(the conversation with Star Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine is continuing; while I compose a follow up, I post this update) Michael Drake Is there not some way to introduce a managed retreat program to gradually resettle people from barrier island properties? such a proposal seems best articulated by the Surfrider Foundation, but despite its coherency, hasnt achieved much traction. Is it really possible to discuss beach replenishment at shoring up without at least acknowledging the Managed Retreat alternative? MD Paul Mulshine | The Star Ledger Managed retreat could never work for an obvious reason: You cant keep moving the entire infrastructure a block westward every few years. Its far cheaper to stabilize it where it is. As for Surfrider, they oppose piers and jetties. Or in other words, they oppose the only things that create good surf on the East Coast. They are California environmental radicals, not real surfers. Michael Drake I guess if sea-level rise and climate change were not significant factors influencing the barrier islands natural shift, the comment about problems of moving the entire infrastructure a block westward could make sense. Shoveling sand against the tide is one thing (taxpayer costs aside, shoring up is a legitimate opinion), but when sea-level rise is factored in, futility kicks in. Paul Mulshine | The Star Ledger Youre missing the point. It is not possible to retreat for two obvious reasons. The first is the one I stated. The second is that retreat comes by having the barrier island breached and moved westward. What happened last time the barrier breached? Answer: 10,000 homes along the bay were flooded. The cost was over $2 billion. So much for that fantasy. Michael Drake I accept your main point that the pragmatics of shifting moving barrier island infrastructure precludes any realistic shifting of communities; my understanding of managed retreat is not such, but moving people out entirely. The second point, which is supported by a clear reminder of the tragic consequences of natural or artificial barriers getting breached, seems to me an explanation that can be applied to the French Maginot line. Once water got behind the front lines of defense, the barriers and structures, designed to keep water in the ocean, instead trapped surge water, preventing it from receding, thus enhancing the damage. Paul Mulshine | The Star Ledger The coastal geography varies greatly and that might be a problem elsewhere. However in northern Ocean County theres only one avenue for water to enter the bay providing there are no breaches. Thats the canal connecting the bay to the Manasquan River. That canal is quite narrow and the amount of water that can enter is limited. But in Sandy that wasnt a factor since the two breaches in Mantoloking permitted the open ocean to fill the bay. That raised the bay level by 6 feet and caused the disaster in the bayfront areas. As for sea-level rise, so far the rate has remained consistent since 1850 at a little under an inch per decade. That will not cause major problems all by itself. Michael Drake Thank you very much for grounding the impromptu discussion with the specific circumstances of northern Ocean Countys shore. I understand that had the two breaches not opened at Mantoloking, six feet of water would not have rushed in; one could therefore find clear support for higher and firmer barriers to prevent that from happening again. Then again, as I look at aerial maps of that area, I see a lot of homes built right up on the shore; if those structures werent there, what would have happened with the surge? Regarding the subject of sea-level rise, it seems the minimum best estimates are over three times what you stated. According to Kenneth G. Miller of Rutgers University, Our best estimate is sea level will rise globally by 4 ft by 2100. Global sea level rise and subsidence during the 21st century will cause a minimum of 3 ft of rise along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf seaboards resulting in loss of land (1-3% of the U.S. East Coast), loss of marshland, and greater beach erosion. Miller (et al.) adds: a rise of 3 ft is many times the rise shore communities have been fighting. This rise will result in approximately a 1000 ft rollback of the beaches, and the upper limit of rise is poorly constrained. Not sure if the sudden scientific leap is a warning to sell ones shore home fast, but it sure seems like an indication that barriers are futile. Here is the URL to Kenneth Millers comments: rockbox.rutgers.edu/pdf/CNSFsealevel.pdf Paul Mulshine | The Star Ledger Kenneth Miller is an alarmist. The real rate of rise is measured at the Battery and the rate hasnt changed since 1850, even though CO-2 levels rose rapidly. Thats why the Army Corps, which is the authority, does not rely on the alarmist estimates. Paul Mulshine | The Star Ledger Also the other important point on this is that the retreat people have it backward. The barrier islands have to be defended to protect inland areas. If were going to retreat it should be in the mainland areas north of Manasquan. There would be no harm in letting them erode backward. But just try that politically.
Posted on: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 14:09:47 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015