Weighing your options: how to protect your property from shoreline erosion, a handbook for estuarine property owners in North Carolina

If you own property on one of North Carolina’s estuaries, you can use this guide as a tool to learn about the choices you have to control your shoreline erosion and help decide which approach may be right for you. In North Carolina, we make a distinction between waterfront property that is located on the estuary, referred to as estuarine, shoreline, soundfront or riverside property, and waterfront property located directly on the ocean, referred to as oceanfront. Why? State laws and regulations addressing estuarine and oceanfront property, and the available erosion control methods, are quite different. This guide focuses on estuarine property. We’ll introduce you to the six main erosion control options in use in North Carolina and give you information about the out-of-pocket costs and tangible benefits of each option. We’ll also give you information about “hidden” costs and benefits that you may want to factor into your decision-making. You are fortunate to have a piece of estuarine shoreline to call your own, whether it’s your year-round residence or a weekend getaway. And if you’ve noticed some shoreline erosion lately, you’re probably a little concerned. But there are ready solutions.

Developing alternative shoreline armoring strategies: the living shoreline approach in North Carolina

This paper reviews the scientific data on the ecosystem services provided by shoreline habitats, the evidence for adverse impacts from bulkheading on those habitats and services, and describes alternative approaches to shoreline stabilization, which minimize adverse impacts to the shoreline ecosystem. Alternative shoreline stabilization structures that incorporate natural habitats, also known as living shorelines, have been popularized by environmental groups and state regulatory agencies in the mid-Atlantic. Recent data on living shoreline projects in North Carolina that include a stone sill demonstrate that the sills increase sedimentation rates, that after 3 years marshes behind the sills have slightly reduced biomass, and that the living shoreline projects exhibit similar rates of fishery utilization as nearby natural fringing marshes. Although the current emphasis on shoreline armoring in Puget Sound is on steeper, higher-energy shorelines, armoring of lower-energy shorelines may become an issue in the future with expansion of residential development and projected rates of sea level rise. The implementation of regulatory policy on estuarine shoreline stabilization in North Carolina and elsewhere is presented. The regulatory and public education issues experienced in North Carolina, which have made changes in estuarine shoreline stabilization policy difficult, may inform efforts to adopt a sustainable shoreline armoring strategy in Puget Sound. A necessary foundation for regulatory change in shoreline armoring policy, and public support for that change, is rigorous scientific assessment of the variety of services that natural shoreline habitats provide both to the ecosystem and to coastal communities, and evidence demonstrating that shoreline armoring can adversely impact the provision of those services.

Contrasting seasonal patterns in dimethylsulfide, dimethylsulfoniopropionate, and chlorophyll a in a shallow North Carolina estuary and the Sargasso Sea

Time series measurements of dimethylsulfide (DMS), particulate dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSPp), chlorophyll a (chl a), algal pigments, major nutrients, and the potential activity of DMSP lyase enzymes were made over a 2 yr period (6 March 2003 to 28 March 2005) near the mouth of the shallow, tidally mixed Newport River estuary, North Carolina, USA. DMSPp had a mean of 43 ± 20 nM (range = 10.5 to 141 nM, n = 85) and DMS a mean of 2.7 ± 1.2 nM (range = 0.9 to 7.0 nM). The mean DMS in Gallants Channel was not significantly different from that measured in the Sargasso Sea near Bermuda during a previous 3 yr time series study (2.4 ± 1.5 nM), despite there being a 43-fold higher mean chl a concentration (4.9 ± 2.4 µg l–1) at the coastal site. In winter, DMS was low and chl a was high in the surface waters of the Sargasso Sea, while the opposite was true at the coastal site. Consequently, DMS concentrations per unit algal chl a were on average 170 times higher in the Sargasso Sea than at the coastal site during the summer, but only 7 times higher during the winter. The much higher chl a-specific DMS concentrations at the oceanic site during the summer were linked to higher ratios of intracellular DMSP substrate and DMSP lyase enzyme per unit chl a. These differences in turn appear to be linked to large differences in nutrient concentrations and solar UV stress at the 2 sites and to associated differences in the composition of algal assemblages and physiological acclimation of algal cells.