The three speakers from the Plenary Session take their places in the panel and are ready to field questions.
Q: Peter Slovinsky - asks Dr. Pendleton what does CA spends annually on beach maintenance.
A: Linwood thinks it's around 400 million dollars.
Q: Peter Slovinsky - asks Dr. Pendleton what does CA spends annually on beach maintenance.
A: Pendleton - Around 400 million dollars.
Q: A question about data. I’m on a planning board that is forced to use 25 year old maps and make decisions based on them. Should planning be based on preliminary data (which may be controversial) or on the 25 year old data?
A: Colgan - Yes, it's a problem. You must try to adjust your decisions to the level of data you have. For some decisions (investments, zoning) the question of where the 100 year flood line is may be a legally-binding question. Until FEMA comes up with a legally-binding map, there isn't much planning boards can do except try your best. For other decisions, a careful reading of maps and existing data may be sufficient to develop buffers and margins of safety that permit some adaptation in the future that will not, or should not, result in unfixable actions. Try to do things now in such a way as not to foreclose upon future actions. There is a lot of data up there that will get better.
A: Pendleton - There are a number of reasons why we don't have good data. First, people will assume that environmental problems will be fixed, and environmental problems are overanalyzed, leaving the human impacts relatively unstudied. How big is the economy that is supported by that environment? We should spent money to study people. Second, some say that 'we don't have good data now, why should we start now?' We need to count people, and ask them. How else would you know if beach attendance is altered by weather, climate change or something else? Climate change may be an easy scapegoat, but it's not necessarily the problem all the time. We must gather data that will get a better picture of beach use, from all angles, and the same data should be used for all beaches from Popham to Old Orchard Beach.
A: Pendleton - says he's created an internet survey that can be easy, cheap and useful to help gather this data.
Q: The dollar impact, especially in terms of shorefront property change, ignores Maine's policy that we should retreat from the beach. Second, it seems to be here in Maine that astronomical high tides and severe storm areas are linked. Is there any science related to that?
A: LeVert - Speaking to the impact of beachfront properties on taxpayers, I used my presentation to show the impact of coastal properties on local economies and how much people are willing to pay for coastal life. I can't really speak to Maine's public policy.
A: Pendleton - Coastal landowners who lose land due to erosion will certainly lose. Further, insurance companies will lose, and coastal users will lose. The emotional argument is to feel sorry for the landowner who will lose their home, but who will benefit? As far as astronomical tides go, the frequency of storms happening at high tides will be higher simply because tides will be higher all around.
A: Colgan - There's also an observational effect, because as tides are higher and storms occur, we hear more about them because we are more likely to see dramatic effects, receive official warnings, etc.
Q: How much does Maine spend to nourish beaches?
A: LeVert – I don’t know.
Q: Why not? Does anyone know?
A: Kathleen Leyden, Director, Maine Coastal Program at the State Planning Office says that Maine invests 0 dollars in nourishing Maine's beaches. There are some programs for state parks, but there is no publicly-funded program to help Maine's beaches. It's been brought up in numerous public policy documents, but all the current projects are either private or very local.
Q: I know that for years and years there have been attempts at dredging in Southern Maine, but it's been just hard times. If Maine's beaches are such an important resource, why aren't they maintained and restored on a regular basis? In Wells, we need to restore our beaches.
A: Larry Bliss, state senator for South Portland. How often has the questioner talked to his local senator about the need to do this? Questioner responds – Many, many times. Larry Bliss - Money is a huge problem, he doesn't need to let anyone know. If we've listened to Charles Colgan, we know that money is a problem. That doesn't mean, though, that we can't reallocate resources. We have a citizen legislature that responds incredibly to calls and letters. I live very close to SMCC and know that the beach is important. Other legislators need to hear from their constituents if they want change.
A: Pendleton - In California, dam removal is a big help, and so is sand coming from hills. We sometimes forget that sand has to come from somewhere. That 100-200 million dollars per year spent in California is a small amount.
Q: I’m on the shoreline commission in Saco that deals with beach management. In order for the Army Corps to place a barrier, they need to see that beach nourishment will occur in the future. There are all kinds of problems for the dredged sand getting back to beaches, especially if the sand drifts to other towns. We should understand the problem and work together.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment