CRC panel report recommends ‘cautious approach’ to use of hardened structures

By Kip Tabb | Outer Banks Voice on June 19, 2026

Slight bulge north of Cape Hatteras indicates slowing of erosional processes through nourishment and use of groins at Buxton in this 2017 image. (Credit: Effects of Hard Structures on Sandy, Open-Ocean Coastlines – CRC Science Panel)

By Kip Tabb | Outer Banks Voice

Tasked with producing a draft report on the effects of hardened structures for shoreline protection by the NC Coastal Resources Commission (CRC), the CRC Science Panel presented their draft report, “Effects of Hard Structures on Sandy, Open-Ocean Coastlines,” at the CRC’s June 18 meeting.

In her summary of the report, Science Panel Chair Laura Moore told the CRC that the document touched “on the different categories of erosion management approaches,” and included “alternatives to structures that you asked us to include for those who are less familiar.”

The 47-page report recommended “that North Carolina maintain a cautious approach to any expansion of the use of hardened structures along its sandy, open-ocean coastline.” It also said that before changing its oceanfront management policies, the state should “include a broad assessment of the benefits, costs, limitations and distribution of effects arising from an expanded use of hard structures.”

Telling the CRC that “none of us on the panel are economists,” Moore cited economist Dr. Craig Landry of the University of Georgia for his help in writing the section on the economic impact of a beach on the economy of a region. That section in the report showed a clear preference for nourished beaches and beaches that are allowed to retreat naturally over beaches with hardened structures.

In her remarks, Moore referenced two bills currently in committee in the NC General Assembly, SB1009 and SB1001, that would lift the ban on hardened shoreline structures currently in place in North Carolina.

“We [the Science Panel] would…recommend that if there were to be a major policy change, that would best be preceded by a broad assessment of various factors that would be impacted along the North Carolina coast by a change in policy, and this would include considering the positive and adverse effects of structures,” she said.

During her remarks, Moore said that “We frame all of this largely in terms of tradeoffs, because there are benefits and there are costs, and really it’s all about tradeoffs.”

Moore described a shoreline that had been “naturally eroding over the long term…with some locations having very high natural background erosion rates, such as the northern flank of Cape Hatteras…which eroded at rates greater than 20 feet per year between 1852 and 1946.”

Based on the natural long-term erosion of barrier islands, buildings that last longer than the 30-year setback rules in place under CAMA guidelines “will eventually intersect [the ocean] once we’re past that 30 year-time point,” she said.

There are “complexities that are important to keep in mind, because…we’re on a coastline that is largely dominated by barrier island processes,” she said, explaining that whether a beach is accreting or eroding is largely determined by sand transport carried by the ocean parallel to the shoreline.

She added that parallel drift of sand is why hardened structures like groins and breakwaters are often considered controversial.

On the updrift side, “these structures can slow the rate of erosion and widen the beach,” Moore said. However, on the other side of the structures, “they tend to increase erosion rates downdrift of the structures.”

The second section of the report, described by Moore as “the meat of the report,” discusses the hardened structures the Science Panel felt were appropriate for the barrier island coast of the state. Seawalls, regardless of the material, were rejected as an option.

The report noted that seawalls do provide “some protection of landward structures and infrastructure,” but over time “placing a fixed structure landward of an eroding shoreline will inevitably cause a progressive loss of the beach seaward of the structure.”

Sandbags are included in the report’s description of seawalls. Considered temporary structures under CAMA guidelines, they often remain in place longer than originally planned. Additionally, regardless of how long they are in place, Moore told the CRC that “sandbags are essentially seawalls, because they hold the line and prevent that transport of sand from the offshore to the island interior.”

Also not included in the report were living shorelines which are effective in a low- energy environment like the Outer Banks sounds, but will not work the high-wave energy environment of the Atlantic Ocean, according to Moore.

In describing how groins and breakwaters work, she noted that they “function by trapping sand that’s moving in the longshore direction.” Breakwaters constructed parallel to the shoreline “reduce wave energy and cause sand that’s moving along shore to fall out of the water column and become deposited.”

“If you’re going to trap sand in one place, it’s not going to get to another place, and that means that the shoreline in the downdrift area will erode if not mitigated sufficiently,” Moore said, describing what happens when hardened structures are put in place.

North Carolina is the only state that completely bans the use of hardened structures. In 1985, the CRC banned them through regulatory action. In 2003, the state legislature voted unanimously to ban hardened structures unless a groin was less than 50 percent damaged.

There is a clear trend nationally away from hardened structures to manage shoreline erosion. A chart prepared by Moore for the presentation showed every shoreline state is currently heavily regulating and discouraging hardened structures with three states– Maine, Rhode Island and Texas—prohibiting new hardened structures along the shoreline.