La. coast facing grim reality

Seas rising faster than predictions

Stunning new data not yet publicly released shows Louisiana losing its battle with rising seas much more quickly than even the most pessimistic studies have predicted to date.

While state officials continue to argue over restoration projects to save the state’s sinking, crumbling coast, top researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have concluded that Louisiana is in line for the highest rate of sea-level rise “on the planet.”

Indeed, the water is rising so fast that some coastal restoration projects could be obsolete before they are completed, the officials said.

NOAA’s Tim Osborne, an 18-year veteran of Louisiana coastal surveys, and Steve Gill, senior scientist at the agency’s Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services, spelled out the grim reality.

When new data on the rate of coastal subsidence is married with updated projections of sea-level rise, the southeast corner of Louisiana looks likely to be under at least 4.3 feet of Gulf water by the end of the century.

That rate could swamp projects in the state’s current coastal Master Plan, which incorporated worst-case scenarios for relative sea-level rise calculated two years ago — which the new figures now make out-of-date.

The state plan, while “valuable and thoughtful,” has a major flaw, Osborne said.

“The problem is it’s a master plan for the restoration and conservation of a landscape that is moving downward at a faster rate than we realized when the plan was constructed — a rate faster than any place else we are seeing in the world for such a large land area,” said Osborne, who will be a speaker Saturday at Tulane University’s Summit on Environmental Law and Policy.

“With all due respect,” he said, “they have projects designed to last 50 years at one level of relative sea-level rise, when they should be building projects that can function for several generations as sea level rises twice as high, if not higher.”

Garret Graves, head of the state Coastal Planning and Protection Authority, did not respond to a request for comment. But in an earlier interview he said the uncertainty of future rates of sea-level rise was one of the biggest challenges facing the plan. The planners, he said, typically have incorporated the then-current “worst case” scenarios for sea-level rise at those locations.

Graves also pointed out that the plan was structured to adapt to changing circumstances. The Coastal Planning and Protection Authority must submit an updated plan to the state Legislature for approval every five years.

Yet NOAA’s new figures, contained in draft reports currently under peer review, will present a challenge because the numbers have changed so drastically.

Even heavily populated areas, such as New Orleans, appear to be sinking faster than expected, in fact even faster than some areas along the coast.

Southeast Louisiana — with an average elevation just 3 feet above sea level — has long been considered one of the landscapes most threatened by global warming. That’s because the delta it’s built on — starved of river sediment and sliced by canals — is sinking at the same time that oceans are rising. The combination of those two forces is called relative sea-level rise, and its impact can be dramatic.

For example, tide-gauge measurements at Grand Isle, about 50 miles south of New Orleans, have shown an average annual sea-level rise over the past few decades of 9.24 millimeters (about one-third of an inch) while those at Key West, which has very little subsidence, read only 2.24 millimeters.

For decades coastal planners used that Grand Isle gauge as the benchmark for the worst case of local sea-level rise because it was one of the highest in the world. But as surveying crews began using more advanced instruments, they made a troubling discovery.

Readings at a distance inland were even worse than at Grand Isle.

“For example,” Osborne said, “we have rates of 11.2 millimeters along the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain — the metro New Orleans area. And inside the city we have places with almost [a half-inch] per year.

“So when we looked at the averages we were getting inside the coast, we realized the current figure we should be using for [southeastern] Louisiana is 11.2 millimeters.”

The news got only more bleak when NOAA began using the new technologies to update past rates of local subsidence and then fed those numbers into studies projecting future rates.

“What we see is that the [southeast] Louisiana coast averaged 3 feet of relative sea-level rise the last century,” said NOAA’s Steve Gill.

The draft report of the quadrennial National Climate Assessment, finished by federal agencies in December, showed a steady increase in sea-level rise through the end of the century.

The assessment provides four scenarios for global average sea-level rise through the end of the century, based on varying scenarios of warming and ice melt. The first shows current trends holding steady, resulting in about an eight-inch rise globally; the second, or intermediate increase, results in about 15 inches globally; the third, or mid-range, shows about 4.5 feet, and the fourth, or worst case, shows about 6.5 feet globally.

The NOAA researchers said they use the mid-range scenario in making local projections.

