Regarding your August 2021 story, “Residents Fight Floodwalls Proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers,” the proposed 14-foot tall floodwalls are certainly extreme.
However, there is an erroneous and contagious popular belief that planting mangroves along the shoreline of Legion and Morningside parks would protect against storm surge.
There are two key points of truth in that article, first from Col. Patrick Kinsman of the Corps: “I don’t think the mangrove islands are going to stop the storm surge.” And, from FIU professor Shimon Wdowinski, “One row of mangroves is not the solution; you need a wide area that can absorb the surge.”
Advocates for shoreline mangrove plantings should Google a document titled “The Global Flood Protection Benefits of Mangroves,” which says on Page 1: "Previous studies have shown that mangroves can reduce up to 66% of wave energy in the first 100m of forest width.” – 100m means 100 meters, or 328 feet; that’s how far upland a forest of shoreline mangroves would have to extend in order to achieve “up to” a 66% reduction of wave energy.
From these pictures one can see that a 100 meter width of mangrove forest in any waterfront park would greatly decrease the public’s usable recreational area, eliminate bay views from the upland side of the park, and eliminate public access to and from the water.
Is that worth it, for a possible (“up to”) 66% reduction in wave energy?
This is the nucleus of the conflict. Some environmentalists place little value on the public’s enjoyment of its waterfront. Moreover, the 100+ mph winds of a hurricane obliterate mangrove forests.
On the other hand, a six-foot NAVD (height above sea level) concrete seawall along the shoreline would be only three feet wide, provide seating and recreation, not block the view of the bay nor access to it, and also protect against sea level rise.
Hopefully the truth and the public interest will prevail.
Elvis Cruz
Miami