Big Muddy water vs. oysters
Big Muddy at sundown
The familiar and distressing time series of maps of the disintegrating coast of Louisiana don’t show the salt water from the gulf that is inexorably creeping north as formerly solid freshwater marshes and coastal forests have broken up and turned into shallow open water that is no longer “sweet.” Ocean water is filling the void previously occupied by marshy landscape.
Since Bayou Lafourche was dammed off from the river in 1904, rainwater has become the only significant source of freshwater to the Barataria and Terrebonne basins.
As a result, these vast basins have become increasingly salty and extensive freshwater marshes have been replaced with shallow brackish open water, i.e., prime habitat for oysters. Not surprisingly, during the past century oyster growers have followed the salinity trend and taken leases progressively further north.
The prospective Myrtle Grove river diversion project represents the best current hope for sustainable wetland recovery in the Barataria Basin* by restoring periodic nourishment of freshwater, sediments and nutrients that prevailed before river water was cut off from the basin. This project, which is strongly supported by science, poses an understandable threat to oyster growers who have adapted to the past century of change and now face a return to more natural conditions.
This post includes two examples of political pushback from oyster growers against coastal restoration that should be anticipated and somehow resolved. Unfortunately it is much more difficult to achieve consensus than to prevent it.
On Friday May 8 the governor’s coastal advisory commission met in Baton Rouge to discuss conflicts between commercial oyster interests and restoration projects, specifically large river diversions such as the one being proposed for Myrtle Grove. The meeting was chaired by Jim Tripp, executive counsel for Enviromental Defense and a supporter of the Myrtle Grove concept.
This proposed diversion structure, when operated at full bore, will be five times larger in capacity than the Davis Pond and Caernarvon projects combined, up to 100,000 cubic feet per second (CFS), or roughly ten times the volume of the Potomac River as it flows past Washington DC. That’s a whole lot of water but less than half of what passed through the Bonnet Carre’ structure during April 2007.
Myrtle Grove and similar large diversion projects would not operate continuously but only during pulses for several weeks during spring as the river approaches a peak stage and a maximum load of land building suspended sediments. Like pulsing water from the Glen Canyon Dam into the Grand Canyon, such an operation during opportune years would literally flush the Barataria Basin, creating a rejuvenating shock to the ecosystem – just like mother nature did for seven thousand years.
The meeting progressed as follows:
Earl Melancon, a biology professor at Nicholls’ State Univ. (a graduate student of mine before I left LSU in 1984), presented an overview of oyster ecology during which he urged cooperation and recognition of mutual interests between commercial oyster growers and restoration officials. While not specifically signing on to Myrtle Grove, Dr. Melancon strongly endorsed the concept of pulsed diversions.
Heather Finley from the marine fisheries section of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (WL&F) described the state’s uniquely successful private oyster leasing program that was instituted in 1902 during the administration of Gov. Mike Foster’s namesake grandfather. She reported that there are almost 8,000 active private oyster leases today, totalling about 385,500 acres, many in the potential area of influence of Myrtle Grove.
Mike Voisin, arguably the best known oyster grower in Louisiana, presented an overview of the state of the oyster industry in Louisiana. He pointed out that oyster growers were the first proponents of river diversions during the sixties. Ironically, opportunistic lawsuits brought in 1994 by a few oyster leaseholders against the state over the operation of the Caernarvon diversion project did not enhance the image of the industry. A recent economic assessment by Walter Keithley at the LSU AgCenter puts the annual Louisiana oyster sales value at about $30 million/year but Voisin said that the total positive impact of the industry is more like $300 million/year.
Next was a presentation on the history of oyster litigation by Andy Wilson, a private attorney with extensive experience in maritime and shellfish leasing issues. Andy has represented the state since 1994 when I recommended him to Al Donovan, then executive counsel for Gov. Edwards, as best prepared to defend Louisiana against the previously mentioned lawsuit that could drain restoration funding.
