Meeting Particulars:
The third meeting of the Science Board for the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Program (LCA Program) was held at the Lindy Boggs Conference Center at the University of New Orleans on December 13 and 14, 2006. Nine of the eleven members of the Board (Appendix 1) were in attendance for all or part of the meeting.
The main objectives of the third meeting were to:
State Master Plan:
The Science Board members had been provided with a copy of the Preliminary Draft of the Comprehensive Coastal Protection Master Plan for Louisiana approximately two weeks prior to the meeting. This provided ample time to review the main body of the report, but members had not reviewed in any depth the voluminous appendices that are posted on the website www.louisianacoastalplanning.org.
Mr. Jon Porthouse, on assignment to the Louisiana Governor’s Office of Coastal Activities, and Ms. Jean Cowan of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, both members of the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority’s (CPRA) Integrated Planning Team (IPT) that produced the report, participated in the discussion of the report. Mr. Porthouse stressed the preliminary nature of the report and that input and suggestions from the Science Board were welcome. When asked how the Board could be of assistance, Ms. Cowan replied that they would appreciate input on sequencing and priorities. The IPT was in the midst of regional open houses and public meetings to receive comments on the report. In January 2007, the team will develop more specifics and cost estimates and prepare a draft plan for consideration by the CPRA in February. It is the understanding of the Science Board that the Final Draft Report will be delivered in April, 2007.
The region addressed in this planning process is very large and set within an area influenced by complex river and coastal process that are incompletely understood. The scientific components of the planning obviously have very real ramifications to the local communities, the local and national economy, and multiple interests. Despite the magnitude of this planning challenge and its implications to the people of Louisiana, the Science Board is very impressed by the progress that has been made since its September briefing and is appreciative of the openness of the IPT to its criticisms and suggestions. The following specific concerns of the Science Board are raised as result of its reading of the draft preliminary report and discussions during the meeting:
A discussion was held among the members of the Science Board and representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Geological Survey concerning the role and responsibilities of the Board to the Corps. The Corps clarified its position that the LCA Program Science Board was not charged with formally reviewing the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LaCPR) Plan as there was both internal, independent review as well as external review built into its planning process. Board members expressed their opinion that it was essential to their advisory role and consistent with previous discussions with Messrs. Dan Hitchings and Randy Hanchey that they offer comments and advice on the integration and compatibility of coastal restoration and flood protection. It was mutually agreed that this would continue in the form of regular advice rather than a formal review, especially with regard to the technical aspects of engineering design, which is outside the scope and expertise of the Science Board.
The Science Board appreciates the written feed-back it received from the Corps of Engineers on the report of its September 2006 meeting and encourages both the Corps and the State to respond on an ongoing basis and to charge it with specific advisory tasks where appropriate.
Science and Technology Program:
Dr. Barbara Kleiss of the USACE Engineer Research and Development Center was introduced as the new Acting Director of the LCA Program Science and Technology Office, replacing Dr. Buddy Clairain, who is retiring. The Board thanked Buddy for his long service and cooperation and welcomed Barb. Dr. Kleiss reviewed the procedures for accessing the Science Board’s website http://el.erdc.usacd.army.mil/cast/board.html.
It was requested that the Science Board rank the 35 research thrust areas that had been complied from canvassing agencies. Priorities are to be developed for presentation to the Program Management Team on January 24, 2007, after which detailed statements of need would be developed by February 1 and Requests for Proposals issues in the spring, depending on resolution of appropriations for FY 2007.
The Board felt it was more effective if it collectively deliberated on the research thrusts rather than have each member provide separate rankings. Furthermore, it found that numerical rankings were not appropriate given that some “thrusts” were core elements of the S&T Program that had to be maintained and others were very vaguely defined at this point. Appendix 3 presents the Science Board’s evaluations of the 35 research thrust areas in which they are grouped as ongoing essential ingredients, timely priorities, longer-term priorities, lesser priorities, trivial, and too vague to evaluate.
Leaky Levees
A lively, informative and thought-provoking discussion of multiple issues related to leaky levees was stimulated by perspectives provided by Professors Oliver Houck (Tulane University), John Day (LSU) and Denise Reed (University of New Orleans). Leaky levees are hurricane storm surge protection features designed to allow normal tidally and meteorologically driven flows through gates that can be closed to curtail storm surge. In other words, it is intended that functioning tidal wetlands will be maintained landward of the levee alignment. Leaky levees are a major feature of the Morganza-to-Gulf Hurricane Protection Project in the Terrebonne Basin that has long been in planning as well as many of the 1% level-of-protection levee alignments included in the State Master Plan as well under evaluation in LaCPR planning.
