A Background on State Master Plan, and an Alternative Vision

Dr. Pat FitzpatrickNorthern Gulf Institute

• Background on erosion issue − An urgent problem• Overview of State Master Plan and the “pro-diversion” arguments• Objections to diversions and problems with the Master Plan• Some thoughts on an Alternative Plan, focused on immediate land building• Ways to still provide public comments

• Landowners Focus Group• Requirement for Restore Act public input• Master Plan updated every 5 years, which will be 2017 (one reason they are rushing diversions)

The problem – most marsh in SE LA is projected to be lost in 50 years

Three main reasons:

• Wave erosion (daily storms/fronts; episodic hurricanes)• Subsidence (many causes) results in “marsh collapse”• Sea level rise

Other reasons related to manmade canals, hydrology changes

Some erosion is natural since deltas have a life cycle, andbecause the Mississippi River changes course.Bayou Loutre was the Mississippi River 2000 years ago

In active delta regions, river sediment was able to build land despite wave erosion and subsidence, and even overcome sea level rise between ice ages. Most of the sediment was provided during periods of overbank flooding.

The river levees have stopped this process. Hence, the modern delta in Plaquemines Parish is deteriorating

The Biloxi marsh (north of MRGO) is not an active delta but well-established and the most stable in LA.

Wave erosion is a slow but steady process. Small islands and points experience accelerated erosion.

Annual subsidence rates

0.5-1.5 inches/yr

0-0.5 inches/yr

Soils can build and maintain their elevation somewhat through organic matteraccumulation (mostly plant roots) and sediment input from high water events. But at a certain point, the marsh collapses and becomes open water, sometimes in large regions.

0.2-1.5 inches/yr

(Eustatic) sea level rise

Master Plan scenarios

New NOAA scenarios

Historically has risen 8 inches since 1900 (almost 1 inch every 10 years), but may be accelerating

Caused by:• thermal expansion as water warms• melting of glaciers and ice sheets

Combination of subsidence and eustatic sea level rise3 feet since 1900 at Grand Isle and Eugene Island

Predicted land change next 50 years; moderate scenario

Biloxi Marsh left, some marsh left elsewhere

Predicted land change next 50 years; severe scenario

Biloxi Marsh left, all other marsh eroded

Predicted land change next 50 years; severe scenario

Land gained in 50 yearsIn Atchafalaya! Relatively small compared to scope of problem.

This is what the sediment diversions are attempting

Land gain and loss, mouth of Mississippi River

One critical issue: there is half as much sediment in the river today as 100 years agoSecond critical issue: there was no fertilizer and other pollutants 100 years ago

(up to 3 times nitrates, 2 times sulfates, new herbicides such as atrazine)Third critical issue: Much marsh has evolved into a fertilizer-sensitive organic-based soil

A Master Plan primer and the supporters’ view of massive diversions

Phase 1 – 2012 to 2031Phase 2 – 2032 to 2061

All are Phase 1except wherenoted.

Many Phase 1begin within 3years

2

1 & 21 & 2

1 & 2 Biloxi Marsh creation will not occur for 20-30 years!

Flow rate has never been below 200,000 cfsin March, April, or May

River flow (cfs)

Diversion flow (cfs)

>900,000 250,000

Between 600,000and 900,000

50,000

Between 200,000and 600,000

8% of flow(16,000 to 50,000)

<200,000 0

Dredging on small-scale has been successful and at barrier islandsChallenge - can it be done cheaper, faster, further as technology improves?

Strong statements exist in Master Plan

It already has momentum and will be difficult to stop

From their point of view, multiple options have been explored and it favors large diversions as the major component

It contains heartless warnings to the fisheries community

“It is no longer a question of whether we will do large scale diversions but how we will do them”

“Our analysis indicates that multiple sediment diversions operating … are the key to long term land building in the face of higher sea level and subsidence…..Master Plan recommends two 250,000 cfs and multiple smaller river diversions”

“Operated at maximum….during high river flow….”

Garret Graves in Times Picayune:“We’re moving forward with the master plan. We’re moving forward with designing four of the largest diversions. And we’re building them.”

“Requires changing the landscape, not just tweaking what we already have.”

“In some cases change creates dislocations……. Some….dislocations are happening now. We take these dislocations seriously.”

“One lesson learned…..is that future diversions should focus on sediment capture and land building. “

Experiments with no diversions ……“cut our land building potential in half compared to” experiments with diversions.

