Skip to main content
Log in

Effectiveness of Living Shorelines as an Erosion Control Method in North Carolina

  • Published:
Estuaries and Coasts Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Living shorelines are a shoreline stabilization strategy encompassing a range of vegetative to structural materials and serve as an alternative approach to the use of structures like bulkheads, which are known to aggravate erosion. Living shorelines are often installed with little to no long-term monitoring for effectiveness; specifically, there is a lack of quantitative data regarding their performance as a shoreline stabilization strategy. This study sought to assess the performance of living shorelines with sills, with respect to shoreline protection, by determining shoreline change rates (SCR) using geospatial analysis. Shoreline surveys were conducted using a real-time kinematic (RTK)-GPS unit at a total of 17 living shoreline projects and nine control segments at 12 sites along the coast of North Carolina. Current shoreline position was compared to historic (pre-installation) shoreline positions obtained from aerial imagery, dating to 1993. The average SCR among northern sites before installation was − 0.45 ± 0.49 m year−1, and in southern sites, it was − 0.21 ± 0.52 m year−1. After installation, average SCR was significantly less erosive at northern and southern sites with living shorelines, 0.17 ± 0.47 and − 0.01 ± 0.51 m year−1, respectively. Of the 17 living shoreline project segments, 12 exhibited a reduction in the rate of erosion; of those 12, six were observed to be accreting. This study supports the convention that living shorelines can reduce the rate of erosion and potentially restore lost shore zone habitat.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bellis, V., M.P. O’Conner, and S.R. Riggs. 1975. Estuarine shoreline erosion in the Albemarle-Pamlico region of North Carolina. Raleigh: UNC Sea Grant Publication, North Carolina State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendoni, M., R. Mel, L. Solari, S. Francalanci, and H. Oumeraci. 2016. Insights into lateral marsh retreat mechanism through localized field measurements. Water Resource Research 52 (2): 1446–1464. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boerma, A., L. Geerts, L. Oosterlee, S. Temmerman, and P. Meire. 2016. Ecosystem service delivery in restoration projects: the effect of ecological succession on the benefits of tidal marsh restoration. Ecology and Society 21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08372-210210.

  • Bozek, C.M., and D.M. Burdick. 2005. Impacts of seawalls on saltmarsh plant communities in the Great Bay Estuary, New Hampshire USA. Wetlands Ecology and Management 13 (5): 553–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craft, C., J. Reader, J. Sacco, and S. Broome. 1999. Twenty-five years of ecosystem development of constructed Spartina alterniflora (Loisel) marshes. Ecological Applications 9 (4): 1405–1419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craft, C., J. Ehman, S. Joye, R. Park, S. Pennings, H. Guo, and M. Machmuller. 2008. Forecasting the effects of accelerated sea-level rise on tidal marsh ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7 (2): 73–78. https://doi.org/10.1890/070219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowell, M., S. Leatherman, and M. Buckley. 1991. Historical shoreline change: error analysis and mapping accuracy. Journal of Coastal Research 7: 839–852.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currin, C.A., P.C. Delano, and L.M. Valdes-Weaver. 2007. Utilization of a citizen monitoring protocol to assess the structure and function of natural and stabilized fringing salt marshes in North Carolina. Wetlands Ecology Management 16: 97–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currin, C.A., W.S. Chappell, and A. Deaton. 2010. Developing alternative shoreline armoring strategies: the living shoreline approach in North Carolina. In Puget sound shorelines and the impacts of armoring. Proceedings of State of the Science Workshop, 2010–5254:91–102. Scientific Investigations Report. U.S. Geological Survey.

  • Dahl, T.E., and S.M. Stedman. 2013. Status and trends of wetlands in the coastal watersheds of the Coterminous United States 2004 to 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

  • Davis, Jana LD, Richard L. Takacs, and Robert Schnabel. 2006. Evaluating ecological impacts of living shorelines and shoreline habitat elements: an example from the upper western Chesapeake Bay. Management, Policy, Science, and Engineering of Nonstructural Erosion Control in the Chesapeake Bay, 55.