Southeast Louisiana fares much worse in all four scenarios because “we now know the entire area is sinking faster than any coastal landscape its size on the planet,” Osborne said.

“When you combine those two factors, update the rates from what we’ve found with the most recent data — and that is data, not computer models or theories — then you see this area, southeast Louisiana, will experience the highest rate of sea-level rise anywhere on the planet by the end of the century,” Osborne said.

“We’re talking probably at least 4 feet if not 5 feet in some sections of this coast,’’ he said. “That’s what people here need to be planning for.”

Osborne said he believes coastal Louisiana has a chance at survival because the Mississippi River carries the raw building material — sediment — in such huge quantities that projects could help some areas keep pace with the rising Gulf. But he stressed that the new figures mean current plans need to be amended to focus on the most vulnerable areas, and work must start soon.

“Our goal is to provide meaningful numbers that local planners can use as targets for what they need to prepare for and adapt to,” he said. “And what these numbers tell us is that we need to be planning for the reality that by the end of this century most of this coast will be converted to open water.

“What that tells us, in turn, is what we’ve already seen recently with [Hurricane] Isaac: Even a small storm will result in catastrophic flooding, and not just for people and businesses and infrastructure close to the coast.’’

He pointed to the damage to Plaquemines Parish from Category 1 Isaac. “More and worse will happen in the next few decades.”

Osborne stressed the new figures mean the state’s Master Plan should be adjusted to meet the larger, faster-approaching threat.

“People are already questioning the wisdom of spending huge sums to protect Louisiana,” he said. “The state needs to make sure they’re proposing plans that will last more than a few decades, that they aren’t asking for billions to build things that might be ineffective before they are even finished being built.”


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (10)


1) Comment by Whatchange - 22/02/2013

GJD; The question was pretty much sarcasm, but here are your three most prominent men involved in building the levee systems and destroying our coast along with oil and gas and our government, I guess you can call them scientist. Andrew Humphreys of the Army Corps of Engineers and civilians Charles Ellet and James Eads, in all reality it was Ellet and Eads who had the best idea, but it was evident that a series of rivalries led these men to give up on the evidence of extensive surveys and make decisions based on selfish ambitions, corporate alignments, and political ties. Humphreys believed in levees, Ellet and Eads believed in outlets and jetties, and our government went with Humphreys and therein lays our problems. As for diverting sediment from dredging, I have to give it to the state and the "ACOE", they have sought the input of many of coastal scientist who all say that by diverting the sediment from dredging to wetlands and low lands it is the best thing to help combat coastal restoration instead of just washing it down the Mississippi River out to the gulf. Either way, it appears our coast is doomed due to in house political fighting and greed. As for filling in canals in our coastal marshes, I don't believe land owners should have any say on that just as land owners within the levees of the Atchafalaya River no say when the flood gates are open.

2) Comment by GJD - 22/02/2013

To Whatchange - "...what scientist in his right mind would have though [sp] that by building the levees and containing the rivers within those levees so they could not change direction would have led to costal [sp] reduction...." The COE, through Eads knew exactly what "taming" the Mississippi and making it a "predictable" navigation channel would do to coastal Louisiana. He supplied that information to/through the Chief of Engineers and Congress in a report from the late 1800's. He knew that his efforts at Southwest Pass, i.e. the cribs to "channel and train" the river would provide the necessary flow volumes to keep the passes clean of sediment and that in building the levees and the training the delta and the interdistributary basins would be deprived of the overflow sediments that built them in the first place. As far as for such "hard' structures as some levee alignments, i.e. MtoG the state is proposing to build significant structures on sinking and soft sediments at huge cost that will also isolate many 1000's of acres of productive wetlands that will most likely either sink out of site (look at eastern New Orleans) and form lakes or dry up and sink because the sediments dewater. I would say we, i.e. the body politic better WAKE UP and pack up or learn to tread water for a long time. p.s. to Whatchange - I would not be so certain that we "beat nature"! The absentee landowners that own all of that land with canals on it will not allow those canals to be filled.

