Louisiana berms update

 

“Where is the common sense in studying if sand or oil is more harmful to a coast?”

How to begin answering this question? It was posed recently by one of the candidates in the runoff for the Republican contender for the 3rd Congressional District seat: “The people are tired of study after study without any action,” he said.

It’s been a while since I added to my series on “The Great Wall of Louisiana,” but in the meantime the dredges continue their devastation, the political rhetoric grows (something that hardly seemed possible), and the coastal and environmental science fades even further into the background. The fact is that “study after study without any action” is true, but not in the sense the candidate intended: the results and recommendations of many studies by Federal Agencies and coastal and environmental scientists have been completely ignored.

The Baton Rouge Advocate recently published an illuminating article, “Berm controversy rises,” in which they state that “The Advocate requested documents that would show debate about the concept among state officials. None were provided, although some reports and financial records were made available.” The article goes on to say that “Some of the questions are being raised by federal agencies. Those views were not made public during the emergency permitting because of [Army] corps [of Engineers] policy.” They may not have been made clearly public, but they were available: I posted sources that I had dug up (dredged, so to speak) on May 23, May 28 (including extracts from the permit and comments by several agencies), then a summary of the key USGS report, and other sources. The Advocate article goes on to summarise some of these views, for example:

In the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Aug. 18 comments, Supervisor of the Louisiana Ecological Service Office James Boggs wrote: “Any large-scale threat to the Louisiana coast from the Deepwater Horizon oil will likely have dissipated long before the completion of the berm barrier project.”

“In light of the fact that much of the oil is dissipating and it is highly unlikely that the berm can be constructed within a time frame that will meet the stated objective (i.e., trapping oil), the Service questions the need for continuation of the barrier berm project,” Boggs wrote.

The U.S. Geological Survey reported that sand resources along the Louisiana coastline are scarce.

“The excavation of this material for use in building an emergency berm may compromise future coastal restoration efforts by reducing the sand resources,” the Geological Survey’s report states.

Impact on fish and wildlife
The National Marine Fisheries Service also questions the continuation of the berm project.

Roy Crabtree, regional fisheries service administrator with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote that portions of the project are in areas of essential habitat for many federally managed species and for some listed as threatened or endangered.

“All these species are known to occur in coastal Louisiana and are susceptible to hopper dredging activity, and in the case of the leatherback sea turtle, it is susceptible to capture or drowning by relocation trawling associated with hopper dredging in the Gulf,” Crabtree wrote.

The source of the dredged sand — shoals off the coast of Louisiana — is also a concern for some scientists. The shoals are the remnants of former river deltas and barrier islands that are now underwater hills of sand.

And yet, Garret Graves, Governor Jindal’s director of coastal activities and a berm enthusiast, “said many of the critics raise questions because they lack information, others are applying data without considering the impact of the oil and still others are just against the idea.”

“There are a lot of people out there that have just decided that the berms are just something they’re going to kick up one side and down the other. I’ve talked to a few of them. These people have very, very little understanding,” Graves said.

The USGS, the EPA, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and so on and so on, “have very, very little understanding”? Who, exactly, did he talk to?

The comments by Crabtree with respect to the threats to the leatherback sea turtle are important. Here’s an extract from the Gulf Restoration Network site a couple of weeks ago (and, interestingly, reproduced on the Dredging Today site): 

In drafting comments responding to Louisiana’s request to continue with and expand the project, we discovered that in a single two week period , the current sand berm project killed at least five threatened Loggerhead Turtles - and the full toll on turtles is likely higher. In fact, one Army Corps’ report indicated large amounts of turtle activity in the area, stating “Many turtles and turtle heads seen in the area in and around the trawling/dredging site.”

But let’s hear from Garret Graves again: “For folks to suggest that they are an environmental hazard, I think those comments are irresponsible.” 

Irresponsible?

As for the effectiveness of the berms so far? “Garret said workers have collected about 700 barrels of oil from the berms on the west side of the river and about 1,500 pounds of oil and oil-covered debris from the berms on the east side.” And the cost and progress of the project? “The state Department of Natural Resources reports that it has written slightly more than $120 million in checks as of Sept. 2 from the $360 million that oil giant BP set aside for the berms….About 3.6 miles of berms have been built, leaving about 31 more miles to be done under the current permit.” I shall refrain from commenting…

And yet Governor Jindal is seeking to expand the permit:

As Jindal attempts to get permits to expand the project — plus more funding to transform the sandy sections, called berms, into longer-term barrier islands…Graves said the plan would be to fill in the areas behind the berms to create a marsh, which would serve as a platform for the additional vegetation and other restoration that would help build up the barrier islands. With the pipes and dredges already in place for the sand berms, Graves said, the costs now would be less than reorganizing the effort down the road.

If it weren’t for the fact that this sorry saga illustrates so well the growing disconnect between science and politics (on both sides of the Atlantic), I think that I’d despair and give up.

Comments

[F]

Wildlife and the littoral environment, extinguished by idiots with sand.

I haven't commented for a while, but I am still reading regularly, and I find all your posts to be wonderful. Even when they are about bad news.

Cheers!

[Ignatius J. Reilly]

Admitting my extreme bias against the Army Corps of (Dis)Engineers, I wonder why they would have a policy of not making public, questions raised by fed agencies (of course most of them are as incompetent as the corps).

I'm sure the Jindal response to the above is, "We'll be ready for the next one."

[Sean McKenna]

"Ignatius J. Reilly" - I know who you are. :D And you are uniquely qualified to comment on New Orleans. (tee hee)