Wilson summarized for the commission his experience in this saga that he calls the 1994-2009 Louisiana oyster wars, the “Avenal” and “Alonzo” cases that ended positively when the Louisiana Supreme Court overturned lower court decisions that would have cost the state billions of dollars. My recommendation for Andy’s involvement was based on his support for using real science as the state’s defense attorney (see image below). I hope to persuade him to write a guest post on this fascinating story in the near future.
A side-scan image from Barataria Bay shows oyster reefs and the marsh edge in a narrow channel. Picture by Harry Roberts and Chuck Wilson at LSU
Kirk Rhinehart, administrator of the new office of coastal protection and restoration (OCPR), reported on the current system under which the oyster industry, the state oyster leasing program and the OCPR coexist and deal with conflicts over projects. Rhinehart’s presentation was quite upbeat; he reported that a system is now codified in law (Act 208 passed in 2008) that allows the peaceful resolution of conflicts between restoration projects and oyster leaseholders at minimal cost and without lawsuits.
Back to my theme of river water vs. oysters:
At the close of the meeting John Tesvich, an oyster grower from lower Plaquemine Parish who I have known and respected for many years, made a strong statement against the Myrtle Grove project. He predicted that diverting ten times more polluted river water into the Barataria Basin then Davis Pond would turn a pristine and productive estuarine system into a muddy freshwater system. He also warned the commission that, no matter what is promised in terms of short term surge operation, the “valves” will be operated continuously at full bore. He closed his remarks by promising to mount a campaign against the project.
I strongly disagree with Mr. Tesvich on a number of technical points but his concern about Myrtle Grove is understandable in that his livelihood would be affected by the project.
The following describes a far less respectful political threat to Myrtle Grove (and presumably any restoration concept) from another Plaquemine Parish oyster stakeholder.
A trip down memory lane. In my recent post about the rapidly escalating cost of restoring south Louisiana I reminisced about the early days of the governor’s office of coastal activities (GOCA). In 1992, after being appointed to head the office by former governor Edwin Edwards I raced to staff up with qualified people before being inundated with campaign supporters lacking in actual technical credentials that didn’t require “air quotes.” To his credit, my efforts in this regard were supported by Ben Jeffers, Edwin’s then chief of staff.
After the dust had settled I fortunately wound up with three responsible, dependable and congenial staffers: Karen Gautreaux,** an environmental policy expert from Buddy Roemer’s office; Jim Stone, a coastal professor colleague from LSU who, like me, had been peremptorally dismissed from the Old War Skule;*** and Karl DeRouen, a politically savvy Eunice, Louisiana native who happened to be married to one of EWE’s close friends but who went on to earn a Ph.D. in political science from Texas A&M and now teaches political science at the Univ. of Alabama.
All this is by way of saying that Karl just called my attention to a political rant by a resident of Plaquemine Parish named Ted Duplessis. I recommend reading this diatribe with a strong disclaimer that Duplessis does not represent my views. If you’re not personally offended by something here you’re either very tolerant or not paying attention. Former Gov. Kathleen Blanco is just about the only official or ethnic group not trashed in this equal opportunity critique.
The good news is that political support for restoring our coast is almost universal among south Louisianans. The bad news is that this support may be matched by strong opposition to doing virtually anything of consequence. Mr. Duplessis’ views personify an “everyman for himself” attitude that could unfortunately sink the best laid plans to save our coastal “lifeboat.”
Len Bahr
*Pipeline conveyance of dredged sediments can recreate marshes but it can’t sustain them.
**Now married to the aforementioned Andrew Wilson, esq.
*** And now Ivor van Heerden!
I have been exploring for a little for any high-quality articles or weblog posts on this kind of house . Exploring in Yahoo I finally stumbled upon this web site. Studying this info So i¡¦m satisfied to convey that I’ve a very excellent uncanny feeling I came upon exactly what I needed. I most no doubt will make certain to don¡¦t overlook this web site and give it a glance on a relentless basis.
Where are you getting that I came across as saying “Everyman for himself?” If you want to take my writings on Creole/Cajun culture and turn it into some NASA Study than your foolish, now if you want me to bring in all of the facts that show a cycle of corruption than wait for my book.
