Search

Purpose - Over the past century, the rate of sea level rise (SLR) has increased more than twice the average historical rate and the US Environmental Protection Agency estimates that by 2100 the sea level will increase nearly two feet in many coastal areas. Property owners and municipalities typically respond to SLR by constructing seawalls and similar structures to protect shoreline property (a practice known as "armoring"). The degree to which SLR and armoring threaten key coastal habitats has not been well studied, however. This study, aims to develop an inundation model on behalf of Stratus Consulting to examine anticipated habitat changes in coastal Ocean County, New Jersey. Design/methodology/approach - The model used a geographical information system to map predicted changes in coastal habitats under two alternative SLR scenarios and six different shoreline armoring scenarios. The paper then used information from local experts and the scientific literature to predict changes in the relative abundances of fish and bird species under the different scenarios. Findings - Under all scenarios, the model predicted substantial declines in the areal extent of Spartina marshes and in the annual production of finfish and shrimp. Declines in these marsh-dependent species would have significant impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries. The study also predicted substantial declines in bird species such as songbirds and dabbling ducks. Originality/value - The results of the study can help local stakeholders and decision-makers plan responses to SLR. Conventional armoring responses could result in substantial and irreversible losses of coastal habitats and the species dependent on these habitats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Mugdan et al. have criticized certain aspects of the approach and general conclusions of our recently published fish ingestion risk assessment for the lower Passaic River (Urban et al., 2009), asserting that they are inconsistent with the United States Environmental Protection Agency''s risk assessment guidelines we reference in our paper. Specifically, they assert that the excess cancer risk and health hazard results calculated as a part of our analyses underestimate the potential health risk posed to lower Passaic River anglers who actually consume their catch due to the fish ingestion rates we utilized in our analysis and our lack of inclusion of a crab ingestion pathway. While there clearly are differences between our risk assessment and the one conducted by the USEPA, this is not at all surprising given that their assessment reflects a typical screening-level risk assessment while that described in our paper reflects a more detailed site-specific risk assessment. In developing our exposure scenarios and assumptions, we considered and incorporated the available site-specific information in both deterministic and probabilistic quantitative risk frameworks in an effort to provide a sound and realistic human health risk assessment that quantitatively accounts for much of the variability and uncertainty typically inherent in such estimates. Although it is understandable that Mugdan et al. are compelled to defend the effort and conclusions put forth by USEPA Region 2 in its 2007 draft human health risk assessment of the lower Passaic River, the site-specific lower Passaic River human health risk assessment presented in Urban et al. (2009) was conducted according to USEPA guidelines, underwent peer review, and is, in fact, consistent with Superfund guidance and accepted principles of risk assessment. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]