Rae Correll-Brown

IR I / Pd 2
Eng 10 GT

1
Ecological Engineering: The Key to a Safer, Greener Future for our Coasts

4.3 feet. It is the height of an average six year old girl. But it is also, according to the

Maryland Sea Grant, the amount that sea levels in the Chesapeake Bay could rise over the next

eighty years, putting millions of coastal residents and environments at risk. Globally, mean sea

levels are rising at a rate of one-eighth of an inch per year (Lindsey 2017). Though these rates

vary by location, rapid change in local and global sea levels is projected to have significant

socioeconomic and environmental impact on the ten percent of the global population that

currently resides in low elevation coastal zones (McGranahan, Balk, & Anderson, 2007). Higher

sea surface temperatures, especially over the Atlantic Ocean, are believed by scientists to be

increasing the severity of tropical storms and hurricanes, and the resulting storm surges (Elsner,

Kossin, & Jagger, 2008). Moreover, as sea levels rise, those storm surges are able to to penetrate

further inland, posing a significant threat to the livelihood of coastal communities. Facing these

risks, the importance of coastal resilience, or the ability of coastlines to defend against and

quickly recover from physical disturbances, has grown considerably. In the past, efforts to

protect coasts from flooding and erosion have primarily centered on hard, or “armored” shoreline

engineering techniques, which can have a variety of negative impacts on coastal systems. As

concern about the health our coastal ecosystems increases, interest in ecological engineering is

growing. Ecological engineering solutions have numerous physical and environmental

advantages over their armored counterparts, and should be coastal planners’ engineering solution

of choice wherever possible. These solutions provide erosion protection and wave attenuation

benefits to coasts while simultaneously contributing a wide variety of habitat and ecosystem

service. These strategies require further research, but are valuable assets for coastal planners and

communities nonetheless.
 Correll-Brown 2

Coastal resilience can be defined as “the ability of a system to prepare for, resist, recover

from, and adapt to achieve functional performance under stress over time” (Bridges 2015). In

coastal systems, this stress can originate from several sources, most notably from wave energy

and from the combination sea level rise and extreme weather events, which contribute to

disturbances such as severe storm surges and dangerous floods. Ideally, resilient coastlines

should have the ability to withstand and, to a certain degree, guard against, the impacts of these

disturbances, recover independently after the events, and adapt to provide more effective coastal

protection during future disturbances. In an attempt to promote resilience and protect coasts from

erosion, a variety of shoreline engineering solutions have been implemented, including hard and

soft coastal infrastructure.

Hard shoreline engineering, also referred to as shoreline armoring or built infrastructure,

is the anthropogenic modification of coastlines for a variety of purposes, including erosion and

flood protection (Deither, Toft & Shipman, 2016; Hartig et al., 2011). These techniques involve

the use of various types of walls, including seawalls, bulkheads, levees, and riprap revetments,

for the purpose of stabilizing a shoreline. Due to the significant body of research surrounding

their construction and utility, they are currently the most common form of shoreline engineering.

But, as recognition of their negative impacts on ecosystems becomes more widespread, a move

towards ecological engineering practices is underway.

Ecological engineering, also referred to as soft shoreline engineering, works with nature

to enhance coastal resilience. Ecological engineering techniques incorporate living organisms

into shoreline engineering solutions in order to “sustainably deliver economic, environmental,

and social benefits” (Cheong et al., 2013; Hossain et al., 2014; Bridges 2015). These systems can

utilize exclusively natural materials, or combine man-made and natural structures. “Natural”
 Correll-Brown 3

structures include mangroves, marshes, oyster reefs, vegetated dunes, coral reefs, and nourished

beaches (Sutton-Grier et al., 2015; Cunniff et al., 2015).

Hybrid techniques, or living shorelines, combine natural and built infrastructure for

coastal protection. A common type of built infrastructure is a marsh-sill, which combines an

artificial rock or oyster-shell structure known as a sill with low and high marsh grass (Cunniff et

al., 2015). The sill works to attenuate wave energy in higher-energy coastal environments, in

order to allow the marsh-grass to grow (ARCADIS et al., 2014). Because of their narrow profile

and wave-attenuating sill component, hybrid techniques are commonly implemented on high

energy shorelines, or channels lacking the space for a full restored salt marsh, and are especially

common in the Chesapeake Bay area.

