Land Loss in Southeast Louisiana

A Response to The Lens/ProPublica Publication

Losing Ground: Southeast Louisiana Disappearing Quickly


By Chris McLindon
chris_mclindon@att.net
The Lens and ProPublica have collaborated to produce an online publication that does an outstanding job of marrying dramatic
visualization utilizing technology with a very personal level of story-telling. This type of approach makes the publication very accessible
to the public and is to be commended for encouraging conversation about what is happening on the coast and what can be done about
it.

The dynamics of this approach would be even further enhanced by the incorporation of a broader objective scientific evaluation. So
much of the public discourse on the coast consists of a rehashing and regurgitation of the same story lines that have been in the press
for decades. The coastal restoration movement has been built up on those story lines, and there is an obvious reluctance to upset the
apple cart by introducing new data or new perspectives. At the same time there are significant amounts of scientific research on the
subject that have yet to be fully integrated into the public conversation.

This compilation is offered as a basis to begin to incorporate a broader and more comprehensive scientific examination of the
processes that have controlled the formation of the coast and ultimately will determine its future. I have attempted to reference every
scientific work from which interpretation was derived, and I would encourage anyone reading this to seek out those sources and
pursue their own research.

I strongly encourage the exchange of ideas that a publication like this can bring about, and I would very much like to exchange ideas
with anyone that is interested.

Chris McLindon
chris_mclindon@att.net


1
19
Land Loss in Southeast Louisiana

Venice and West Bay
Any story that wants to create the impression that Southeastern Louisiana is rushing toward and early grave will focus attention on
the birdfoot delta of the Mississippi River. It is the site of the most dramatic rates of land loss that have been experienced since
measurement began in 1932. Rarely do these stories examine actual scientific causes of land loss and the logical explanations for the
rate of loss. An accurate scientific examination would start with the observation that this delta is in fact the most recently abandoned
delta of the set of historic deltas that built the coast. As Dr. Paul Kemp said in his 2013 study the river is contracting hydraulically.
Since the lowermost Mississippi River has been constrained to stay within a channel that it would have abandoned in favor of the
Atchafalaya under natural conditions, a back-stepping from the shelf-edge position of the Balize toward the former Plaquemines delta
outlet of 1 ky ago is in progress 2
GAGLIANO 2003
The rate of submergence of historical deltas has been
documented by a study of the St. Bernard Delta by Rogers,
et.al. in 2009 at U.N.O. During the time of the Roman Empire
this delta built out onto the shallow marine clays of Breton
Sound. This delta was completely submerged within a period
of 300 years after the peak of its formation, and its remnant
deposits are now found more than 30 feet below sea level.
The rate of subsidence that can be inferred for this delta is very
consistent with the rates of subsidence seen today on the most
recently abandoned delta. The birdfoot delta reached the peak
of its growth almost 80 years ago, and it is on track to entirely
submerge below the surface in a slightly faster timeframe than
the St. Bernard Delta did. (reasons to be discussed)