  • DeLaune, R.D., R.H. Baumann, and J.G. Gosselink. 1983. Relationships among vertical accretion, coastal submergence, and erosion in a Louisiana Gulf Coast marsh. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 53: 147–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, R., M. Fenster, and S. Holme. 1991. Temporal analysis of shoreline recession and accretion. Journal of Coastal Research 7: 723–744.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglass, S.L., and B.H. Pickel. 1999. The tide doesn’t go out anymore: the effect of bulk-heads on urban bay shorelines. Shore and Beach 67: 19–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eliot, I., and D. Clarke. 1983. Temporal and spatial bias in the estimation of shoreline rate-of-change statistics from beach survey information. Coastal Management 17: 129–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eulie, D.O., J.P. Walsh, and R.D. Corbett. 2013. High-resolution analysis of shoreline change and application of balloon-based aerial photography, Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System, North Carolina, USA. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods 11: 151–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eulie, D.O., J.P. Walsh, and D.R. Corbett. 2016. Temporal and spatial dynamics of estuarine shoreline change in the Albemarle-Pamlico estuarine system, North Carolina, USA. Estuaries and Coasts. 40 (3): 741–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-016-0143-8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fear, J., and C.A. Currin. 2012. Sustainable estuarine shoreline stabilization: Research, education and public policy in North Carolina.

  • Friedrichs, C.T., and J.E. Perry. 2001. Tidal salt marsh morphodynamics: a synthesis. Journal of Coastal Research: 7–37.

  • Gedan, K., M. Kirwan, E. Wolanski, E. Barbier, and B. Silliman. 2011. The present and future role of coastal wetland vegetation in protecting shorelines: answering recent challenges to the paradigm. Climate Change 106 (1): 7–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geis, S., and B. Bendall. 2010. Charting the estuarine environment: a methodology spatially delineating a contiguous, estuarine shoreline of North Carolina. Raleigh: North Carolina Division of Coastal Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gittman, R.K., A.M. Popowich, J.F. Bruno, and C.H. Peterson. 2014. Marshes with and without sills protect estuarine shorelines from erosion better than bulkheads during a category 1 hurricane. Ocean and Coastal Management 102: 94–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gittman, R.K., C.H. Peterson, C.A. Currin, F.J. Fodrie, M.F. Piehler, and J.F. Bruno. 2016a. Living shorelines can enhance the nursery role of threatened estuarine habitats. Ecological Society of America 26: 249–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gittman, R.K., C.S. Smith, I.P. Neylan, and J.H. Grabowski. 2016b. Ecological consequences of shoreline hardening: a meta-analysis. BioScience 66 (9): 763–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guidance for considering the use of living shorelines. 2015. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

  • Jackson, C.W., C.R. Alexander, and D.M. Bush. 2010. Application of new shoreline analysis tools to coastal National Parks in Georgia: the Ambur package for R. Geological Society of America 42: 142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, C.W., C.A. Alexander, and D.M. Bush. 2011. Analyzing backbarrier shoreline change along Georgia’s Barrier Islands: lessons learned from developing and using Ambur. Geological Society of America, 43.

  • Knutson, P.L., R.A. Brochu, W.N. Seelig, and M. Inskeep. 1982. Wave damping in Spartina alterniflora marshes. Wetlands 2 (1): 87–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Peyre, M.K., A.T. Humphries, S.M. Casas, and J.F. La Peyre. 2014. Temporal variation in development of ecosystem services from oyster reef restoration. Ecological Engineering 63: 34–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Limber, P., J. List, and J. Warren. 2004. Investigating methods of mean high water shoreline extraction from LIDAR data and the relationship between photo-derived and datum-based shorelines in North Carolina. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

  • Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 2013. Where have we been? Where are we now? Where are we going: Proceedings from the Mid-Atlantic Living Shorelines Summit. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Restore America’s Estuaries, and the Chesapeake Bay Trust. Retrieved from: https://www.estuaries.org/2013-mid-atlantic-living-shorelines-summit. Retrieved 1 Apr 2016.