It is beyond the scope of this meeting report for the Board to summarize the discussion, particularly because it would involve interpreting what others said. Rather, the Board offers the following perspectives that should be taken into account as protection and restoration planning advances:
As a follow up on discussions at its September meeting, the Science Board has developed a “position paper” on sediment delivery as a critical component of the LCA coastal ecosystem restoration program. The paper is included as Appendix 4. The paper states the Board’s view that the only possibility for reaching a sustainable net “no wetland loss” objective is through conservation and effective utilization of the sediment load of the Mississippi River by creating major diversions of the Mississippi River sediment laden waters into shallow areas wherein the deposition can offset the relative sea level rise and other deleterious effects. It therefore proposes as a first-order metric of restoration success the volume of mineral sediment placed in shallow water. Further, the Board recommends convening a workshop in which the merits of various designs for large scale diversions are evaluated and undertaking a demonstration project to evaluate the effectiveness of sediment delivery to shallow water.
The Science Board is contemplating similar brief papers that it would prepare from time-to-time.
Next Meeting
The best window for the next meeting of the Science Board is the week of March 12. Board members will be canvassed regarding their availability for a 2-day meeting during that period. Issues timely for consideration at that time include: (1) comments on the Draft State Master Plan; (2) more in-depth consideration of the protection and restoration planning east of the Mississippi River, including the future fate of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, the Lake Borgne-Lake Pontchartrain barriers, and recovery response of the Caernarvon diversion area; and (3) outcome of LCA Science and Technology Program research prioritization.
Dr. Conner Bailey
Dr. C. Ronnie Best
Dr. Stephen Brandt
Dr. Robert Dean
Dr. William Dietrich (not attending)
Dr. Joseph Fernando
Dr. Peter Goodwin
Dr. George Tanner
Dr. John Teal (not attending)
Dr. John Wells
Executive Director
Room 256, Lindy Boggs Conference Center, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA
Meeting Purpose:
The main objectives of this third meeting of the Science Board are to discuss the State’s Master Plan with representatives from the State of Louisiana, to review the activities of the LCA S&T Program Office, and to have a general round table discussion of the “leaky levee” concept.
Agenda:
Wednesday, December 13
1:30pm - State of Louisiana Master Plan - Jon Porthouse, LA DNR
3:30pm - SB working session with the USACE - Buddy Clairain, Barbara Kleiss
Thursday, December 14
8:30am - S&T Program Office Status &Activities - Buddy Clairain, Rick Raynie
10:00am - “Leaky Levees” Round Table - Oliver Houck, John Day, Denise Reed
12:00pm - Lunch Break
1:00pm - Science Board working time*
2:30pm - Adjourn
*This is an open meeting except for the slot listed as Science Board working time
Ongoing Essential Ingredients
Some of the thrust areas describe essential components of the S&T Program that have to be developed and maintained over the length of the program. Consequently, they really cannot be ranked in comparison with shorter-term tasks.
1
Continuation of adaptive management
Important to put in place, build on CWPPRA
Emphasize turning data into information into knowledge; consider new data management models
S&T Program Office should budget resources for this purpose on an ongoing basis
Several thrust areas are highly relevant to integrated restoration-protection design and can completed in the near term.
3
Relative sea level rise position paper
Wetland assimilation, alteration and function
Influence of wetland on storm surge levels and wave patterns
Important assessment from perspective of national credibility; should include projections based on new IPCC report
Subsidence rates a key controversy that should be resolved; but isn’t IPET doing this?
Evaluation of large diversions and Birdsfoot abandonment should be advanced
Seize good opportunities to extract information and adaptive learning
Potentially valuable “meta-analysis” at this point
This issue is critical to integration of restoration and hurricane protection and the 2005 hurricanes provide new insights and data that should be evaluated.
Important for optimizing conservation and utilization, esp. for diversions & barrier islands
These thrust areas seem relevant but require refinement, sorting out among them, or longer time frames for completion. Not all of them are of equal priority and most require more focus before committing to their execution.
6
15
16
Environmental benefits
Continue refinement of desktop models
High-fidelity landscape evolution and ecological model system
Restoration project interactions with endangered species
Role of wetland vegetation in erosion control
Sediment trapping
Barrier island assessment
These four thrust areas broadly overlap in objectives and purpose, but seem to take different approaches. More specific prioritization of physical-ecological-landscape responses analysis is required.
Important to integrate this with 17
Seems like there is already much knowledge on this; should focus on practical application and be coordinated with 19
Could be very important the use of dredged sediment for restoration
The description is extraordinarily sketchy, but improved design is undoubtedly required in barrier island restoration.
While not unimportant, several thrust areas seem less critical to the success of the LCA Program.
21
Assessment of environmental impact of rock armoring deployment
In general, the Science Board favors rock armoring of marshes only in very limited circumstances.
This could be more important if focused on establishing trees to protect levees in LaCPR
Seems like still wanting your cake and eating it too. Effective restoration will require substantial changes that might preclude the status quo.
Needs more justification in order to determine its relative importance and urgency
WVA approaches are old way of thinking, need to design to optimize sustainability of landscape
One thrust area addresses what the Science Board considers a trivial concern.
29
Potential for introduction of invasive species using sediment from outside sources
This is unlikely to be significant
Several thrust areas were unclearly defined or too all encompassing such that the Board is unable to evaluate their importance.