The reason for the rapid submergence of these more elongate
deltas that they protrude out into shallow water and the
superposition of the dense deposits of sand at distributary
mouth bars onto the ductile marine clays introduces a
mechanism of subsidence that is additional to the broader
effects of crustal downwarp and fault movement that affect the
rest of the coast. The clays flow laterally out from under the
weight of the sand creating mudlumps that poke up around the
edges of the delta.
3
9%
8%
83%
The birdfoot delta is the most rigorously evaluated area of significant land loss in coastal Louisiana. A research group at U.N.O. that
included Shea Penland evaluated the causes of land loss in this area and attributed the overwhelming majority of loss to
submergence, which is the combination of subsidence and sea level rise. This is one of the more intensively drilled areas of the coast,
and the direct removal of the marsh by the dredging of oil and gas canals accounts for 9% of the total loss. Stories of about land loss
in coastal Louisiana rarely emphasize that the loss is almost entirely natural and due to submergence. The small amount of erosion
that does take place around the fringes of the delta is probably over estimated because some portion of the loss (perhaps 50%) in the
areas attributed to erosion is also due to subsidence in those areas.
Area 1
4
Fearnely, S. et.al., 2001, Mapping the Geomorphology and
Processes of Coastal Land Loss in the Pontchartrain Basin: 1932
to 1990 and 1990 to 2001, Journal of Coastal Research, No.
10054, p. 48-58
The principal reality of land loss in coastal Louisiana that is never discussed in any story about the wetlands may be characterized as the
most significant anthropogenic effect of the last two centuries. Tweel and Turner examined the combined effects of agricultural land use
across the Mississippi River basin and the construction of locks and dams on the upper Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. The advent of
agriculture in the early nineteenth century, and the inefficient practices that led to massive soil erosion throughout the sod-busting era
dramatically increased the sediment load of the Mississippi River. As might be expected this rise in sediment load was manifested as a
dramatic increase in sediment reaching the marshes at the terminus of the river system. Tweel and Turner showed the rate of land creation
in the birdfoot delta increased with this artificial increase of sediment load, and by logical extension it may be assumed that all coastal
wetlands that had access to the floodwaters of the Mississippi during this time would have experienced a similar anthropogenetically-
induced rate of growth. The improvement of farming practices and the construction of locks and dams in the upper reaches of the river
system have caused a dramatic decrease in the sediment load of the river since the peak of land-building (which is ironically coincident with
the advent of aerial photography in 1932 our baseline of normality is in fact a period of artificial inflation of the marsh)
Tweel, A.W. and Turner, R.E., 2012, Watershed land
use and river engineering drive wetland formation
and loss in the Mississippi River birdfoot delta,
Limnology and Oceanography, v. 57, p. 1828
5
In addition to undergoing hydraulic contraction in the early stages of abandonment, as described by Kemp, the dramatic reduction of
sediment load being delivered to the lower reaches of the river has rendered it effectively incapable of building new land. In is 2012 study
Allison determined that As much as 44% of the annual total suspended sediment load and 80% of the sand load of the Mississippi + Red
Rivers was sequestered between the Old River Control Structures and the MississippiAtchafalaya exits to the Gulf of Mexico in flood years
2008 through 2010. meaning that it did not reach the delta. Allison concluded that The results of the present sediment budget suggest
that only a relatively small proportion of the upstream sediment load is available for coastal restoration approaching the Gulf.
Kolker conducted a detailed study of the West Bay Sediment Diversion in particular and concluded that In order for land to build in West
Bay, sediment deposition must first infill the bay, where depths range from 0 to 3 m. Assuming a linear balance between water depth, RSLR,
and sediment deposition rates, it would appear unlikely that large areas of new land would develop in West Bay over a time scale of less
than a few decades.
The lower Mississippi River has been effectively abandoned. Nature wants to build new land at the mouth of the Atchafalaya River. A
recent study by the Corps of Engineers found that as much as 70% of the bed load sediments of the river (with which it builds new land) are
already flowing down the Atchafalaya. It is hopeless that diversions of the lower Mississippi will be capable of building new land.
Allison, M.A., et.al., 2012, A water and sediment budget for the lower
MississippiAtchafalaya River in flood years 20082010: Implications for
sediment discharge to the oceans and coastal restoration in Louisana,
Journal of Hydrology, v.432433, p. 8497
Kolker, A.S., et.al., 2012, Depositional dynamics in a river diversion receiving
basin: The case of the West Bay Mississippi River Diversion, Estuarine, Coastal
and Shelf Science, v. 106, p. 112
6
Land Loss in Southeast Louisiana