Coastal wetlands are vital ecosystems. They sequester carbon, improve water quality, and

provide habitats for a wide variety of at-risk species (EPA, 2010). But, each year, hectares of

coastal wetlands are lost as a result of sea level rise and ensuing coastal squeeze (marsh loss that

occurs when marshes at risk of inundation due to sea level rise have nowhere to go due to

shoreline development) (Cunniff, Personal Communication). At a time when the preservation of

coastal ecosystem services is essential, shoreline armoring does the opposite, replacing and

fragmenting coastal habitat, thereby destroying valuable coastal ecosystems. Unlike hard-

engineered coastal infrastructure, soft shoreline engineering solutions have been shown to

provide numerous ecological advantages to coastal systems, restoring valuable habitat and

ecosystem services to shorelines.

Studies show that hard-engineered coastal structures commonly implemented on

coastlines negatively impact productive shoreline habitats. Specific types of armored shorelines,

like bulkheads and seawalls, have been shown to cause vertical erosion of intertidal shoreline
 Correll-Brown 4

habitats (Douglass & Pickel, 1999). In addition to eroding intertidal habitats, shoreline armoring

causes habitat fragmentation, or the restriction of access to adjacent habitats, a phenomenon

which leads to a loss of genetic diversity, as well as decreased population stability (Hartig,

Zarull, & Cook, 2011). The loss and fragmentation of habitats commonly utilized by aquatic

organisms can result in a decrease in the variety and abundance of flora and fauna on armored

shorelines. In a 2012 study, Morley, Toft, and Hanson compared the species abundance and

density at several armored and unarmored shoreline sites on the Puget Sound. They found that

epibenthic invertebrate (sponge and crustacean) densities were “tenfold greater” on unarmored

shorelines, while biodiversity was “double that of armored locations.” The decline of habitat

quality and biodiversity at armored shoreline sites has adverse effects on the quality and stability

of coastal ecosystems and fisheries. Therefore, it is important to consider other coastal protection

options, like natural and hybrid solutions, that more effectively provide coastal habitat and

ecosystem services as well as stabilizing shorelines.

By providing essential habitat services, ecologically engineered shorelines promote

biodiversity and resulting ecosystem health. Unlike armored solutions, which have detrimental

impact on coastal habitat quality and biodiversity, soft-engineered shoreline solutions have been

shown to increase habitat complexity and enhance valuable shoreline habitats. Most ecological

engineering solutions rely on the creation or restoration of naturally-occuring coastal habitat, like

marshes and mangroves. These restorations increase vegetation cover and density, creating

habitat for a variety coastal species and leading to increases in species density and diversity as

compared to armored solutions (Gittman, et al, 2016). In a 2003 study, Bilkovic and Mitchell

found that marsh-sills provided a “demonstrative benefit” over riprap revetments when it came to

the presence of a variety of intertidal infauna (benthic organisms that bury themselves in
 Correll-Brown 5

sediment). The diverse ecosystems promoted through the implementation of natural and hybrid

coastal infrastructure are not just better the organisms that live there. These ecosystems are more

stable, and more effective at supplying humans with ecosystem services.

Ecosystem services are the benefits for humans that arise from the maintenance of

healthy ecosystems (“Ecosystems and Human Well-Being,” 5). They include provisioning

services, such as fisheries, which healthy marshes and oyster reefs help improve. Marshes, and

the seagrass beds found in hybrid solutions, serve as nursery habitats for numerous species of

fish, while oyster reefs, another major component of many hybrid solutions and breakwaters,

generate catch. According to one report, “5.6 km of [created] oyster reef” in the gulf of Mexico,

can generate “more than 6900 pounds of additional catch per year” (Sutton-Grier et al., 2015).

Healthy fisheries have substantial benefits for coastal economies and consumers. But, the

services provided by these ecosystems extend beyond economic ones, like fisheries, to include

regulating services such as water filtration and carbon sequestration. Marshes, and other varieties

of coastal wetlands, serve as natural carbon sinks, removing carbon from the atmosphere and

sequestering it in underlying sediment at a far higher rate than terrestrial ecosystems (McLeod et

al., 2011). This carbon sequestration helps reduce harmful greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,

resulting in a healthier planet. Additionally oysters, whether they are part of reefs or sills, have

been shown to improve water quality by removing pollutants and organic matter from water

(Cheong et al., 2003). The Nature Conservancy estimates that these oyster reefs remove up to

1888 kg of nitrogen from nearshore waters, annually (Sutton-Grier et al., 2015). This filtration of

organic matter and nitrogen results in improved water quality, healthier aquatic ecosystems, and

improved fisheries and recreation on coasts, benefits that armored shorelines are unable to

supply.
 Correll-Brown 6

Unlike shoreline armoring, which can cause habitat loss and fragmentation in already

threatened coastal ecosystems, soft shoreline engineering increases habitat complexity and

species diversity, providing numerous ecosystem services like carbon sequestration and water

filtration, and are therefore superior to armored solutions on the ecological front. But, ecosystem

services are not usually the first, or the most important factor that coastal planners consider when

modifying shorelines. Planners must also look at the ability of engineering solutions to prevent

erosion, attenuate waves, and function effectively for long periods of time in high wave energy

environments.