Why would I trash Blanco? The Cajuns didnt do anything. It is you Good Ole Boys
John-
1) Myrtle Grove diversion project. A diversion project of 8 to 10K cfs at Myrtle Grove would do very little to restore wetlands in the Barataria Basin, just like the10K cfs Davis Pond project will do very little.
2) Bayou Lafourche. From about 2,500 to 800 years ago, what is now a pitiful, dried up, stagnant ditch, was the lower Mississippi River and it created a gigantic tear drop-shaped piece of landscape that extended from ~15 miles south of Baton Rouge to ~5 miles south of Grand Isle and from Morgan City to ~15 miles due south of New Orleans. In other words, most of the entire central part of our coast was formed by sediments deposited by Bayou Lafourche (J. Coleman, 1988).
3) When Bayou Lafourche was dammed off in 1904 it carried up to 150,000 cfs of river water and steamships could navigate from the gulf to Donaldsonville and enter the main stem of the river. I didn’t say damming Bayou Lafourche was THE dumbest thing we ever did, only ONE of them (and this was a state decision; the corps recommended a navigable lock at Donaldsonville). The finger-like bayous in Terrebonne Parish were originally fed by Bayou Lafourche. Canal Blvd. in Thibodaux covers over what was once the head of Bayou Terrebonne.
4) At that time Barataria Bay didn’t exist – it was land!
5) You’re in denial about trying to maintain what we’ve got now without massive diversion projects. It can’t be done!
Len –
You say we that we cannot maintain what we got now without a massive river diversions, however, on the contrary, a well respected engineering firm reported that 5 (five) dredges could maintain Louisiana's annual land-loss, effectively making it zero.
The state has just actually begun serious re-building projects a few years ago, beginning with the barrier islands. The program is in it's infancy still, and you are already giving up ! I believe that we should use the best technology and techniques to rebuild and reinforce our wetlands. And I know you will say the question is about the cost, but lets not be so quick to sell us short. You are so ready to displace people, their livelihood and culture. Have you figured out the cost of that?
John
Len –
The stupidest decision ever made by the state was to allow the oil companies free reign in an environmentally sensitive ecosystem. Get real — Closing Bayou Lafourche doesn't even come close! Now you propose that we must give up the ecosystem that we had for hundreds of years, and displace people in order to solve it.
Bayou Lafourche does not empty into Barataria Bay – look at a map. It is connected only by a man-made canal (Southwest canal) around Leeville. I disagree with your reasoning that Bayou Lafourche had significant impacts in Barataria. With the fresh water diversions that we already have in place at Davis Pond, Pt-A-La-Hache, and assuming an 8,000 – 10,000 cfs structure in Myrtle Grove, we will have many times the capacity to introduce river water into the upper estuary system than had been occurring naturally going back a couple of hundred years. There is enough fresh water resource there to nourish and maintain existing wetlands, and those which can be rebuilt using pipeline sediment delivery systems.
This scenario is less disruptive to the ecosystem affording less displacement of stakeholders.
John
Walt-
I agree with your comments but they’re much too detailed for the point I was trying to make.
In 1904 when Bayou Lafourche was dammed off (one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the state) the entire Barataria Basin (and its Terrebonne twin) was described as fresh, with the exception of a fringe of brackish and salt marshes at the gulf. Six years later, by 1910 the federal agency now known as USGS reported that oysters had been found as far north as Leeville, NW of Grand Isle.
Whether the freshwater marshes I described as “solid” were floating or attached doesn’t change my argument. I’m in favor of multiple high capacity river diversions, including Myrtle Grove, to be operated only during exceptionally high river stages to rebuild wetlands using suspended clays, nutrients, iron, etc.
People who argue that such changes would displace fisheries seem to forget that what’s at stake is the entire landscape.
Len,
In the first paragraph you say "…salt water from the gulf that is inexorably creeping north as formerly solid freshwater marshes and coastal forests have broken up and turned into shallow open water…" I believe you meant to say formerly healthy freshwater marshes instead of "solid" because much of Louisiana's coastal freshwater marshes are of the flotant variety underlain by decayed vegetation and living root mats some of which are not even attached to the bottom. Unless flocculation and settlement of fine suspended sediment (clays) occurs quickly, open water will result from "salt water intrusion". It should be noted however that salt water is necessary for the flocculation of suspended sediments and thus the development of salt marshes, which can filter and cleanse pollutants from any diversion water from the river. It should also be noted here that there has historically been much misunderstanding and confusion between the terms silt and suspended sediment and that the Corps has been worried about river channels silting up while the marshes really need suspended sediment.