7
8
Risk assessment
Assessment of unique coastal Louisiana stressors
Further fund monitoring workgroup
Marsh creation in areas with poor sediment
Indirect benefits from barrier shoreline restoration
Risks of what, for what?
Too scattered an approach; requires focus on most critical stressors and most important unknowns
No concepts.
Vague and unfocused
The rapid loss of wetlands in Southern Louisiana is a result of several causes, including extensive construction of river levees leading to sediment diversion off the shelf into deeper waters, canals which tear the wetland fabric and provide access for vessels that generate waves, and channels which allow penetration of salt water into formerly fresher water environments, among others. Additionally, significant wetland losses have occurred as a result of severe weather events, for example that due to hurricane Katrina being close to 220 sq. miles (vis-‡-vis the total loss from 1932 to pre-Katrina 2005 of 1900 sq. miles). Similar to the diversity of causes of wetland losses, a range of remedial measures has been proposed, some of which have been implemented. Given the growing consensus that future hurricane damage reduction plans for the Louisiana coast must include sustenance or enhancement of wetland-dominated landscape, a rigorous evaluation of wetland reconstruction options is required. The purpose of this document is to present the position of the LCA Program Science Board (SB) on the issue of sediment delivery and utilization as a first step toward shaping meaningful approaches.
It is well known that the present wetland system is largely the product of channel switching processes that occurred on a timescale of approximately 1,000 years. Periodic abandonment of former long channels in favor of new shorter channels to the Gulf resulted in natural alteration of the sediment delivery system: new channels delivered the sediment load of the Mississippi River into shallower waters where they contributed to wetland construction, while the coarser sediments remained in more gulfward positions thereby nourishing the barrier island systems. Taking a cue from this natural process, it is our conclusion that the only possibility for reaching a sustainable net “no wetland loss” objective is through conservation and utilization of the sediment load of the Mississippi River by creating major diversions of the Mississippi River sediment laden waters into shallow areas wherein the deposition can offset the relative sea level rise and other deleterious effects. This same conclusion was reached in the NRC (2006) report and in the British Petroleum sponsored workshop of 36 scientists and engineers held in New Orleans in April, 2006 (Reed et al. 2006).
2.0 A Recommended Metric of Project Effectiveness
While realizing that the delivery of sediments must be accomplished with reasonable care, it is also noted that wetlands are opportunistic and will develop if given appropriate quantities of mineral sediments to form substrate on which vegetation can prosper. Placement must consider the existing salinity regime, nutrient (especially organic) loading and the best available assessment of the types and growth rates of landforms that these sediments will develop. It is useful to define a metric for quantifying success of projects intended for wetland generation. As a first order metric, which may be fine tuned later, it is suggested that the metric be the volume of mineral sediment placed in shallow water.
3.0 Next Steps
Effectiveness in countering the current wetland losses will require river diversion(s) at scales that have not been attempted. Any long term approach should use natural processes to the degree possible in order to be sustainable with increasing scarcity of hydrocarbon energy and other resources. Several designs of large scale diversions have been proposed at the conceptual and more detailed levels (e.g. www.lacpr.usace.army.mil). Such large scale diversions may cause concern among various stakeholders, perhaps most notably the shipping industry which may be the stakeholder that would experience the greatest potential impact. A second concern may be the effectiveness of this approach in constructing wetlands and barrier islands. The SB supports the design of projects, initially at the demonstration level, to both establish the best designs for large scale diversions by natural forces and to demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach. Two such projects are described below.
3.1 Screening of Existing and Possibly New Conceptual Designs
The SB suggests convening a workshop at which the merits of various designs for large scale diversions would be evaluated and refined into one or more recommended designs. Selection criteria would include: (1) minimizing adverse impacts to stakeholders, (2) minimizing use of fossil fuels, (3) maximizing best estimates of wetland and barrier island development, (4) long term sustainability of the coastal ecosystem, and (5) minimize storm and flood damage to public and private infrastructure. This workshop would represent a logical step in the progression toward an optimal design.
Participants in the workshop would include potentially affected stakeholders, wetland scientists, and engineers and geologists capable of evaluating the feasibility of the designs.
3.2 Demonstration Project to Evaluate Effectiveness of Sediment Delivery to Shallow Water
This demonstration project would evaluate the effectiveness of sediment delivery to shallow water from natural processes in terms of their ability to construct wetlands and barrier islands. The project could entail the placement of one or more large dredges in the lower Mississippi River to deliver sediment laden water to the west of the present channel. Design variables would include the rates and locations of the placement and the mix of fine and coarse sediments. Although the sediment quantities are yet to be determined, they should be large, probably on the order of 10s of millions of cubic yards. Perhaps one dredge could pump primarily relatively coarse sediments from the channel bottom and the other concentrate on the finer fractions from the water column.
4.0 References
National Research Council. 2006. Drawing Louisiana’s New Map: Addressing Land Loss in Coastal Louisiana. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
Reed, D.R. et al. 2006. Envisioning the Future of the Gulf Coast. Final Report and Findings from the Technical Group, New Orleans, LA.
**********
Further reading: