Transitioning Away from Bulkheads

Michelle Rackley is a masters student in UNC Wilmington’s Coastal and Ocean Policy program. She also received her bachelor's degree at UNCW in Marine Biology. Michelle grew up in Maryland, spending most of her free time boating on the Chesapeake Bay with her family. This is where her passion for conservation began, as she was exposed to the importance of the estuary, as well as the problems facing it. Her experiences inspired her to be a steward for the environment and guided her to pursue a career in conservation and advocacy.

A bulkhead to prevent erosion juxtaposed with the living shoreline of the Alligator River Canal by Michelle Lotker

Erosion threatens North Carolina’s estuarine coastline, ranging from 2 to 4 feet per year. Erosion is a naturally occurring process due to daily tides, wave and wind energy, and storm events. This process is exacerbated as humans increase wave energy through boat wakes, increase in the building of coastal structures, and as climate change increases the rates and severity of sea level rise, storms and flooding events. The concern isn’t with erosion itself, but how it affects coastal properties and the mediation techniques used to stabilize the shore.

North Carolina’s Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) has several goals pertaining to the establishment of a coastal area management scheme between local and state governments, one of which states: 

insure that the development or preservation of the land and water resources of the coastal area proceeds in a manner consistent with the capability of the land and water for development, use, or preservation based on ecological considerations. 

This goal is not being met when it comes to coastal development and the methods used by property owners in response to erosion. 

A history of inequities in the permitting scheme for shoreline stabilization methods has caused property owners to continually choose the hardened structure method, bulkheads. North Carolina has around 12,319 miles of estuarine shoreline, 600 miles of which are “modified” with stabilization structures. Of those 600 miles, roughly 87% are modified with the use of bulkheads.

Graphic Credit: Frank Mcshane (Source: Delaware Living Shorelines Committee)

In 2019, the NC Coastal Resources Commission approved the final adoptions of a rule allowing general permits for the construction of living shorelines for wetland enhancement in estuarine and public trust waters. This enabled property owners and their contractors to get approval to build living shoreline projects just as quickly and easily as they can get approval for a bulkhead.

Although changes in the permitting process evened the playing field for stabilization practices, the use of bulkheads remain the status quo. 

This history of inequities has created a gap in knowledge for both property owners and the contractors hired for these types of projects. Property owners are often unaware of their options and the corresponding environmental impacts for each. Additionally, there is a very limited number of trained professionals who know how to build living shorelines. Shoreline stabilization should be site specific, especially when using living shoreline methods because they are most effective at varying wave energies, and there is a lack of contractors that are able to do this for property owners. 

The NC Department of Coastal Management (DCM) should implement two types of educational programs to remediate this issue: one for coastal property owners and one for coastal contractors. 

Property owners need to be educated on what permits they are able to apply for and how their chosen method affects the surrounding ecosystem. They also should have options when it comes to choosing a contractor to hire, helping to avoid backlog, while also sparking competition, which may lower prices and drive innovation.

Why should we transition away from bulkheads?

Helping stabilize the shoreline, by reducing erosion, bulkheads reflect wave energy back along the shoreline. Although it may provide some protection from erosion on the given property it is built on, this method can worsen erosion in neighboring properties and can degrade surrounding ecosystems. Bulkheads deny a marshes ability to migrate and retreat upland, a naturally occurring defense mechanism a marsh has to survive against sea level rise. 

Additionally, bulkheads do not provide much habitat for fish and other marine species and do not promote the growth of oysters. They supply no benefits to water quality, supplying no marsh plants or marine animals who filter non-point source pollution. Armoring a few property’s shorelines with bulkheads may only have some local adverse impacts, however, as this trend continues and larger areas of shoreline become hardened, changes can occur to the entire estuarine system and the ecosystem services it provides.

Living shorelines are a stabilization method that maintains the natural integrity of the fringing marsh, contributing the least amount of damage to that natural system. These methods require a biological component, which dampens and absorbs wave energy acting as a natural buffer. This absorption of wave energy allows for the reduction of erosion, while at the same time providing the surrounding ecosystem with ecological benefits. 

Unlike hardened structures, living shorelines encourage the growth of oysters and other marine organisms which further strengthens the erosion barrier. Oysters have the ability to filter up to 50 gallons of water per day, which improves water quality and creates a healthier habitat for marine species. These marsh habitats have the potential to provide food and shelter for a variety of animals, such as blue crabs, snails, juvenile and adult fish species, and various bird species. In the U.S., roughly two thirds of the fish and shellfish caught depend on marsh systems for their survival at some point in their life cycle, therefore, they are a critical habitat to save from destruction and degradation. Additionally, living shorelines have outperformed hardened shorelines during storm events and are often cheaper for both installation and maintenance. 

Choosing what shoreline stabilization option is best for one’s property is based on a site specific assessment. Existing land use, direction the property faces, the amount of wave and wind energy it receives, erosion rates, and shoreline type must all be considered in order to find the most effective living shoreline method. 

A continuum of green (soft) to gray (hard) shoreline stabilization techniques (Source: Guidance for Considering the Use of Living Shorelines, NOAA 2015)

Braxton Davis, the director of the DCM stated they hoped this streamlined permitting process for living shorelines would help promote them going forward. He also went on to say that they “will continue to explore incentives to advance the use of living shorelines in the future”, but that has yet to happen.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, if hardened shoreline structures remain the status quo as the coastal population continues to grow, nearly one third of the nation’s contiguous shoreline is expected to be hardened by 2100.

Before and after conversion to a living shoreline. (Source: Virginia SWCD)

To mitigate the adverse ecological impacts of shoreline stabilization, North Carolina, and other coastal states, must change development rules to discourage the use of bulkheads and favor alternative methods which contribute to the overall health of our estuarine ecosystems. 

Incentives should be established that will give living shorelines the advantage. Making bulkheads require a CAMA major permit may make property owners look into other options as a bulkhead would cost more and take more time to be approved. 

Living shorelines offer an effective, natural way to address estuarine shoreline erosion and should replace bulkheads as the norm moving forward.