Buras
It is a common theme in reporting about the coast to appeal to heart-rendering stories about names being taken off of maps as
various geomorphic features subside below the surface. The real sadness in these stories is the underlying disconnect that we have
with the natural processes of the coast that would lead us to expect that any one of them would have any permanence. It is very
likely that the native people that inhabited the St. Bernard Delta gave names to its many bays and bayous. Chances are they also lived
in a balance with nature that would have prevented them finding sadness in the natural processes that submerged the land of their
heritage. We have moved backwards in maintaining balance with nature since then. The beauty of the Buras area is that if provides a
textbook example of mechanics by which the subsidence of most coastal marshes takes place the vertical movement of faults.
7
The Empire and Bastian Bay Faults are well
established as fundamental geologic features of
the Louisiana coastal plain. Gagliano
documented the effects of the vertical
movement of these faults on the marsh at the
surface. Faults have been the primary
mechanisms of subsidence across south
Louisiana for millions of years. The downward
vertical movement along the fault is expressed as
a subtle rotation of the marsh surface such that
maximum subsidence occurs along the trace of
the fault and the marsh surface slopes inward
toward the subsided area. It is the induced slope
of the marsh surface that is the primary means
of saltwater intrusion into the interior marshes.
The upthrown side of the fault trace is
relatively unsubsided and has experienced only
minor land loss since 1932. While this is the
classic example of subsidence due to faulting,
nearly all wetlands loss on the coast occurs in
this way.
Gagliano, S.M., et.al., 2003, Neotectonic framework of
southeast Louisiana and applications to coastal
Restoration, Trans. G.C.A.G.S., v. 53, p. 262272
8
Gagliano documented the characteristics of subsidence due to faulting in this textbook example. Vertical movement on the fault
creates a visible scarp at the surface which defines the sharp northern boundary of the open body of water he called a fault bay and
which is formed by the subsidence of the marsh. The deepest portion of the bay is immediately adjacent to the fault, and the marsh
surface slopes up and away from the fault to a area of relatively unsubsided marsh to the south. A comparison of aerial photographs
shows that the northern area of marsh on the upthrown side of the fault is also relatively unaffected by subsidence and has not
changed much over the past several decades. Gagliano undertook an exercise to calculate the volume of sediment that might be
required to fill in the subsided area, but that calculation does not take into account the fact that the area is continually subsiding, and
any emplacement of sediment into the fault bay would be immediately affected by subsidence, and would very likely subside below
the surface within a matter of decades. This is the fallacy of the concept of marsh creation in these high subsidence areas.
9
Land Loss in Southeast Louisiana

Texaco
Canals
The area referred to as Texaco Canals is so because of the canals dredged for the drilling at the Lafitte oilfield. The common
perception that once the oil companies come in and started dredging all the canals, everything just started falling apart can best be
understood by examining the relationship between the dredging of the canals and land loss. The most commonly held conception is
that the canals allowed for saltwater intrusion into the marsh, which caused erosion of the marsh and subsequent land loss. A simple
examination and comparison of this area and an adjacent area to the north and west makes it difficult to substantiate this model.
The more scientifically plausible explanation is the correlation of the canals and land loss by the causal links that both have with faults
that cross the area.
10
Morton, R.A., et.al., 2010, Quantifying large-scale
historical formation of accommodation in the Mississippi
Delta, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms., v. 35, p.
1625-41
Just like the Empire and Bastian Bay Faults, the
Lafitte and Magnolia Faults are fundamental
components of the structure of the coastal plain.
These faults control the location of the Lafitte
and Magnolia oilfields respectively at depth, but
they also have a marked expression at the
surface. The same mechanisms of fault
movement causing subsidence are responsible
for land loss here as they were in the Buras area.
Mortons 2010 study of the role of subsidence in
creating accommodation space for the
accumulation of delta deposits as a part of the
delta cycle showed the subsidence that created
the open bay developing in Bayou Perot. A cross
section of shallow cores reveals a layer of marsh
deposit that has remained intact as it subsided to
create the bay. Had this land loss been caused
by erosion, it would have cut into the marsh
layer.
11
Core section
Land Loss in Southeast Louisiana

Barataria
Comparison Area
Many of the conclusions drawn in reporting about the coast are made on the basis of relatively narrow areas of examination usually
focused on those areas that have experienced the most dramatic land loss. A broader, more scientifically accurate examination of the
coast reveals that there are significant portions of the marsh that have not experienced much land loss, and in which the marsh is a
relatively healthy ecosystem, and largely unchanged over several decades. One such area is just north and west of the Texaco Canals
area, and has been designated the Barataria for this examination
12
The effect of the subsidence caused by the
Lafitte Fault is even more apparent when
compared to the area to the north, where there
is little active surface faulting, and consequently
relatively minor amounts of subsidence and land
loss have occurred over the past several decades.
What is also apparent is that the amount of
dredging of oilfield canals is roughly equivalent in
the area to the north of the fault. Canals for the
Barataria, Delta Farms and Bayou de Fleur Fields
have been responsible for direct removal of the
marsh, but there is little collateral land loss that
should be apparent if the saltwater
intrusion/erosion models or the weight of the
dredge spoils causing subsidence model were
accurate. The truth is that the land loss that has
occurred in the Texaco Canals area is a result
subsidence caused by vertical movement on the
same fault that controls the location of the
Lafitte Field. The fields to the north do not have
major controlling faults that cut to the surface,
and therefore do not have significant land loss
that should be associated with dredging in the
fields if either of commonly accepted
explanations for land loss caused by oilfield
canals were accurate
Lafitte Field
Delta Farms Field
Barataria Field
Bayou de Fleur Field
13
What the examination and comparison of this set of fields and their relative relationships to faulting and land loss dramatically
underscores is the correlative relationships between faulting, oil fields and land loss. There is a strong causal relationship between
faults and the location of oil and gas fields. Nearly all major faults have oil and gas fields associated with them. It is the vertical
movement of faults that provided the accommodation space within which the sand layers that make up the reservoirs were
deposited. The faults also commonly act as a trapping mechanism for accumulations of oil and gas, and are likely to be the conduits
by which hydrocarbons migrated into the reservoirs from greater depths. Although only two examples have been shown so far, faults
are also primarily responsible for subsidence and loss of wetlands at the surface. Every major hot spot of land loss can be directly
tied to a major fault system that cuts to the surface. Because the faults control the location of the fields and faults control where
wetlands loss is occurring, there is an apparent, but non-causal, correlation between where canals were dredged to drill the fields and
where land loss is occurring. This observation does not mean that direct removal did not result in some measure of land loss, it
obviously did. What it does say is that the intentional attempt to blame a broader scope of land loss on dredging serves no purpose.
In order to deal with the issue of land loss the model to explain how it is caused must be scientifically accurate. If there is an
insistence on a model that invokes dredging as a primary cause of land loss for some reason other than scientific accuracy, then that
insistence will result in a diminished ability to properly understand and deal with the issue of land loss.
14
Land Loss in Southeast Louisiana