Most shoreline protection structures, natural or built, are installed for the purpose of

erosion protection and shoreline stabilization. While armored shorelines can be effective in

achieving this goal, they can also displace sediment and destroy coastal habitat, whereas natural

and hybrid shorelines can achieve the goal of erosion protection and shoreline stabilization

without the harmful impacts of sediment displacement and habitat destruction that accompany

built solutions. Additionally, ecologically engineered solutions have the advantage being able to

recover independently from disturbances and grow stronger and more effective with time, where

armored solutions may degrade. So, ecological engineering solutions are just as effective as

armored shorelines at attenuating waves and protecting shorelines, but without the negative

ecological impacts, making them a superior choice for many shoreline stabilizations.

Ecological engineering solutions, namely marshes and marsh-sills, protect against

shoreline erosion by minimizing the impacts of erosive waves. Marsh grasses dampen and

disperse waves, and, over time, develop a root mat that further protects sediment from erosion,

while sills dissipate wave energy to reduce erosive force (Hershner & Manson, 2014). An

analysis in Gedan et al. (2010) found coastal vegetation to be a “critical component” in wave
 Correll-Brown 7

attenuation, even when transverse distances were small or vegetation was waterlogged.

Ecological engineering solutions’ characteristics mean they are able to protect coastal lands and

properties from loss and damage by erosion, without the potential damaging ecological impacts

created by armored shorelines, making them a valuable choice for coastal protection.

Beyond the benefits of erosion protection, expansive coastal wetland environments have

the ability to attenuate waves during larger-scale weather events. The leaves and stems of marsh

vegetation can directly attenuate waves by slowing water velocity, reducing turbulence, and

increasing sediment deposition, while their roots and decaying matter build up and stabilize

sediment, indirectly dampening waves (Gedan et al., 2010). Estimates in Southeast Louisiana

found that expansive coastal wetlands “demonstrably” reduced storm surge during extreme

weather events (Sutton-Grier et al., 2015). But, coastal communities often lack the space or

conditions which are necessary for restoration or creation of a full-blown coastal wetland, so

marsh-sills (aka living shorelines) are utilized instead. Because marsh-sills are generally narrow,

low-profile, and located at or near the mean high water mark, they do not provide the same storm

surge protection that a wider, established salt marsh would during an extreme weather event, but

this does not mean they fail to provide coastal protection. Gittman et al. (2014) concluded that,

during Hurricane Isabel in North Carolina, marshes both with and without sills continued to

provide wave attenuation and flood protection during extreme weather events, and sills

recovered more quickly after the events than hard-engineered structures. This ability to help

protect communities from flooding and damage during extreme weather events, especially as the

events become more severe, is essential for coastal structures, as is the ability of the solutions to

bounce back from these events.

 Correll-Brown 8

The key to coastal resilience is the ability of engineering structures to recover from and

adapt in response to extreme weather events, and it is here that natural and hybrid solutions set

themselves apart from their armored counterparts. In addition to their essential erosion mitigation

and wave attenuation abilities, natural and hybrid coastal infrastructure are able to recover from

extreme weather events. They are, to a greater extent than armored solutions, self sustaining and

self repairing, and can “bend” with disturbances rather than breaking, as has been demonstrated

by their performance during and after extreme weather events. When Hurricane Irma’s storm

surge struck Maryland in 2003, “All the grasses that [the Maryland DNR had] planted fell back

and… formed a blanket over the shoreline and… those roots actually held on to the sediment

beneath [them]” (Subramanian, Personal Communication). And, when Hurricane Irene hit the

central Outer Banks region, one survey established that its surge damaged 76% of bulkheads

observed, while having no impact on marsh elevations with or without sills present (Gittman et

al., 2014). Since ecological engineering structures are able to bend with disturbances and stay

resilient during extreme weather events, they provide quality coastal protection without requiring

costly repairs and updates to design, and continue to protect coasts even under extreme

conditions, making them valuable assets for coastal protection that should be widely

implemented by coastal planners. But, these solution are not just resilient to storm surge.

