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.

Boat wakes and their influence on erosion in the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina

Boat wakes in the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) of North Carolina occur in environments not normally subjected to (wind) wave events, making sections of AIWW potentially vulnerable to extreme wave events generated by boat wakes. The Snow’s Cut area that links the Cape Fear River to the AIWW is an area identified by the Wilmington District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as having significant erosion issues; it was hypothesized that this erosion could be being exacerbated by boat wakes. We compared the boat wakes for six combinations of boat length and speed with the top 5% wind events. We also computed the benthic shear stress associated with boat wakes and whether sediment would move (erode) under those conditions. Finally, we compared the transit time across Snow’s Cut for each speed. We focused on two size classes of V-hulled boats (7 and 16m) representative of AIWW traffic and on three boat speeds (3, 10 and 20 knots). We found that at 10 knots when the boat was plowing and not yet on plane, boat wake height and potential erosion was greatest. Wakes and forecast erosion were slightly mitigated at higher, planing speeds. Vessel speeds greater than 7 knots were forecast to generate wakes and sediment movement zones greatly exceeding that arising from natural wind events. We posit that vessels larger than 7m in length transiting Snow’s Cut (and likely many other fetch-restricted areas of the AIWW) frequently generate wakes of heights that result in sediment movement over large extents of the AIWW nearshore area, substantially in exceedance of natural wind wave events. If the speed, particularly of large V-hulled vessels (here represented by the 16m length class), were reduced to pre-plowing levels (~ 7 knots down from 20), transit times for Snow’s Cut would be increased approximately 10 minutes but based on our simulations would likely substantially reduce the creation of erosion-generating boat wakes. It is likely that boat wakes significantly exceed wind wave background for much of the AIWW and similar analyses may be useful in identifying management options.