Leeville
While there is invariably a reference to the oil and gas field canals in the area it is hard to escape the reality of subsidence when
reporting on the area of lower Lafourche Parish around Leeville, and most stories usually do a fair job of capturing that reality. The
area around Leeville is perfect for integrating one of critical methods by which subsidence is measured into the conversation
historical tidal gauges. Tidal gauge data provides a direct measurement of the rate of subsidence across the lower coastal plain, and
some simple math reveals what the cumulative effect of those rates has been over time, and what it will be projecting into the future.
15
1932
470 mm = 18.5
total relative sea
level rise since 1932
sea level rise
subsidence
One of the most reliable ways to observe the effects of subsidence over a period of decades, and to begin to assign it a numerical
value is the historical record of tidal gauges. The daily recordings of tidal gauges are elevations of the high and low ranges. It is well
established that the global rise in sea level can be seen in historical tidal gauge records all over the world. Graphing the of tidal range
over a long enough period of time reveals a sloped line that is the relative rise in sea level. The slopes of these lines can be different
for different areas, and it has been determined that the more steeply sloping lines on tidal gauge graphs are due to subsidence. The
slope of the Grand Isle gauge is greater than the slope of the Pensacola gauge over the same period of time. It turns out the
Pensacola is on a very stable ridge crossing the Florida Panhandle, and it is not effected by subsidence. The slope of the Pensacola
graph is very close to the accepted value for global sea level rise. The Grand Isle gauge on the other hand slopes more steeply, and
the difference in slope between these two gauges is due to subsidence at Grand Isle. In this way the tidal gauge records can be used
to get a measurement of subsidence. In the case of Grand Isle it has experienced 470 mm or 18.5 inches of relative sea level rise
since 1932, most of that being due to subsidence.
16
Blum, M.D. and Roberts, H.H., 2012, The Mississippi Delta Region:
Past, Present, and Future, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary
Sciences, v. 40, p. 655683
Penland, S., et.al., Relative Sea Level Rise and Delta-Plain Development in the
Terrebonne Parish Region, Louisiana Geological Survey, Coastal Geology
Technical Report No. 4, 121 p.
A research group led by Shea Penland of U.N.O. examined the tidal gauge records for the stations in this area. The black dots show
the locations and names of the gauges. The numbers are the estimated rates of subsidence for each gauge in millimeters per year.
The colored lines are the contours of subsidence showing a pattern of high subsidence across the interior marshes, which diminishes
toward the coastline. There have been significant advances in the technology of measuring subsidence in recent years including
measuring changes in elevation, and therefore subsidence velocities, using GPS. It may turn out that the estimates of subsidence
rates derived from tidal gauges will be corrected to some extent by advancing technology, but the relative pattern of change will not
change. This map clearly shows a belt of relatively high subsidence across central Terrebonne and Lafourche Parishes.
6.3
17
8 per decade
Overlaying and slightly adjusting the colored contours from Penlands map onto the fault trace map shows a very clear relationship
that documents the subsidence of the coastal marshes due to the downward movement of active faults. It makes perfect sense that
areas downthrown to the active faults would be experiencing the highest rates of subsidence, and that the effects of that
subsidence would be evident in the land loss that has occurred in the area. On this map the rates of subsidence estimated from the
tidal gauges has been converted to inches per decade. The cumulative effect of these values over several decades is obvious, and it
is consistent with the depth of the open bodies of water in the highest subsidence areas. Some areas may have subsided by as
much as 4 feet since 1932.
18
The colored patches, that have been called hot spots of land loss across the coastal wetlands, have an obvious causal relationship
with the traces of the active faults. Once the supply of freshwater and sediment flowing into the network of bayous from the
Mississippi River through Bayou Lafourche was cut off in 1904, the downward movement of the faults was no longer matched by the
addition of new sediment at the marsh surface. Subsidence of the marsh surface due to faulting began to have an effect in the
beginning of the twentieth century, but that effect could not be reliably measured until the advent of aerial photography in 1932,
which is why land loss figures are quoted from that year. There are several ways that subsidence can be observed, but it turns out
that getting very accurate measurements of subsidence values has been technologically challenging. The subsidence experienced at
Leeville is a combination of the movement of faults and downwarping of the basin the have formed called the Terrebonne Trough
8 per decade
19
Proposed Sediment Pipeline
Marsh Creation Areas
Proposed Morganza-to-the-Gulf Levee
This is the extent of the proposed Morganza-to-the-Gulf Levee and the proposed sediment pipeline and marsh creation projects.
The Advocate reported on June 17, 2014 that a report released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers revised the cost estimate for the
levee project upward to $12.9 billion, a dramatic increase from the $887 million estimate when the project was authorized by
Congress in 2007. The initial estimated cost for the sediment pipeline is $1 billion. As is true for nearly all coastal restoration
projects, the rates of subsidence due to faulting in the area, which can be seen by comparing this with the previous pages, make it
virtually impossible to build and sustain either the levee, as it is currently proposed, or the marsh creation areas. Coastal restoration
and protection projects of this kind are not only staggeringly expense, they have no realistic hope in their attempt to push back
against the forces of nature. They would be subsumed by the subsidence almost as soon as construction was finished.
20
Land Loss in Southeast Louisiana

