subscribe: Posts | Comments

2011 coastal plan substitutes process for progress – postponing action (part 2)


First page of chapter 3 of the 2011 coastal protection and restoration plan

First page of chapter 3 of the 2011 coastal protection and restoration plan

by Len Bahr*Len2.21.10

This post concludes a two-part critique of the final 2011 annual state plan to protect and restore coastal Louisiana, a document that authorizes the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars. The plan was produced by the Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration (OCPR). It now awaits approval by the Louisiana legislature and a signature by Governor Jindal, before taking effect on July 1.

Part one of my critique described eleven specific issues that concern me about the final plan. This conclusion focuses exclusively on what I believe is the most problematic element, the ‘crown jewel’ of the plan, a so-called project prioritization tool described in Chapter 3, beginning on p35.

The prioritization tool will support a decision process based on coastal needs and on tax dollar value, rather than one that allows politics to intrude or that merely funds projects with the most vocal advocates. (p36)

Frankly, the phrase coastal needs and tax dollar value gives me pause. What do these six words mean?

I give the benefit of the doubt to those who drafted this tool that it was created to reduce subjectivity in project selection and sequencing. The draft version of the plan hyped the tool like Steve Jobs promoting the iPad, while providing no details.

After reading the fine print included in the final plan this prioritization tool appears to be a well-intentioned but I think Quixotic attempt to eliminate bias in policy decisions. In fact, I think that the actual effect of implementing this process will be to substitute process for progress, indefinitely postponing critical time-sensitive decisions, many of which would be locally unpopular.

In addition, attempting to apply this tool will further obscure the process by which one project is selected over another. This could set the stage for encumbering billions in boondoggles. The following three so-called ‘activities’ of the tool particularly leave me scratching my head:

1. Defining the goals and desired outcomes for protection and restoration activities.

2. Estimating how different projects and portfolios of projects contribute to the achievement of those goals and desired outcomes.

3. Using the information regarding predicted performance to prioritize projects and assemble high-priority project portfolios for implementation. (p38)

With respect to number 1, after two decades of planning are we still defining goals and outcomes? With respect to number 2, at this late date are we still attempting to estimate the effects of different projects (and portfolios of projects)? With all due respect to number 3, it’s meaningless.

I think that a basic flaw in the prioritization tool process involves assigning subjective number indices to project variables. Numbers are seductive; they provide digital fodder for computer algorithms that supposedly compare various combinations of projects and produce ‘objective’ outputs on which to base policy decisions. There’s a time-worn term for the credibility of such results, “Garbage in, garbage out.”

I’ve seen a number of similar unsuccessful efforts to develop coastal project selection tools. This tool reminds me of the notorious Wetland Value Assessment (WVA) procedure, sadly still being used in the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) program to prioritize projects that can’t really be compared objectively.**

Consider the following description of the current situation in south Louisiana and imagine that you are the (elected) Czar of the Coast:

1) Your kingdom consists of an extensive piece of deltaic landscape barely above sea level, on which two million people, many with multi-generational roots, live, work and play.

2) This landscape is simultaneously sinking and shrinking like atrophying muscle, while sea level rises under the effects of climate change and global warming. Local land loss reflects misguided federal and state policy, exacerbated by ignorance, greed and a widespread failure to either believe in or comprehend modern science.

3) Now, imagine being responsible for developing a plausible strategy to offset land loss and to protect, restore and sustain the threatened landscape in the face of mounting evidence that the entire territory cannot realistically be saved.

You might choose between two very different strategies, one action oriented and one process-oriented. You could:

A) convene an independent panel of world-class scientists and engineers empowered to formulate de novo and within six months a technically defensible strategy for protecting and restoring the specific areas of landscape that could be sustained for at least 90 years. This process would also identify the converse, landscape that could not be protected into the 21st century.

Alternatively you could:

B) appoint a committee of staff bureaucrats (whose paychecks depended on their fealty) to spend an indeterminate amount of time developing a tool to prioritize competing project concepts. This tool would consist of a complex algorithm to convert vague qualitative estimates of project effectiveness into pseudo-quantitatve metrics. This process would allow you to claim progress while kicking difficult political decisions down the road.

Strategy A would generate a product, not a process. This product would doubtless include site-specific recommendations for large river diversions, complementary multiple layers of non-structural defensive elements and strategic structural projects, such as ring levees. It would include a project sequence and a detailed set of maps projecting how the landscape would look as a result of implementing the plan. Finally, this product would include specific recommendations for an organized retreat from (site-specific) high-risk areas, which would involve buyouts and fair compensation. On the down side, choosing A would doubtless rankle constituents from the areas that cannot be protected.