“In addition, we continued to experience land loss to Year 50.”

“Indicate that sustainable restoration….without sediment diversions is not possible.”

Note that land gain with small diversions and dredging is possible!

But the Master Plan believes including large diversions is better.

Why not focus on maintaining existing and new land?

We’ll come back to this.

“Success will require citizens to offer their ideas as planning proceeds.”

“….Dramatic land loss will continue unless we act boldly……The risk of doing nothing is far greater than the risk of acting with incomplete knowledge…..Calculated risks will be taken”

Issues with massive diversion

Issues with the Master Plan

• Delta building process is too slow, taking decades to build land. Full expansion takes 100 years. • Sediment diversions are unproven. They are based on computer models.• Sediment diversions are confined to a canal, with excessive velocities at high flow that may not concentrate sediment• Statements that these diversions will be open only part of the time are misleading• Sediment diversions don’t duplicate overbank sheetflow• The river contains half the sediment compared to 100 years ago• Caernarvon has shown freshwater vegetation is not resilient to hurricane storm surge……possibly due to excessive nutrients from fertilizer pollution, creating weak roots…….and causing marsh collapse. Organic-based soil, vulnerable to fertilizers, may be the primary reason• A sediment diversion is really a sediment AND freshwater diversion. When the state says “these are not freshwater diversions but sediment diversions”, that’s a half-truth• No detailed studies on fishery impact (just “suitability indexes” in appendix)• Some planned diversions, like Violet, are totally unnecessary. The region is already fresh with the MRGO closed!• No accountability should diversions not work, be abused, or cause more erosion.• A cost-benefits analysis study by LSU supports a focus on rapid land building• The plan lacks ambition for immediate action other than for barrier islands, wave barriers, and a few marsh creation projects. For $50 billion, that is not acceptable.• In fact, it reads like they are giving up and hoping the sediment diversions build new deltas in 50-100 years, especially in Plaquemines Parish.

• Trying to mimic the delta building process• A Mississippi Delta took 100 years to build 60,000 acres (94 square miles) before levees were built and when more sediment was available• Atchafalaya Delta and Wax Lake Delta have grown by roughly 8000-9000 acres (12-14 square miles) from 1932 to 2010. That gives a rough estimate of what a functioning sediment diversion might produce.• Mississippi River Delta has lost 128 square miles this century (includes 23.7 square miles land built).

Diversion facts

20000 ft = 3.8 miles

Delta is 5 miles long now. But took 80 years, and is a natural river system.Also, the soil is different than Delacroix. It’s a firmer mineral base (sand, silt, clay), and cannot be broken down by fertilizer pollution. Delacroix is organic-based and vulnerable to fertilizers.

Here is their ultimate goal from hypothetical models….but 100 years from now!

Circle represents where marsh will hypothetically be built byBarataria Diversion at 45,000 cfs……in 45 years!

Model results for average salinity from Barataria DiversionIt’s a sediment AND freshwater diversion

Model results (only at 15000-35000 cfs, less than planned much of year)Coverage of average salinity 5 ppt or less

June-Nov5 ppt salinity line

Dec-May 15 ppt salinity line

Davis Pond salinity guidelines. The 5 ppt line has been pushed further southAnother example of original guidelines violated, and why accountability is needed for diversions

Dec-May 15 ppt salinity line

June-Nov5 ppt salinity line

Caernarvon built in February 1991 to extend freshwater influences,with specific salinity goals

Influence of diversion , Pearl River, and Lake Pontchartrain here4-7 ppt Lena Lagoon and Shell Beach area, due to MRGO barrier

Another major problem - freshwater vegetation is not resilient to hurricanes

Erosion is pronounced near diversion after Katrina, Gustav, and Isaac

Erosion in saline marsh east of Twin pipelines and in Hopedale was much less.

(Created by Standard Mapping)

(Fitzpatrick et al. 2012)

(Fitzpatrick et al. 2012)

Note that east Delacroix and Biloxi Marsh experienced much less erosionWater coverage doubled near diversion. Erosion was 2-10% in salt marsh.

(Fitzpatrick et al. 2012)

Water coverage increased by another 30% near diversion. Erosion was 0-2% in salt marsh

Plucked marsh, marsh mats, marsh balls, sediment, aquatics, organic matter, distributed throughout west Delacroix, even clogging some waterways

Caernarvon canal was clogged. So was Bayou Gentilly. No clogged waterways occurred in Hopedale or in eastern Delacroix.