Bayou Penchant
Comparison Area
Another area that should be considered for comparison with the high land loss areas is north and west of the area just evaluated,
outlined in yellow and named the Bayou Penchant area here. A map presented on page 26 shows that the trend of major faults
cutting the surface of the marsh stretches in a WSW-ENE orientation across the coastal plain. The demarcation of that trend is
obvious here even with out the overlay of the fault traces. Marshes to the north of the line are not subsided and have not
experienced significant land loss. This was true for the Barataria area and it is true for the Bayou Penchant area.
21
Bayou Penchant Field
Bayou Penchant Field
The oil and gas fields in this area are outlined in
red on the maps. Bayou Penchant Field is of
particular interest because it is one of the larger
fields in the area, and all of the wells in the field
were drilled from dredged slips. It is also of
interest because the field produced from very
large reservoirs that are characterized as classic
pressure depletion reservoirs, meaning that
the reservoir pressure depleted over time as the
gas and condensate were removed. In the
largest such reservoir the operator of the field
installed large compressors that were used to
draw down reservoir pressure even further to
recover hydrocarbons. At the end of its life the
produced reservoir had a pressure of 500 psi,
virtually a vacuum for a large reservoir at depth.
If there were ever a case where the production
of hydrocarbons should be expressed at the
surface by subsidence, this should have been it.
There has in fact been no measurable subsidence
at the surface because the faults that control the
location of the field do not cut to the surface.
The large fault systems in the area that do cut to
the surface are north and south of the field area,
and they show the land loss due to subsidence
that would be expected from the vertical
movement of faulting.

