point sources instead and stressing the importance of avoiding dredging within the footprint of pre-Katrina island shorelines. This is paramount because enough is simply not known about how natural recovery from this 100-year event will proceed, and upsetting any re-equilibrium process could be detrimental in the long-term. Will these suggestions be incorporated into the dredging plan? This will not become clear until the dredgers break ground.Meanwhile, the ground is being broken, dredgers are being deployed and " Dredging sediment for the state’s new sand berms should begin Sunday at the north end of Chandeleur Island," Gov. Bobby Jindal said Friday afternoon....Although work on the sand berms will start this weekend, the state has asked the corps for permission to dredge closer to the islands than originally planned in the short term if the state promises to replace the underwater sand within three weeks, the governor said.
Associated with this activity have been a number of stunning pronouncements, of which I shall select a couple:
"There's always upsides and downsides," said Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Dan Somma. "This sand naturally moves, because these are natural barrier islands. So during a hurricane, these sands would be moving naturally anyway. This process just speeds that along."
and, again from the Daily Comet:
Lawmakers have been briefed about the berm project during the regular session, which ends June 21, but few have shown any interest in the scientific concerns being raised.
Asked about them this week, state Rep. Jerry Gisclair, D-Larose, delivered his answer with a growl and tone of resentment matched by only by his colleagues in the Houma-Thibodaux delegation
“I have no concerns,” Gisclair said, his voice increasing in volume. “I want to see as many berms as possible. We can always blow the sand away. There’s just no sense of urgency on this oil spill.”
"We can always blow the sand away" - what in heavens' name is he talking about?
So, to return to a more rational voice, I've quoted extensively from Rob Young, Coastal geologist at Western Carolina University, whose commentary has at least reached a number of media outlets. A recent piece from Newsweek that begins "Scientists are such spoilsports, always insisting on gathering data on the likely effects of a strategy before implementing it" continues:
Before this, Jindal was known to scientists as the governor who in 2008 signed a law allowing the state's public schools to teach creationism (excuse me! "intelligent design") in their classrooms. The difficulty he has distinguishing science from faith reared its ugly head again when he cast about for a way to hold back BP's oil. Emissaries from Jindal's office have made regular pilgrimages to the Netherlands to consult with engineers about protecting the state's coasts from the next Katrina. Van Oord, a marine engineering and dredging company that is constructing the artificial Palm Islands for Dubai, proposed building what amounts to artificial sandbars. "If you ask a Dutch company that builds artificial islands in Dubai how to protect marshlands and barrier islands," says coastal geologist Rob Young of Western Carolina University, "of course they'll say, 'Let's make an offshore island!—and shall we put a palm tree on it for you?' "
And from a recent interview for NPR:
Young says he worries these plans are being made without enough scientific oversight.
"We need a better way to involve scientists and engineers in formulating these ideas and doing very, very rapid review of them once they've been proposed," he says. "The oil spill is going to be with us for years, not days. So it seems like spending a little time right now to put together a process for better but more rapid scientific review would be worth the trouble."
Despite his concerns, Young says he does empathize with the governor's urgency.
"I hate being viewed as someone who might be attempting to obstruct the action to project and save that coast," he says. "I'm just heartbroken and furious about the impacts of this particular spill. I mean, every morning when I wake up, I'm not sure whether to call somebody in anger or to cry or to throw up. But doing something just to be looking like you're doing something is not the right thing to do."
I'll close (almost) with an extract from a New York Times op-ed piece by Young titled "A Sand Trap in the Gulf":
We should also remember that while there is no magic bullet for the spill, that doesn’t mean we should just try everything and see what sticks. It would be more prudent to continue fighting with methods like modified booms (as is being suggested for Alabama’s Perdido Pass) and collection until effective long-term solutions can be fully vetted by engineers and scientists specializing in coastal environments.
The BP spill will be with us not for weeks or months, but for years. If we want to do our best to stop the oil from hurting critical habitats, then it’s worth taking a little time to get it right.
All I can say is "hear hear"!
And, finally, speaking of effective solutions, here's a really interesting idea from another scientist who knows what he's talking about, G.Paul Kemp, a former marine science professor at Louisiana State University who works now with the National Audubon Society's coastal initiative: unleashing the Mississippi to flush oil from the delta.
Comments