While “built” coastal infrastructure degrades over time under the stresses of high-energy

coastlines and sea level rise and must be repaired or modified, many natural and hybrid

solutions have the potential to adapt, growing stronger and better-established over time. In

contrast sea levels increase, armored structures remain immobile, providing less and less

protection over time. Though sea level rise poses a threat to natural shoreline solutions, in some
 Correll-Brown 9

conditions, marshes and oyster reefs can keep pace with sea level rise through accumulation of

sediments and belowground biomass (McKee, 2015).

Like armored solutions, ecologically engineered solutions provide vital erosion protection

and wave attenuation benefits to shorelines. But, natural solutions simultaneously promote

coastal resilience by quickly recovering from and adapting to extreme weather events and

growing stronger and better established over time, while armored solutions have no such ability

to adapt. Ecologically engineered shorelines’ ability to adapt to coastal disturbances makes them

a superior choice to armored shorelines in areas in which either one could be implemented.

Despite all their theoretical advantages, ecologically engineered solutions are not as

widely implemented as they could be, as the solutions, especially hybrid infrastructure, are still a

relatively new tool, and have not been in use for an amount of time equal to their armored

counterparts (Hershner & Mason, 2014). Further research on system performance over time,

degrees of protection provided by different solutions during extreme weather events, and cost-

benefit analysis of the solutions has the potential to improve solutions and increase

implementation by alleviating policymaker and property-owner concerns, and increasing

evidence and awareness of benefits, and should be conducted.

Due to the dangerous, low-visibility conditions encountered during extreme storms, there

is a lack of data on the wave attenuation and flood protection performance of natural coastal

defenses during major extreme weather events. More data on the ability of these defenses to

combat storm surge and prevent erosion during hurricanes and tropical storms is vital, as is

research on how, and to what extent, systems can recover from the impacts of extreme weather

events (Cunniff, 2015, Sutton Grier et al., 2015).

 Correll-Brown 10

Since ecological engineering methods, especially living shorelines, have not been in use

for the same amount of time as hard engineering techniques, questions also remain about their

functional performance over longer periods of time, especially with regards to hybrid

infrastructure. Studies on the evolution of natural coastal infrastructure over time, both as a

maturing coastal habitat and as a coastal protective structure, would be beneficial, as

would research regarding the impacts of sea level rise on hybrid infrastructure, and how

the infrastructure adapts to these changes (Gittman et al., 2016; Bilkovic et al., 2013; Cunniff

et al., 2015). This research would help us learn how well this infrastructure would perform its

functions well into the future, and make plans, improvements, and effective implementations,

accordingly.

Finally, because of their above-average durability, and the ecosystem services they

provide, natural and hybrid shoreline engineering solutions have the potential to be highly cost

effective. To some extent, cost-benefit analysis of these structures has been performed. (Cunniff,

Personal Communication) But, more studies on the value of these structures, in terms of both

property protection during storms and ecosystem services, which can be difficult to quantify,

would be beneficial, as cost is an exceedingly important factor considered by property owners

and coastal planners when implementing coastal solutions, and this information would aid

informed decision making, and possibly promote the choice of natural infrastructure.

By filling research gaps concerning the performance of ecologically engineered solutions

during storms, their development over time, and their financial benefits over other shoreline

engineering solutions, researchers can speed the adoption and implementation of these beneficial

solutions, promoting safer, more ecologically sound shorelines.

 Correll-Brown 11

Changing global climates necessitate resilient coastal engineering solutions that will

protect shorelines, homeowners, and property. Where armored shorelines replace and erode

intertidal habitat and wear down over time, ecologically engineered solutions are the very

definition of resilience. In addition to providing the erosion protection benefits of armored

shorelines, ecologically engineered solutions have been shown to perform well in extreme

weather events, sustaining no long term damage and protecting the shoreline from erosive force

where other coastal protection structures failed. Plus, in the right conditions, these structures are

self maintaining and repairing, meaning they will continue to protect against erosion, and, in

some cases, coastal storm surge, for years to come, with little maintenance or additional cost

required. And, while these solutions are protecting coasts and residents, they are also protecting

coastal ecosystems, and the environment, something that armored solutions fail to do.

Ecologically engineered solutions can serve as habitats for aquatic species, remove carbon from

the atmosphere, and denitrify water, thereby enhancing fisheries. These environmental impacts

help humans as well as aquatic organisms. In short, these solutions are both resilient and good

for the earth. Therefore, it is vital that communities implement them for coastal protection

wherever possible, and more research be done on the capabilities and most effective

implementation of these structures, so they can be more widely used to the greatest benefit.
Correll-Brown 12