The real land loss problem occurs when suspended fine sediment (clays) are prevented from entering the existing marshes thus starving them of sediment supply and eventually even established salt marshes succumb to constant inundation. Salt marshes are strictly intertidal i.e. they need to spend a certain amount of time above the water, and as the water drains at low tide the root system is irrigated with "new" water on each tide keeping the toxic anaerobic chemical cycles in the sediment from damaging the root systems.
Hope that clears the muddy waters some,
Walt
Len,
My concerns over the environmental impact of such projects is mainly rooted in the fact that it affects the environment where I live, rather than it affecting my paycheck. It is about the culture of those like myself that live there, work there and/or recreate there. Barataria Bay is in my backyard (almost literally!). It is about trying our best to preserve as much as we can what is good about living in Southern Louisiana. I don't think that we need to destroy the natural estuarine environment in order to save it.
We have options, and with new technology and research we will be better equipped to deal with the overall problem in the future. Your proposal for a large-scale diversions is not going to create any land that can help us in the near future anyway, so the call for haste is non-sensible — in the geologic time-frame that diversions take to create significant land, a decade or two is scientifically insignificant.
Please forgive me if I seem harsh or overly critical. Because I'm passionate about these matters I can't help to question the holes that I see in some peoples logic.
In another example, the "science based" argument for putting a large-scale sediment diversion in Barataria Bay in order to create "muddy shallows" in the estuary is directly applicable to doing the same in Lake Pontchartrain. It even makes more economical and practical sense because the structure is already there and is proven to be able to deliver the sediment. Creating muddy shallows in the lake will definitely help for flood protection over the large metropolitan area. Its really a no-brainer from a scientific perspective and practicality. But I haven't heard of many people advocating such a plan. What's your position about a proposal to run the Bonnet Carre as a regular diversion?
John
John-
One intention of my post was to share two extreme kinds of opposition to large scale river diversions: yours, which I consider worth discussing, and Duplessis’, which I don’t.
It’s true that I’m conflicted about lots of technical issues but not because I’ve sold my soul. Unlike you, I have absolutely no financial dog in this fight. The many hours I labor over this blog are purely a labor of love.
I see three huge interrelated problems: (1) gulf hypoxia (GH); (2) permanent deltaic collapse; and (3) climate change with rapid sea level rise. The first is reversible but the second two are permanent. Obviously I would love to see all three solved in my lifetime but that’s increasingly unlikely. Anyhow I rank deltaic collapse and climate change as having much more ominous consequences than GH because of the two million people who live on a progressively flooding landscape.
I don’t wear my academic credentials on my sleeve but I have a deep and abiding respect for science and I think that science is on my side when I cite an overwhelming consensus that massive river diversions are our only feasible way of saving at least part of our coast.
In your remarks at the meeting you mentioned the Wax Lake Outlet as a bad thing, when, in fact, that artificial diversion project, which is actually building healthy and productive wetlands, is our best model of the positive effects of large diversions. Fisheries, including oysters, were clearly displaced by that project but they certainly weren’t destroyed!
Mississippi River water does have too much dissolved nitrogen but it also contains a lot of iron which is healthy for coastal marshes (and therefore fisheries).
Anyhow, I do respect your opinion so keep on posting!
Len, first of all, I don’t understand your inclusion of an off-the-wall rant by Mr. Duplessis (which is quite humorous) in your post concerning oystermen and coastal restoration. But it comes across as a low-down cowardly attempt to dismiss oystermen as lunatics. And if that was your intent then shame on you!
And what do you mean when you write “Unfortunately it is much more difficult to achieve consensus than to prevent it.”? Is that your modus operandi?