  • McVerry, K. 2012. North Carolina Estuarine Shoreline Mapping Project: Statewide and county statistics. NC Division of Coastal Management, Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

  • Moore, L. 2000. Shoreline mapping techniques. Journal of Coastal Research 16: 111–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, P., and F. Short. 2002. Using functional trajectories to track constructed salt marsh development in the Great Bay Estuary, Maine/New Hampshire, U.S.A. Restoration Ecology 10 (3): 461–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morley, S.A., J.D. Toft, and K.M. Hanson. 2012. Ecological effects of shoreline armoring on intertidal habitats of a Puget Sound Urban Estuary. Estuaries and Coasts 35 (3): 774–784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-012-9481-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NOAA tide predictions. 2017. Center for operational oceanographic products and services. Silver Spring: NOAA/National Ocean Service, Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • North Carolina Estuarine Shoreline Mapping Project 2012 Statistical Reports. 2015. Update methodology. North Carolina Division of Coastal Management.

  • Pilkey, O.H., and H.L. Wright. 1988. Seawalls versus beaches. Journal of Coastal Research: 41–64.

  • Pilkey, O.H., W.J. Neal, S.R. Riggs, C.A. Webb, D.M. Bush, D.F. Pilkey, J. Bullock, and B.A. Cowan. 1998. The North Carolina shore and its barrier islands: Restless ribbons of sand. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redfield, A.C. 1972. Development of New England salt marsh. Ecological Monographs 4: 201–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riffe, K.C., S.M. Henderson, and J.C. Mullarney. 2011. Wave dissipation by flexible vegetation. Geophysical Research Letters 38 (18). https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riggs, S.R. 2001. Shoreline erosion in North Carolina estuaries. UNC-SG-01-11. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Sea Grant Program Publication.

  • Riggs, S.R., and D.V. Ames. 2003. Drowning the North Carolina Coast: Sea-level rise and estuarine dynamics. North Carolina Sea Grant College Program. Raleigh. NC UNC-SG-03–04.

  • Rogers, S.M., and T.E. Skrabal. 2001. Managing erosion on estuarine shorelines. N.C. Division of Coastal Management, North Carolina Sea Grant, North Carolina State University College of Design.

  • Roland, R.M., and S.L. Douglass. 2005. Estimating wave tolerance of Spartina alterniflora in coastal Alabama. Journal of Coastal Research 21: 453–463. https://doi.org/10.2112/03-0079.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scyphers, S.B., S.P. Powers, K.L. Heck, and D. Byron. 2011. Oyster reefs as natural breakwaters mitigate shoreline loss and facilitate fisheries. PLoS One 6 (8): e22396.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Simenstad, C.A., and R.M. Thom. 1996. Functional equivalency trajectories of the restored Gog-Le-Hi-Te estuarine wetland. Ecological Applications 6 (1): 38–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/2269551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirewalt, G. L., and R. L. Ingram. 1974. Aerial photographic study of shoreline erosion and deposition, Pamlico Sound, North Carolina. UNC-SG-74-09. Raleigh, NC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, North Carolina State University.

  • Toft, Jason D., Andrea S. Ogston, Sarah M. Heerhartz, Jeffery R. Cordell, and Emilie E. Flemer. 2013. Ecological response and physical stability of habitat enhancements along an urban armored shoreline. Ecological Engineering 57: 97–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonelli, M., S. Fagherazzi, and M. Petti. 2010. Modeling wave impact on salt marsh boundaries. Journal of Geophysical Research 115 (C9). https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JC006026.

  • Yozzo, D.J., J.E. Davis, and P.T. Cagney. 2003. Shore protection projects. Coastal engineering manual engineer manual 1110–2-1100. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to the University of North Carolina Wilmington’s Department of Environmental Sciences for equipment and travel funding. We extend special thanks and a profound respect for the staff of N.C. National Estuarine Research Reserve System, North Carolina Coastal Federation, North Carolina Coastal Land Trust, The Nature Conservancy, North Carolina Center for Advancement of Teaching, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, National Park Service Cape Lookout National Seashore, and North Carolina State Park’s Jockey’s Ridge State Park and Hammocks Beach State Park who offered access and knowledge in the pursuit of science.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariko A. Polk.

Additional information

Communicated by Stijn Temmerman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Polk, M.A., Eulie, D.O. Effectiveness of Living Shorelines as an Erosion Control Method in North Carolina. Estuaries and Coasts 41, 2212–2222 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-018-0439-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-018-0439-y

Keywords

Navigation