In contrast, choice B would produce a methodology, not a blueprint. It would perpetuate the proud tradition of describing coastal restoration in sweeping generic optimistic terms. By omitting a specific protection/restoration footprint, i.e., a map, strategy B would imply that any piece of landscape had an equal shot at remaining dry into the future. Unfortunately, this strategy would unfairly mislead and jeopardize at-risk constituents. On the up side your election term as Czar would probably expire before disaster strikes.

Unfortunately, the prioritization tool that is about to become official bears a striking resemblance to choice B. Look carefully at Figure 1 (page 43 from the final plan).

Figure 1

Figure 1

This pretty well summarizes the basics of the new prioritization tool. I underlined passages that suggest either subjective aspects of this process or that otherwise give me strong doubts that it can provide important new insights.

*Founding editor (

**I should note that among coastal restoration practitioners I’m in a mjnority with respect to my opinion that the WVA is voodoo science.

Be Sociable, Share!
  1. If some one needs to be updated with newest technologies after that he must be pay a quick
    visit this site and be up to date everyday.

  2. Some times its a pain in the ass to read what website owners wrote but this internet site is rattling user friendly!

  3. Pretty part of content. I just stumbled upon your weblog and in accession capital to assert that I get in fact loved account your weblog posts. Any way I’ll be subscribing on your feeds or even I success you access constantly quickly.

  4. Numerous thanks for sharing this fine piece. Extremely fascinating tips! (as always, btw)

  5. Really nice style and style and amazing subject matter, quite small else we want : D.

  6. Rattling nice style and design and wonderful articles , nothing at all else we require : D.

  7. This must be one particular of my preferred posts! And on leading of thats its also very valuable subject for newbies. thank a whole lot for the info!

  8. i appreciate alternative treatments mainly because it truly is simple and does not have nasty side effects’

  9. A thoughtful opinion and guidelines I’ll use on my web page. Youve clearly spent some time on this. Properly carried out!

  10. Can I say that of a relief to locate somebody that in fact knows what theyre talking about more than the internet. You certainly know how to bring a challenge to light and produce it essential. The diet ought to check out this and realize why side inside the story. I cant believe youre not much more well-liked when you absolutely supply the gift.

  11. Have you ever thought about including a bit bit far more than just your articles? I mean, what you say is valuable and everything. However think of in case you added some excellent visuals or videos to give your posts a lot more, “pop”! Your content material is exceptional but with images and clips, this web site could definitely be among the best in its field. Wonderful weblog!

  12. I discovered your blog web site web site on the search engines and check several of your early posts. Always preserve up the extremely very good operate. I lately additional increase Rss to my MSN News Reader. Looking for toward reading significantly a lot more on your part later on!…

  13. Wow! This can be one of the most helpful blogs we have ever come across on thesubject. Basically excellent write-up! I’m also an expert in this topic so I can comprehend your hard function.

  14. I am not really excellent with English but I locate this very leisurely to translate.

  15. Here’s an anonymous comment from a professional engineer on my disdainful reference to the wetland value assessment procedure (WVA) used to rank Breaux Act (CWPPRA) projects:


    With respect to your comment (**I should note that among coastal restoration practitioners I’m in a minority with respect to my opinion that the WVA is voodoo science.) I would like to relate to you my very first encounter with the WVA process.

    An engineer friend who worked for the Corps (a project engineer with some of the CWPPRA projects) told me that I would not believe what goes on at WVA meetings.

    He related that the proposer of project ‘P’ would assert (without supportive documentation) that his/her project would benefit 500 acres of coastal wetlands.

    Someone from another agency would typically object, saying that at best ‘P’ would only benefit 300 acres. Then haggling would ensue, eventually settling on a compromise value of 400 acres benefitted.

    Imagine a similar negotiating process to set the design specs for, let’s say a concrete bridge beam ‘B.’

    Engineer Boudreaux: “This beam should be 15 inches wide, using #8 rebar.”

    Engineer Trosclair: “No; 13 should be plenty, with #6 rebar.”

    Both in unison: “OK then, we’ll go with 14 inches, using #7 rebar.”

  16. riverrat says:

    One wonders whether, after two decades of coastal restoration planning and projects in Louisiana, that the question of priorities continues to be the major impediment? Decision criteria, project ranking, project portfolios – this process (or at least its vocabulary) is not what the public is asking for, but it is what agencies seem to construct when their mission is not clear.

    Granted that the problem is more complex than the public understands, but helping them understand that should be part of the mission too. A cynical view would be that the “integration” of protection and restoration is probably where the problem lies – the approach to protection that the state has adopted (leveeing off entire basins, instead of population centers) is fundamentally incompatible with deltaic restoration. But an arcane process can do a lot to mask that reality for a long time….

  17. Sultan Alam says:


    I like your analyses and I think different State and Federal Agencies have been following the Alternative B since many years and we all can see the results! Alternative A has never been used and I hope the decision makers will finally decide to give it a try.

Leave a Reply