Caernarvon canal today

Video documentary from interviews with Delacroix commercial fishermen

Philip Mones

Buddy Melerine

Former Shoreline on southshoreLake Lery now open water with 1.5 foot depth

River water contains agricultural runoff and pollutants Salt marsh has a fairly tightly intertwined root mat, built from roots extending from stems, in top 15 cm

Fertilizer pollution affects the development of root mat and stems. There is a shift from below to above-ground biomass allocation. Growth accelerates at top, but results in weak, shallow roots. Plus, the soil decomposes. The system becomes fragile to waves, tides, and surge.

Also, some vegetation is floatants. Floatants deceivingly look like “land”

Prolonged flooding from diversion (“ponding”) may also cause marsh collapse

Need more studies on diversion water quality issues. We don’t want to make a statewide erosion problem worse

Golden rule: “do no harm”

Marsh root comparison

Soil exposed to river water is more decomposed

Hypothesis – river water in organic-rich soils enhance decomposition of plant matter and weaken soils, making them less resilient to storm surge and other wave events (Chris Swarzenski, USGS))

Process explained in a landmark field study at Woodhole by a former LSU scientist Linda Deeganand LSU professor emeritus John Fleeger

• Computer-controlled phosphorus and nitrogen put in a tidal creek for nine years• In the first few years of the experiment, the nutrients caused the marsh grass along the creek edges to grow greener and taller, in a process similar to what happens when you add fertilizer to your garden• These taller Spartina cordgrasses, however, produce fewer of the roots and rhizomes that normally help stabilize the edge of the marsh creek.• The nutrients also boosted microbial decomposition of leaves, stems, and other biomass in the marsh peat, further destabilizing the creek banks.

“Eventually, the poorly rooted grass grew too tall and fell over, where the twice-daily tides tugged and pulled it,” Deegan said, “The weakened, decomposed peat in the creek bank then cracked and chunks of the creek bank fell into the creek.”

“In only five to seven years, the edge of the marsh is literally falling apart,” Fleeger said.

Penchant Basin, also organic-soil based, is seeing the same problem

60% marsh loss

Violet diversion

Does a Violet freshwater diversion have merit anymore? No!• Pat’s casual measure of salinity - bass! Note this was caught at MRGO rock dam• They generally live in salinity below 6 ppt• Shell Beach is now loaded with bass• The rock dam has reduced salinity by 10-20 ppt to its west• Salinity is near pre-MRGO conditions west of dam.• This area never had a direct freshwater flow before MRGO. It just needed MRGO closed.

Cost benefit analysis shows immediate land building ismore beneficial economically

(Rex Caffey and Hua Wang, LSU)

They show “rapid rate of restoration is an economic and ecological advantage.”

Can small diversions and dredging compliment each other and accelerate the delta-building process without huge influxes of freshwater?

Perhaps

The West Bay diversion hints it may be possible

No significant land building occurred until dredging trapped diversion sediment

Suggests dredging on periphery can trap sediments efficiently. One could obtain the benefits of the river without over-freshening or its nutrient risks.

One caveat – West Bay is a mineral-based soil, and fertilizer pollution is still an issue for organic-based soil

Presenter

Presentation Notes

West Bay

Diversion flow is 50,000-60,000 csf

An alternative plan

Saving the coast – an alternate plan

THEME #1 – NO NET LOSS• Real-time monitoring of land loss with LANDSAT and MODIS satellites, unmanned aircraft systems, and boat patrols.• Focus on retaining current and future new land. Use pipe slurry to combat subsidence and add shell-hardened shorelines• A year-round strike team (“Marsh 9-1-1 Service”) should be devoted to rebuilding loss land before island or shoreline loss becomes large. Think of it as marsh maintenance.• These are small-scale “tune-ups” that prevent large-scale erosion and preserve land.• Needs to be performed by an independent group

THEME # 2 – TANGIBLE GOAL: BUILD 30,000-60,000 ACRES PER DECADE PER PROJECT!• Base goals on land built, not hypotheticals• Land building with sediment pipes should be focus• Tens of million dollar-projects should demand phenomenal results. Thus far we have expected too little in return. We need to be ambitious.• Diversions should focus on “sediment trapping efficiency”, not flow rate• Dredged land on periphery of diversions can increase trapping efficiency and accelerate the delta-building process. The West Bay diversion hints at this process.• Smaller diversions could be used without blasting a region with freshwater, and still provide the balanced ecology of river influence. Even the Master Plan shows small diversions can grow land. It never considers any interaction with dredged land to increase their efficiency or optimize smaller diversions. Soil type and fertilizer pollution are issues, though.

Diversions – Accountability is important!Use “Adaptive management”

Detailed studies on water quality impacts and soil type issues are needed Demand salinity limits, and make legally binding. If violations occur, penalties paid to commercial fishermen Demand proof of land building for any diversion, or shutdown until modifications are madeIf a diversion causes erosion, immediately rebuild marsh or pay penalties to landowners

• Why? The state has never acknowledged the erosion caused by Caernarvon• They claimed waves were enhanced near the diversion due to its geography. However, Fitzpatrick et al. (2012) show with storm surge modeling that waves were the same as in the eastern marsh• The state’s denial from several studies on this issue is puzzling• This is another reason a monitoring team is needed

The Landowners Focus Group (recommended in the Master Plan) can facilitate such an agreement with their legal counselWhy legal counsel? This clause on “revisions” (eminent domain?) is in Master Plan:

Most diversions will be funded by Restore Act. The Restore Act requires public input. There will be a workshop May 21 for recreational fishermen to provide input on using BP money. All input should be considered, or the requirement is violated.

Michael S. Kearney (University Maryland), J. C. Alexis Riter (University Maryland), R. Eugene Turner (LSU). Kearney, M. S., J. C. A. Riter, and R. E. Turner (2011), Freshwater river diversions for marsh restoration in Louisiana: Twenty-six years of changing vegetative cover and marsh area, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L16405.

From their abstract: "We suggest that this vulnerability to storm damage reflects the introduction of nutrients in the freshwater diversions (that add insignificant amounts of additional sediments), which promotes poor rhizome and root growth in marshes where below-ground biomass historically played the dominant role in vertical accretion." --------------------NOAA panel from: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Partner; University of Florida University of West Florida; University of Georgia; U. S. Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center; University of South Carolina; South Florida Water Management District, Everglades Systems Assessment Section; U. S. Geological Survey, (Reston, VA)

Teal, J.M., R. Best, J. Caffrey, C.S. Hopkinson, K.L. McKee, J.T. Morris, S. Newman and B.Orem., 2012. Mississippi River Freshwater Diversions in Southern Louisiana: Effects on Wetland Vegetation, Soils, and Elevation. Edited by A.J. Lewitus, M. Croom, T. Davison, D.M. Kidwell, B.A. Kleiss, J.W. Pahl, and C.M. Swarzenski. Final Report to the State of Louisiana and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers through the Louisiana Coastal Area Science & Technology Program; coordinated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 49 pp.

Summary:

1) "Freshwater Diversions may affect wetland plants and their responses to changes in salinity, nutrients, and herbivory." 2) "Freshwater Diversions may also affect the shear strength of soils." (translation - freshwater marsh cannot handle storm surges and waves) 3) "Diversion projects would benefit from formal adaptive management." (Translation - if it's not working, fix, adjust, or abandon it) 4) "Uncertainty stems from several research limitations: data collection was highly variable from one diversion project to the next; design review was lacking, especially when considering ecosystem level outcomes; monitoring was highly variable from one site to the next; pre-diversion data for sites were not collected, making it difficult to understand results of diversions; and conditions varied considerably from site to site so data from one site were not necessarily useful at another." (translation - they are not doing proper research before and after diversions are built) 5) "The Panel concluded that little evidence was available that any Freshwater Diversion in the Louisiana deltaic plain has significantly reversed the rate of marsh degradation and land loss. While there is evidence that the minor sediment load of Freshwater Diversions has enhanced accretion in localized areas, lack of uniform sheet flow across marshes, coupled with prolonged flooding and ponding of wetland vegetation, and rapid shifts in salinity have compromised the combined processes of macrophyte biomass accumulation, peat accumulation, building of soil strength and building wetland elevation and extent. These processes are necessary for reversing the high rates of wetland loss through most of the Louisiana deltaic plain. It is unlikely that any currently planned Freshwater Diversion without substantial sediment load will reverse wetland loss in Louisiana. Restoration of Louisiana wetlands may only be possible through significant inputs of sediment." 6) "A number of Sediment Diversions are planned along lower portions of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers, but the science is still evolving to inform model predictions on the amount of sediment needed for adequate wetland rebuilding and the role of high nutrient river water in contributing to or detracting from marsh restoration. Effective adaptive management, therefore, will be paramount to ensure that diversions have their intended outcome." (translation - we're doing our best, and understand future sediment diversions are needed, but there are many unknowns)