Bayou Penchant is also another example of a
field in which the direct removal of marsh by
dredging did on lead to additional land loss, as
the erosion model would require.
22
Land Loss in Southeast Louisiana

Delacroix
The reference to oil and gas drilling in reporting on land loss in the Delacroix completely misses the point. There have been relatively
few wells drilled in the area, but the Delacroix stands alone as an example of the accelerated rate of land loss that has occurred over
the past decade. A cursory examination of the U.S.G.S. Land Loss Map reveals an obvious concentration of land loss exclusively in the
Delacroix area whose purple color indicates it has occurred within the last decade. The staggering irony of this is land loss is the
inescapable conclusion that it has been caused by the Caenarvon Diversion. For all the discussion of oil and gas drilling the single
biggest cause of land loss over the past 30 years has been a coastal restoration project.
23
Caenarvon Diversion
The Caenarvon was never intended to be a land-building diversion. The original intent was to try to reverse the effects of saltwater
intrusion be reconnecting the river with the marsh. The fallacy of this thinking was two-fold. The progression of change from
freshwater marsh to saltwater marsh is part of the natural evolution that has been occurring due to subsidence in the coastal plain for
millennia. The St. Bernard Delta that once extended past the Chandeleur Islands went through the progression from freshwater to
saltwater marsh to open bay, and is now 30 below sea level. It was foolish to interfere with this natural process. Secondly, the river
water is loaded with excess nutrients from upstream agriculture. This nutrient-loaded freshwater is effectively toxic to the salt marsh.
24
Several very prominent scientists, including Eugene
Turner at L.S.U. have been very clear in their
interpretation of the detrimental effects of diversions
on the marsh. In short the nutrients weaken the root
bases of the marsh grasses and they are ripped up
during hurricanes. The map from a different study by
Turner shows the area of dramatic land loss in red
represented by the top photograph, and the area of
reference or control marsh outlined in yellow, and
represented by the lower photograph. A conservative
estimate puts the land loss caused by the Caenarvon
Diversion at 40 square miles. The photographs were
published by John Burras.

Turner and his group summarized their evaluation of
diversions in their 2011 study as follows:

Ultimately, the scientific basis for river diversions
needs to be more convincing before embarking on a
strategy that may result in marshes even less able to
survive hurricanes. The evidence indicates that
diversions not only fail to conserve mature brackish
and tidal freshwater marshes, but disrupt plant
physiology in ways that endanger individual plant
vigor and overall marsh survival. In this regard, there
is no better illustration than the Hypoxia Zone of
what high nitrogen levels can do to delicate nutrient
balances evolved over millennia in nitrogenlean
ecosystems, and the daunting challenges for
reversing that damage.
Kearney, M.S., et.al., 2011, Freshwater river diversions for marsh restoration in
Louisiana: Twentysix years of changing vegetative cover and marsh area,
Geophysical Research Letters, v.38, p L16405
25
Land Loss in Southeast Louisiana

The superposition of the known surface fault traces onto satellite imagery clearly shows the delineation of the areas of high
subsidence that are being converted to open water. The land loss associated with this conversion is shown on the next page. The
New Orleans East Land Bridge is associated with another set of faults that arguably have deeper and more tectonically significant
roots. This fault system is part of a large system that extends up to Baton Rouge. Effects of faults in this system have been studied in
Lake Pontchartrain by John Lopez, and are examined in a study of Goose Point on the north shore of the lake by Kathy Haggar.
Haggars study will be published in the October 2014 transactions of the G.C.A.G.S. It is significant because like much of the New
Orleans East Land Bridge, there is no other viable explanation for land loss at Goose Point other than subsidence due to faulting
26
27
Fearnely, S. et.al., 2001, Mapping the Geomorphology and Processes of Coastal
Land Loss in the Pontchartrain Basin: 1932 to 1990 and 1990 to 2001, Journal of
Coastal Research, No. 10054, p. 48-58
27%
9%
64%
Although reporting in the popular press commonly holds up
land loss in the New Orleans East Land Bridge, and adjacent
Central Wetlands Unit as an example of coastal erosion,
the Penland group attributed the majority of the loss to
submergence. The more significant value attributed to
direct removal is almost entirely due to the dredging of the
M.R.G.O. and the Intercoastal Waterway. Contrary to
popular belief, the U.N.O. team did not attribute any
additional land loss to saltwater intrusion caused by the
M.R.G.O. An examination of this area reveals that the land
loss which is attributed to submergence has been caused
primarily by subsidence due to the vertical movement of
faults.
28
Dixon, T.H., et.al., 2006, Subsidence and flooding in New Orleans, Nature, v. 441, p. 587-588
This area is of particular interest because recent developments in technology that have allowed for the direct measurement of
subsidence velocities using GPS have been applied here. The rates of subsidence range up to the values of over 20 mm/yr that were
measured using tidal gauge data on the downthrown side of the Golden Meadow fault north of Leeville. The use of this technology
requires measurement from dry land surfaces, so the points in the marsh are somewhat scattered, but it is clear that the highest rates
of subsidence are across the Landbridge and in the Central Wetland Unit.
Subsidence in mm/yr
29
Dokka, R.K., 2011, The role of deep processes in late 20
th
century
subsidence of New Orleans and coastal areas of southern Louisiana
and Mississippi, Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 16, B06403, 25 p.
Roy Dokka of L.S.U. did the foundational work in this area on the relationship between subsidence and faulting. In his 2011 study he
published a map of two principal faults that are a part of the larger fault system shown earlier. Dokka was able to document
variations in the subsidence velocities measured by Dixon across the area due to faulting, meaning that the faults are clearly active
and causing the subsidence that is resulting in land loss in the area.
30
By color-filling Dixons subsidence map to emphasize the areas of maximum subsidence revealed by the scattered readings, and
overlaying the traces of the faults mapped by Dokka, the relationship between the patterns of subsidence and the faults is more
obvious. All of the significant land loss that has occurred in this area is within the outline of maximum subsidence. That subsidence is
due to faulting.
31
Fort Proctor stands as a measurable documentation of the effects of subsidence. The fort was constructed at Proctor Landing in
1865, but never used. Historical documents show the fort was positioned 150 from the shoreline, and based on comparison
with other forts around the Gulf, it was almost certainly at least five above sea level at the time of construction. The fort is now
in Lake Borne, and the foundation is about four feet below sea level. The implied rate of subsidence is very similar to the values
measured in 2006 by Dixon. A logical extension of the area of maximum subsidence that has been measured by GPS is shown in
red dashed outline.