3) Comment by Far_EAST - 22/02/2013

Even if the levees were removed and nature allowed to "do its job" the nature of that action builds on the top of the ground that's already sinking. Adding more material to the top will rebuild the land but eventually the homes/industries/livelihoods that are in the southern part of the state will have to be buried under the same sediment. If there were a "bottom-up" solution then it would be a different story but you can't stop the sinking. Maybe filling in the canals would allow the soils to swell again (clay soil shrinks when it's dried) but it's no silver bullet. Unless someone comes up with a way to raise the coast from underneath then the only real "solution" is relocation. All of the levees and floodwalls won't matter if the land that they are built upon is slipping away.

4) Comment by Melisse3 - 22/02/2013

I agree with previous comments - stop wasting $$ on coastal restoration. It will not work.

5) Comment by andy@brottworks.com - 22/02/2013

WAKE UP!!!!! or be ready for no wake signs on doorsteps. If just 1/2 of this data passes muster, it's now or never time, and NOAA just proved it. Or ecosystem backed in a corner eating itself to death- and were stuck powerless as a small purple State (Red+ Bue= Purple)- we need to stop be considered as 3/5ths of Citizen and take action. Yes 5 out of every 4 of us are bad a fractions, but it's snowing up North, and we make 1/3 of there energy - what happens without Tap Fourchon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Fourchon,_Louisiana And I joke when I say lets turn it off until we get the same oil royalties as Texas, Alaska, and other States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_oil_and_gas_in_the_United_States but it's naturally going to happen as this is the worst environmental disaster in US history. It's time to revisit and push for http://www.americaswetland.com/articleindex.cfm?id=2 or I jest another slogan solution- subsidence=succession ... lets sue for out- and demand to be declared in a State of emergency, cut the ***** tape, and use our own oil money, to hire our own oil and gas industry and immediately start on fresh water diversions, dredging, and every fix we can do to save what's left. NOW!!! We have been used and abuse for too long, so sorry to the Congressional Delegations of Florida and Texas (not all of Florida, just south of Pan-handle- and Texas I wish we had the same oil rights as you) you got condos- we got Macondo'd... So every cent of that BP oil settlement is ours (+ others directly impacted) Sorry for the ramble- I just needed to vent. Best From Freret, Andy Brott www.brottworks.com

6) Comment by Whatchange - 22/02/2013

On one hand man has beat nature, the Mississippi & Atchafalaya Rivers and their massive levee systems. Now what scientist in his right mind would have though that by building the levees and containing the rivers within those levees so they could not change direction would have led to costal reduction. There is such a simple fix, start just below New Orleans and knock down the levees on the Mississippi River, on the Atchafalaya River, just knock em down, let the rivers do their jobs, after all, how was the southern part of our state formed, sediment from the States Rivers with the Mississippi and Atchafalaya being the two biggest. Also go in and close off and fill in all these oil & gas field canals, make the oil and gas industry pay for this, they have reaped billions on top of billions, heck they have reaped trillions from this state in the from of gas and oil and have left havoc in their wake. I find it so funny that when the Mississippi River was at a record stage last year so many people in Baton Rouge were screaming flood the basin, people leaving in the basin gets what they deserve, they shouldn't of built there, when in all reality, anything below the City of Baton Rouge is a flood plain for the Mississippi River, your only protection is the levee system that is destroying our coast, kind of makes that "they get what the deserve" comment silly now doesn’t it.

7) Comment by foldgers - 22/02/2013

I have to say I agree. I remember as a kid, in school, they would show us Louisiana in 100 years or whatever and the new coast was not too far from Baton Rouge. It will happen. Why delay the inevitable by spending billions a year? Over the next decade, maybe spend a lot less money relocating those people on the coast. I think that would be cheaper.

8) Comment by swinham - 22/02/2013

What will it take for us to accept that we are throwing billions away trying to defeat nature, a battle we are sure to lose? If we spent the money we are and will be spending trying to save something unsaveable to relocate infrastructure, everybody would come out ahead in all respects. And, think of the federal disaster money we could save nation-wide if we simply accepted the science and moved infrastructure away from property that is soon to disappear and/or is in constant danger of destruction from hurricanes and other natural phenomena.

9) Comment by spqr - 22/02/2013

Yes,allow the sediment to do its job. Who really stands in the way, I am certain, is powerful politics.

10) Comment by arin - 22/02/2013

Remove the levees and let MN do her job.