文章 Articles

A rush to dubious projects

Plans to intercept BP’s spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico by building a sand berm will inflict further damage and do little to protect the US coast, writes scientist Rob Young.

Article image

[This article was originally published by Yale Environment 360 on June 3 and is used here with permission.]


Oil continues to gush from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, with the US Geological Survey estimating that as many as 28 million gallons [106 million litres] of oil have been released into the gulf, compared to 11 million gallons [42 million litres] from the Exxon Valdez spill [in 1989]. BP may not be able to stop the flow until August when the drilling of a relief well is completed. Oil is already hitting the beaches and wetlands of Louisiana and is rapidly approaching Mississippi, Alabama and the Florida Panhandle. The environmental and economic impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill cannot be overstated: This may become one of the greatest ecological catastrophes in history.

Given the enormity of this environmental disaster, it is understandable that there is tremendous political and societal pressure to stop the flow and clean up the mess. However, in their rush to react to growing public pressure and do something, federal and state officials are waiving scientific review of emergency measures and embracing dubious solutions. Nowhere is this more evident than in the proposal to begin building a long sand berm to prevent oil from reaching wetlands and beaches in Louisiana. The White House has announced that this project is now moving forward, despite serious concerns among coastal scientists, including myself, that it will not be effective in keeping oil from the coast, could do more environmental harm than good, and would be extremely expensive.

Under pressure from Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal and other state and local officials, the US Army Corps of Engineers issued an emergency permit on May 27 authorising the state of Louisiana to construct 45 miles [72 kilometres] of artificial berm — 300 feet [91 metres] wide at its base and rising six feet [1.8 metres] out of the gulf — in an attempt to protect delta wetlands and barrier islands from the encroaching oil. The state had initially requested permission to build close to 128 miles [205 kilometres] of barrier, and the Corps of Engineers permit indicates the additional sections may be allowed as the permitted sections are evaluated. Jindal’s argument for building the sand berm, just off existing barrier islands, is simple: It’s better to clean oil off of man-made sand berms than in Louisiana’s wetlands, which teem with fish and wildlife.

While mitigating the environmental damage of this spill is critical, it must be done in a way that wisely utilises the resources at hand, effectively deals with the problem (e.g., keeping oil out of wetlands), and doesn’t do more harm than good. But the emergency projects currently being proposed by various entities and permitted by the Corps of Engineers — including a plan to build a seawall in front of Dauphin Island, Alabama — have not had sufficient review and design to guarantee that any of the above goals will be met. Indeed, since the Louisiana berm will not be continuous, there is a strong likelihood that oil will flow in through the gaps, then possibly become trapped in wetlands.

In addition to its questionable prospects for success, the Louisiana berm project would be extremely expensive. The application from the state of Louisiana estimated the cost to be about US$3.8 million per mile, or about $171 million for the initial 45 miles [72 kilometres] of the permitted project. In its comments on the state’s application, the US Department of Interior notes that cost estimates for mobilising sand in the area have already been produced for the planning of future barrier island restoration. Using these numbers, the Interior Department suggests the costs are likely to be closer to $500 million. Thad Allen, the US Coast Guard admiral in charge of the spill cleanup, said on June 2 that BP has agreed to pay for construction of the 45-mile line of sand berms, which he estimated would cost $360 million.

A project that could cost as much as a half-billion dollars should warrant serious review. Yet it has been very difficult to find a public record or details of the proposed project design and how it was vetted. Obviously, there was never any intention to solicit public comment. This may be appropriate in an emergency, but it begs the question: Who designed the project? Have they used the best available science? And will it work as advertised?

The state of Louisiana has a wealth of fine coastal scientists who have been working on the coastal restoration of the Louisiana delta region for decades. Yet those who I have spoken with have indicated that they have not been consulted on the project. I have yet to speak to a scientist who thinks the project will be effective. The Corps of Engineers gave agencies, such as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), less than a day to submit comments on the proposal after it was presented to the agencies during a teleconference on May 17. Certainly, the agencies had very little time to scientifically evaluate the potential environmental impacts of such a massive project, but in their brief submissions the agencies expressed major concerns.

The Department of Interior indicated that “we do not think the risks inherent in proceeding without more environmental study and knowledge are acceptable.”

The EPA directly questioned the proposed berm’s effectiveness, suggesting there is no evidence that the project will stop oil from entering the marshes and estuaries because it is constructed only in front of the barrier islands and will not block the inlets and deepwater passes. In addition, the EPA questioned whether a project that will take at least six to nine months to build would be completed in time to have any impact on the spill.