Some references

------------------------------John Barras (U.S. Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center;) has published several papers on the impact of hurricanes on wetlands types, and shows the vulnerability of the floatants and weak-rooted freshwater vegetation to hurricanes.

Barras, J. A., 2006, Land area changes in coastal Louisiana after the 2005 hurricanes – a series of three maps. USGS Open File Report 2006-1274, 3p. Barras, J. A., 2007, Land area changes in coastal Louisiana after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Chapter 5 In Science and the storms: the USGS response to the hurricanes of 2005. Farris, G. S., Smith, G. J., Crane, M. P., Demas, C. R., Robbins, L. L., and Lavoie, D. L., (Eds.), pp. 96-113 (USGS Circular 1306). Barras, J. A., Brock, J. C., Morton, R. A., and Travers, L. J., 2010, Remotely sensed imagery revealing the effects Hurricanes Gustav and Ike on coastal Louisiana, 2008 (U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 566). Morton, R. A., and Barras, J. A., 2011, Hurricane impacts on coastal wetlands: A half-century record of storm-generated features from southern Louisiana. Journal of Coastal Research, 27(6a), pp. 27-43. ----------------------------Here is the seminal paper which explains the reason for the Caernarvon wetland losses: weak, shallow roots. The scientists are from Boston University, UNO, Army Corps, and USGS.

Howes, N. C., Fitzgerald, D. M., Hughes, Z. J., Georgiou, I. Y., Kulp, M. A., Miner, M. D., Smith, J. M., and Barras, J. A., 2010, Hurricane-induced failure of low salinity wetlands, Proceedings of the National Academy of the United States of America, 107(32), pp. 14014–14019.----------------------------

Paper which explain fertilizer impact on organic-based marsh:

Deegan, L. A., Johnson, R. S., Peterson, B. J. Fleeger, J. W., Fagherazzi, S., and Wollheim, W. M., 2012, Coastal eutrophication as a driver of salt marsh loss, Nature, 490, pp. 388-392.

----------------------------Fitzpatrick research:

Fitzpatrick, P. J., S. Bhate, Y. Lau, V. Anantharaj, S. Shean, Q. Chen, and K. Hu, 2013. Wetland loss associated with tropical cyclone storm surge near the Caernarvon freshwater diversion. Submitted to Journal of Coastal Research

More references

Extra slides, not shown in talk but could be used for questions or for additional information

More trends

Causes of subsidence

Used 350,000+ tons of stone

Moved 125,000+ tons from nearby abandoned jetty to expedite work

Remaining stone sourced from Arkansas quarry 700 miles upriver

Job completed in seven months - finished two weeks ahead of schedule

Construction 100% Federally funded, real estate provided by State of LA

Salinity reduced 10 to 12 ppt immediately upstream of barrier

Salinity levels in estuaries remain higher than historic conditions

MRGO Channel Closure Complete

75

76

Average Annual Salinity 1959-1961(in parts per thousand)

77

Average Annual Salinity 1990-2008(in parts per thousand)

78

Average Annual Salinity Post-MRGO Closure(in parts per thousand)

7-11 ppt is not correct. Bass are stressed in 8-12 ppt, and will die > 12 ppt. They seek water 0-6 ppt.

Its easy to estimate 7-11 ppt when there are no sensors for validation.

There are general statements on how public feedback was used. For example, specific metrics (i.e., histograms) are missing.

In the sciences, authors have to formally respond to every reviewer comment, suggestions, or question. An editor acts as an intermediary, and also decides whether an article is worthy of publication or should be rejected. This was not done.

Scary projection. And probably accurate.

Are wave heights enhanced near diversion during hurricane surge events?

Peak surge and wave heights for eleven AOIs

Reference: Howes et al., 2010, Hurricane-induced failure of low salinity wetlands, Proceedings of the National Academyof the United States of America, 107(32), pp. 14014–14019.

From Howes et al. 2010

Example, root mat