The green outline is the marsh creation project being undertaken by Ecosystem Investment Partners. This project will be subject
to nearly the same rates of subsidence that have been experienced across the area resulting in the burial of the barrier islands,
the submergence of the cypress swamps in Breton Sound, and the sinking of Fort Proctor, and the mud flats created by the
project will very likely be submerged below sea level in less than 20 years.
Dixon Area of Maximum
Subsidence ~ 8 inches per decade
Ecosystem Investment Partners
Marsh Creation Project Outline
Fort Proctor
32
The visually stunning online publication by The Lens and ProPublica provides an excellent jumping off point for a conversation on
coastal land loss in Louisiana. To fully make sense of what is apparent in the imagery there must be a more thorough and
comprehensive integration of the science that explains the changes that are occurring. It is important to appreciate that the
technological advancements that made these visualizations possible have also provided an opportunity for people the experience the
changes taking place in a natural system for the first time in a way that is within the range of our perception.

Consider two other natural settings: I recently took a vacation on the beaches of Pensacola. The day we arrived there was a
configuration of the sand bars that made it perfect for our family. Instead of the bar being 100 yards offshore, as is often the case, it
was about 10 yards off the beach and was exposed most of the time. We could put our chairs on the bar and be near the surf without
being in the traffic of people walking along the beach. My granddaughter could play in the shallow lagoon formed behind the bar
without being in the surf. I loved this configuration, but I intuitively knew that it would not last. It was going to change, and very
possibly it could change with one storm while I was there. On another vacation I went to the Smoky Mountains. To me they looked
exactly the same as they had they year before, and as they had twenty years before that. Within the range of my perception the
mountains were permanent and unchanging. The thing is that the Smoky Mountains used to look like the Himalayas, and one day they
will be a flat plain. The mountains are changing every bit as much as the sand bars, the only difference was my ability to perceive the
change.

The same is true of the coastal plain of Louisiana. We all intuitively tend to think of the marshes and bayous and bays to be permanent
features of the earths surface, just like the mountains. The truth is they are much, much more like the sand bars on the beach. What
the visualization of this publication has done is to allow us to experience the changes occurring to the coast in a timeframe that we can
perceive. In the same way the we expect the sand bars to change their configuration with every passing weather system, we should
learn to expect that the coast of Louisiana is going to change with the natural progression of the delta cycle. The changes that are
occurring across the coast are almost entirely natural. The fundamental geologic forces that control the mechanics of subsidence and
the delta cycle are much greater than anything engineering system that humans could contrive to try to affect them.

The people that insist on telling a story about the magnitude of human impacts on the coast are doing so with an agenda in mind. If I
can be made plausible that humans caused the changes to the coast, then it is believable that humans can reverse the effects of those
changes. That will require money, and it is the money that ultimately pushes the agenda.
1
Commetary