As a coastal geologist who studies coastal storm impacts, it is clear to me that this berm, located just offshore of the barrier islands, will also be extremely susceptible to erosion. Indeed, it will begin to erode immediately upon completion. Even a simple understanding of coastal processes leads one to conclude that this sandy berm could disappear within a few months. Coincidently, the US government’s Climate Prediction Center released its forecast for this year’s Atlantic Basin hurricane season on the same day the berm permit was issued. Federal scientists are predicting an incredibly busy season with up to 23 named storms and eight to 14 hurricanes. Just one of these storms tracking near the proposed berm will wipe it out. At six feet [1.8 metres] above sea level, the berm will not have the elevation or sand volume to provide significant storm protection. In fact, depending on the track of the storm, it could potentially make the storm surge higher in some areas. The berm also could prevent the flushing of some oil out of the wetlands.

In the end, we have a project that is incredibly expensive. There has been little scientific review. It is questionable if the proposed berm will prevent oil from entering the wetlands it is designed to protect. The structure will be very short-lived. And there are many potential negative impacts of this structure on the coastal environment that have not been evaluated. Coastal dredging and filling can cause significant damage to marine organisms and local ecosystems as massive amounts of sand are dug up in one location and then deposited on the sea floor in another spot. In addition, building a 45-mile [72-kilometre] sand berm could alter tidal currents and lead to the erosion of natural barrier islands that protect the Louisiana coast from hurricanes.

Yes, we need to do something, but we need a better process for deciding what that best something is. I hope I’m wrong, but I fear that this permitted berm is not a viable solution.

And the Louisiana berm is not the only example of rushed emergency permitting of a major project. With the oil steadily approaching the Alabama coastline, the Mobile, Alabama, district of the Corps of Engineers released an Emergency Public Notice, also on May 27, for a permit application by BP to build a mile-and-a-half-long seawall on Dauphin Island, Alabama, to block the oil from reaching the island. The goal of the project is to close off a breach in the barrier island opened by Hurricane Katrina [in 2005]. Now this may be a good idea, but the process gives us no insight into whether it is or isn’t. Again, agencies were given a few hours to comment. The design for the structure was presented hand-drawn on notebook paper and appears to have been pulled together by a local pile-driving company. The plans are not signed or stamped by a licenced engineer. Will it work? Who knows?

The pressure to respond to this environmental disaster is immense. The agencies feel it. BP feels it. And all federal, state and local politicians feel it. But the Obama administration must come up with a review process for these emergency permits that ensures that the proposed projects will work, will use resources (dollars, sand, booms) wisely, and will not do more harm than good.

The BP oil spill will be with us for years, not days. In order to move forward in a sensible way, the administration should set up a scientific review panel to vet all proposals for large-scale coastal engineering in response to the spill. The panel should include experts from science agencies like the US Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as leading academics. The review panel should still be charged with responding very quickly to permit applications, but the public needs to have a higher level of confidence that the best science is being brought to bear on this problem. At the moment, that is simply not the case.


Rob Young is professor of coastal ecology at Western Carolina University and director of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines. He is co-author, with Orrin Pilkey, of The Rising Sea. He also writes for the website CoastalCare.org. In a previous article for Yale Environment 360, he wrote about future sea level rise from melting polar ice sheets.


Copyright © 2010 Yale Environment 360

Homepage image from NOAA

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

灾难

我在WWF的“脸谱”(facebook )上看到了这则新闻——试想,如果处理墨西哥的漏油事件都是如此困难重重的话,若北极区域发生了类似事件,那就几乎没有挽回的可能性了。

此篇由雅晴翻译

Disaster

I read this on WWF facebook -- if it's so hard to deal with an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, then it will be near impossible in the Arctic.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

谁会为墨西哥湾漏油事件买单?

这难道不是一场英美之间的角力赛吗?如果英国买单的话,美国并不会多在乎沙滩污染的成本。BP会买单,卡梅隆和伦敦方面会开出发票,而美国不会再纠结于污染所带来的代价。

此篇由雅晴翻译

who is going to pay for the gulf pollution?

It is an arm wrestling between English and Americans. Doesn't it? America doesn't care of the cost of a sand berm if it is charged to the UK. BP (british polluters) will pay. The price of the pollution, they don't care given it will be invoiced to London and M.Cameron.