Tough choices in new plan to restore coast

23rd January 2012   ·   0 Comments

By Zoe Sullivan
Contributing Writer

Southern Louisiana residents know that the ground under their feet has been moving, and in areas, disappearing. Hurricanes and tropical storms have been eating away at the coast’s protective marshlands, which levees have cut off from the river’s sediment, which would maintain and build the land. Yet figuring out how to stop this destruction and reverse the process provokes ire among fisher folk, the shipping industry and others.

Every five years, the legislature is required to issue a revised Coastal Master Plan, and last week, it unveiled the 2012 version. The plan covers a period of 50 years, and budgets for what planners consider a realistic amount of $50 billion over that stretch. But, Chuck Perrodin, the Public Information Officer with the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA), cautioned that: “[t]here (are) a list of projects, but that doesn’t mean that we’re funded yet… this an ongoing process.” So, while coastal scientists and environmental advocates praise the plan as being a step forward towards dealing with the rapid loss of wetlands, the current version is still just an unfunded draft subject to approval by the legislature.

Aaron Viles of the Gulf Restoration Network says that this issue illustrates “the most important untold story” around the restoration plan. While the state struggles to come up with the funds to restore one of the country’s most productive coastal areas, the oil industry has not been called to contribute.

According to Viles, oil and gas interests own most of the wetland areas in coastal Louisiana, and he claims that extracting these resources changed the question of land-loss from “a question of land-loss from “a thousand-year issue to a hundred-year issue.”

“Why aren’t they paying to help fix it. That’s what’s most outrageous to me….Where’s the oil industry in all this…Why aren’t they matching the dollars that are being invested?” he asked.

While the question of financial responsibility for the oil and gas industry as whole has not been widely raised, that of BP’s has. Under the Resources and Eco­systems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunity, and Revived Eco­nomies of the Gulf States Act of 2011 (the RESTORE Act), 80 percent of the fines levied on BP for the 2010 oil disaster would be allocated to Gulf Coast economic and environmental recovery, according to a fact sheet from the National Audubon Society.

Natalie Snider, Senior Scientist with the CPRA, said that passage of the Act “would allows us to start implementing this plan quicker. It would allow us to get more projects on the ground quicker. It would really be an asset to implementing the plan.”

The amount of money that would result from these fines is not yet clear since it would depend on the total amount levied against BP, a sum in the range of $5 to $20 billion. Additionally, Viles noted that the legislation faces the hurdle of passing both houses of Congress at a time when partisan rancor has stranded a range of projects.

The Louisiana Marine Consortium’s Alex Kolker said that one reason for hope is that subsidence — or “land sinking” — has decreased in recent decades. “The subsidence curve very closely tracks the oil production curve,” Kolker told The Louisiana Weekly. “Subsidence was low in the 1050s when oil production was low, and when oil production rates started to slow in the late 1980s and 1990s, subsidence rates went down.” As a result, the coast is somewhat better positioned now to accommodate restoration efforts because it’s not battling against such large shifts in its level, although sea level rise presents another complicating factor.

One of the guidelines for the master plan was that it utilize natural processes, according to David Muth of the National Wildlife Federation. A computer program was used to calculate the most effective use of strategies and resources for rebuilding the coast. Using the natural process criteria, the program prioritized restoration projects. One of those selected for implementation along the course of the Mississippi River was sediment diversion. Diversion, however, changes the salinity of the water and affects oyster farms and other fishing habitats. Muth suggested that the need to restore the coast might also be a catalyst for changing techniques involved in oyster farming, prompting the adoption of movable beds.

Although change and compromise may be possible, measures such as the sediment diversions encounter political opposition. Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser complained “We’ll never live to see diversions improve our coast one ounce.” He also stated that he was “disappointed” to see all the diversions planned for Plaquemines Parish.

George Barisich, President of the United Commercial Fishermen’s Association also sided with Nungesser. Barisich told The Louisiana Weekly that the idea of switching the oyster industry entirely to movable beds is a “joke.” “If we start putting all these baskets out there, and someone runs into it and dies, who’s liable for it?…There (are) a lot of ramifications for trying to pull off something like that.”

Barisich, who served on an advisory panel for the plan, also said that he felt his views were ignored by the committee responsible for developing the plan. “If you’re going to force this thing down my throat, tell the truth. Tell people how many fishermen are going to be out of work.” Barisich estimated that if the ideal version of the plan were to be implemented, 6,000 independent producers would likely lose their livelihoods, in addition to an average of two deck hands per boat and additional losses from related businesses.

Faced with such dire figures, University of New Orleans Professor Denise Reed points out the stark reality of doing nothing. “The whole plan considers what will happen if we do nothing…compared to if we do something, and the plan describes this draft…as an approach to really trying to address the problem at the scale of the whole coast. You always have to compare it to what would happen if we did nothing.”

Reed also explained that the projects selected came from a computer program designed to estimate the impact of each project on the coast as well as its total implementation cost. “The planning tool helps us consider…how can we use that money to get the most land that we can,” she said.

Sediment diversions are just one tool for rebuilding the coast. Others include marshland restor­ation, for example in the Hop­edale area and the New Orleans East land-bridge, bank stabilization, and channel realignment. A list of the proposed projects can be found at: www.coastal­mas­terplan.louisiana.gov/2012-master-plan/pro­jects/candidate-projects.

Clearly, the plan lays out some tough decisions. According to the Master Plan, the current estimated annual cost of damages resulting from hurricanes, tropical storms and land loss is $2.4 billion; the plan also states that if nothing is done, that cost is expected to rise to an estimated $23.4 billion across the Louisiana coast. Moreover, some sources estimate the current annual rate of land-loss of roughly 16 square miles. However, the master plan aims to slow the amount of land being lost by holding on to some of it longer and by restoring other areas. The period for public comment ends February 25, and a public meeting will be held on January 23 in the Lindy Boggs Auditorium at the Univ­ersity of New Orleans. Simi­lar meetings will be held on January 24 in Houma and on January 25 in Lake Charles.

This article was originally published in the January 23, 2012 print edition of The Louisiana Weekly newspaper