As you should well know, oystermen can only succeed in their livelihoods in clean un-polluted estuaries Because of that, oystermen are natural environmentalists. Although you’ve claimed to be an ex-oyster biologist, it is clear from your posts that you have sold your soul to the rebuilding extremists (coastal restoration “Nazis”) who put coastal rebuilding above everything else – and that includes trying best to maintain a clean coastal estuarine environment. Oystermen are neither against coastal rebuilding nor against using the river to nourish existing marsh, and we are aware that there will have to be changes. However, we believe that government should strive for consensus, and providing for clear open debate is critical – but that is not what I see happening with this new proposal to expand the Myrtle Grove Diversion into something different than was originally planned.
In reading your other posts, especially those pertaining to dead zones and the long-term implication of fertilizer-based nutrient loads in the river water, it is obvious that you are conflicted in your own reasoning. For example you write:
“Unfortunately, GH has been addressed in a totally different context and under a different federal program*** than the collapse and possible restoration of the Mississippi River deltaic ecosystem. GH has been overseen by EPA with help from NOAA, the USGS and USDA, whereas the deltaic restoration program is primarily managed (at least on the federal level) by the Corps of Engineers. This has created a false dichotomy between the two issues, a problem that persists even today.” …
“For example, reintroducing water from the Mississippi River into its delta on a massive scale has been widely described as the keystone measure for achieving a sustainable coast. Meetings and reports on GH rarely acknowledge, let alone address this subject, however.” …
“A new river management paradigm implied by the concept of diverting river water into the coastal interior, rather than the open gulf, could have huge consequences on the setup conditions for GH. For example, I believe that diverting the water upstream of head of passes would result in more mixing of river water with gulf water, reducing stratification (see below). Nevertheless, different scientists disagree about the risks and ecosystem effects of diverting river water on a big scale before a significant reduction in nitrogen concentration in riverwater has been accomplished.”
I haven’t seen any definitive peer reviewed scientific reports covering all of the various environmental concerns that should be considered and addressed before moving forward on a project such as that being proposed. Can you provide me with any?
Len, it is sad that the proponents of this proposal have not made much attempt in getting consensus; they are rather looking to just bulldoze ahead, and it is apparent that your goal is to help them by trying to discredit any real information to support opposition. In general the “scientists” that you refer to in your arguments have become a community of “advertisers”; something that you, yourself, have expressed concern about. In your own words:
“Nevertheless, Pielke in 2007 (2) offers the following admonition that expresses my basic concern: ‘If scientists evaluate the research findings of their peers on the basis of the implications for issue advocacy, then ‘scientific’ debate among academics risks morphing into political debates. From the perspective of the public or policy-makers, scientific debate and political debate on many environmental issues already have become indistinguishable, and such cases of conflation limit the role of science in the development of creative and feasible policy options. In many instances science has become little more than a mechanism for marketing competing political agendas, and scientists have become leading members of the advertising campaigns.’
"Exactly, and this truth is very ugly indeed. As a community of ”advertisers,” we should not be surprised when managers and policy makers who need objective, defensible, scientific answers no longer solicit our inputs.”
We, as residents of coastal Louisiana, deserve better. Concerning important life-changing proposals, the government and the science community should be open, up front and willing to look at all sides. Your web-log could be a great place for continuing an open debate — or you could just make it into an advertising forum for certain views. I hope you chose the former.
Respectfully, John Tesvich
Being that I just ran across this story line about myself, I would like to state, that I write about culture and a way of life. When I wrote the post that John is calling “comical” and the other is calling it a “rant” it was simply my intention to help show people that Plaquemines has a culture and history that should not be cast aside by the corrupt Fed. Gov of the U.S.
Now, being that I have a degree in biology, I am sure that I know more about Dead Zones than both of you and being that my entire family stems from Plaquemines, while you people were in Eastern Europe, I have a unique understanding on our way of life. Now if you wanted to take my cultural post and make it into a Scientific argument, then someone should tell me but take a post that I wrote on culture and pretend that I am making a Science argument.
Either way, Dead Zones, pollution, Big Oil, Corrupt Politicians are all reasons that things are so out of whack. Deal with it!