Why are Coastal "Studies" necessary?

I studied my arse off in college. Still waiting on my $90 million. SMH.

They are fighting a losing battle. The sediment they need to redirect has already been dredged out of the Mississippi up north.

The real way to build coast line is to use never ending materials that are easy to transport and nearly free. The sediment isn't there in the levels we need.

Plastic bottles are the solution.

It sounds crazy, but plastic bottles with small holes in them would allow water to carry sediment into them and eventually plug the holes. We have a near infinite supply.

The problem is the public view of dropping a few billion lbs of recyclable material into the gulf.

It will not go over well.

Dynamics. Coastal environments are complex. What works in Southwest Louisiana doesn't necessarily work in Southeast Louisiana. The problems in the two regions are different as well. Saltwater intrusion versus Subsidence. Young delta versus old beach rims.

I do believe the amount of time spent on these studies is excessive, but in some places it is very much necessary. Some of the techniques have been studied so much and are played out in all honesty. Freshwater and sediment diversion projects, terraces, dredge spoil have all be studied so much and implemented, there is really no reason to spend millions on "studying" these projects. Short of site evaluations, if they can't determine if one of these projects will be successful or not, they need to find a new line of work.

Personally, more focus should be put on marsh revegetation projects as opposed to all these crazy engineering-heavy projects. There is plenty of degraded marsh out there that just needs vegetation replanted.

SELA is, as stated, a losing battle. As long as the levees are in place along the Mississippi, those marshes will always be subsiding. The lack of sediment to replenish it will likely never be replaced by engineered diversions.

I work in this field. There are too many studies. However, the Times Pic got the article wrong: that isn't a 90mil study. It's 90mil to study and build.

As others have said, some things require significant study to ensure sufficient benefits are achieved. Another sad reason a lot of shite is studied to death is the regulatory process.

Take the diversions as an example. They have been studied for 30 years. The state would build Mid Barataria tomorrow if able...BUT all of the regulatory agencies such as the Corps, NOAA, etc will instead spend the next year just deciding what kind of permit process the project must undergone, then the better part of the following 5 years in the permit process agonizing over the fate of any number of species that are doomed in a no-action case anyway (if we let all the marsh disappear). The regulatory agencies require that the permit applicant prove they have analyzed multiple alternatives and potential impacts of each as condition of granting a permit (which require boatloads of studies).

The state just forked over 2.5mil to the Corps for the Corps to essentially do their job and permit the project (at the lightning fast pace of 5+ years).

Even if we had a modern day WPA and infinite infrastructure funds, we would never be able to actually execute projects due to the ridiculous permitting quagmire every project is subjected to.

Not to mention oyster lease holders and their "rights"

I would imagine a loss of federal funding. USACE reviews permits for dredge type work under CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, but the EPA is the end all be all.

Deliberately saying F you to the EPA is a good way to get politicians pissed at you.

The Feds would probably get the Coast Guard to seize the dredge. The state already exclusively uses private dredges. To dredge places like Ship Shoal to rebuild Elmer's, NOAA/BOEMER had the state hire a trawler to drive in front of the dredge so that no sea turtles would be sucked up. They had to prove they wouldn't dredge near shipwrecks, they had to avoid areas of the beach where birds nest or Native American artifacts wash out. The list goes on and it's a long list. Most of it, once again, is moot since the no-action alternative means no beach, no turtle or bird nests, no buried pottery shards etc. It is absurd, but lifers at these regulatory agencies spend their entire existence viewing things with blinders. But hey, it retains their jobs.

quote:

---

Plastic bottles are the solution.

---

beer cans too. Been saying it for years. Sink an empty can, provide a home for a baby fish!

quote:

---

Another sad reason a lot of shite is studied to death is the regulatory process.

---

At some point we really need to make an appeal to get this shite streamlined. Maybe someone can make an appeal to Trump and he can step in. It's sickening to go out fishing and keep seeing things washed away and nothing being done to stop it.

quote:

---

beer cans too. Been saying it for years. Sink an empty can, provide a home for a baby fish!

---

Now you're talking my language