Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670

Utilization of geoindicators for rapid assessment

of coastal-hazard risk and mitigation
David M. Bush *, William J. Neal
, Robert S. Young,
Orrin H. Pilkey
Department of Geology, State University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA 30118 USA

Department of Geology, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI 49401 USA
Department of Geosciences, Western Carolina University, Culhowee, NC 28723 USA
Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines, Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicolas School of the
Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708 USA

Abstract

Geoindicators provide a management tool for rapid assessment of natural hazard risk
potential, either as a supplement to long-term environmental auditing and monitoring, or for
initial coastal assessment as in developing countries. Using examples of barrier island and
blu!ed coasts, indicators of process/response are examined regionally, locally, and site-speci"-
cally; the latter being the primary indicators of property-threatening hazards. Tabled evalu-
ation parameters range from general (elevation and vegetation) to speci"c characteristics such
as shoreline stability and con"guration, inlet proximity, and barrier-island interior geomor-
phology. Geoindicators also provide guidance for local mitigation of hazard impacts. A case
study of Bogue Banks, North Carolina, shows that the geoindicators approach is applicable to
communities with extant management plans. Bogue Banks' "ve communities must reevaluate
mitigation strategies after every storm and because of changes induced through development.
By applying the geoindicators approach, shoreline reaches as well as interior areas may be
reassigned as to the level of risk, and appropriate mitigation actions taken.  1999 Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 770-836-4597; fax: 770-836-4373.

E-mail addresses: dbush@westga.edu (D.M. Bush), nealw@gvsu.edu (W.J. Neal), ryoung@wcu.edu
(R.S. Young), opilkey@geo.duke.edu (O.H. Pilkey)

0964-5691/99/$ - see front matter  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 6 4 - 5 6 9 1 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 2 7 - 7
648 D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670

1. Introduction

State-of-the-environment (SOE) reporting is a common de"ning element of man-

agement strategies, however, environmental indicators of impending rapid change are
often overlooked or not frequently evaluated. The International Union of Geological
Sciences (IUGS) de"nes geoindicators as `measures of surface or near-surface geologi-
cal processes and phenomena that vary signi"cantly over periods of less than 100
years and that provide information that is meaningful for environmental assessment
[1],a and they are applied to a wide variety of environments [2]. Geoindicators have
a variety of management applications including environmental auditing and monitor-
ing, but in the coastal zone, risk/hazard assessment and property damage mitigation
are of primary concern. Although highly sophisticated, high-technology environ-
mental monitoring and historical analysis techniques are available as a means of
collecting baseline data for coastal-zone management and policy determinations,
these techniques are frequently expensive, time consuming, and require a high level of
expertise. When applied to hazard mapping and risk assessment, these approaches are
often regional in scale, relying on global data bases that are incomplete [3], or are not
suitable for application to short coastal reaches or site-speci"c evaluation. The
geoindicator approach provides a viable, low-cost alternative.
Berger [2] notes that the geoindicators approach identi"es a minimum set of
parameters that describe short-term environmental dynamics, and are proxies repres-
enting all the parameters on which processes depend. As a result, geoindicators can
provide managers with simple, qualitative tools for rapid identi"cation of risk poten-
tial that is scienti"cally valid. Vulnerability to risk changes frequently in the setting of
coastal communities, subjected to both natural and human processes that alter
environmental stability. Use of geoindicators can provide rapid updates of manage-
ment and mitigation plans. In many cases, especially in developing countries where
funds are limited and adequate historical shoreline position data is frequently lacking,
the coastal manager, planner, or scientist can attain an immediate assessment of
coastal risk/hazards from geoindicators. In such cases, long-term SOE and monitor-
ing projects should be initiated, but such studies often take years to provide useful
information.
The following summary provides a thumbnail sketch and examples for utilizing
geoindicators to evaluate risk from common coastal hazards such as coastal erosion,
storm-surge #ooding, overwash, wind, inlet formation and migration, dune loss, and
related human-induced problems (for example, loss of sand supply, increased erosion,
loss of critical systems, damage to water resources). This approach is an outgrowth of
recent experience in barrier-island hazard mapping, risk assessment, and property-
damage mitigation studies [4}15], as well as short-courses and workshop presenta-
tions to managers in developing Caribbean nations. National initiatives to develop
coastal tourism potential carry the prospects for rapid, unsafe development, and need
quick, reliable assessments of coastal-zone processes and associated hazards.
The resulting checklists are biased toward eroding, hurricane and/or winter storm-
impacted systems such as barrier islands and blu!ed shorelines cut in unconsolidated
materials, however, the lists can be modi"ed to evaluate any coastal area. Most
 D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670 649

geoindicators are best evaluated in the "eld. An inspection with a checklist in hand will
allow determination, for example, of vegetation cover, dune con"guration, erosional
state, beach character, and related parameters (Table 1). However, much information
may be drawn from other existing sources such as maps (topographic maps, FIRMs,
soils maps, geologic maps), air photos, videos, and erosion rate documentation.

Table 1
Geoindicators of coastal risk

Geoindicators Site-speci"c property damage risk category for coastal areas in unconsolidated
erodible materials

High risk Moderate risk Low risk

General parameters
Elevation (3 m
Vegetation Barren; sparse; toppled;
non-native species
Shoreline parameters
O!shore setting Large fetch; wide
shelf}shallow open
water; very narrow
shelf}high wave energy
Erosion rate Severely to slowly
(from Table 2) eroding
Beach width, slope, and Narrow and steep; thin
thickness with exposed mud, peat,
or stumps; poor sand
supply
Blu! con"guration Bare face; recent or no
(if present; talus ramp
see Table 3)
Dune con"guration No dunes (see overwash)
Overwash Frequent; overwash
apron or numerous
fans; dune gaps at road
termini
Engineering structures Numerous groins;
seawalls; o!shore
breakwaters; beach
scraping
Inlet parameters
Site relative to inlet Very near
or river mouth
Inlet potential Spit or island narrow;
low with open water on
landward side; historic
inlet; "nger canals
3}6 m '6 m
Well-established shrubs Forested; mature
and grasses; none vegetation; no evidence of
toppled erosion into vegetation
Moderate fetch; shelf of Limited fetch; natural
moderate width; protection (reefs, bars)
o!shore bars
Stable Accreting
Moderate to narrow Wide and #at; with
width of dry beach; well-developed berm;
potential for disruption good sand supply
of sand supply
Vegetated face and Low slope angle (large
well-developed ramp ramp); mature cover of
vegetation
Low, or discontinuous High, wide, continuous,
dunes; bulldozed dunes unbreached ridges
Occasional; overwash No overwash
fans of limited extent
Few structures and No structures
fronted by beach
Within sight Very distant
Moderate width and Spit or island wide; little
elevation if open water open water on landward
on landward side; short side, or wide protective salt
"nger canals marsh; no "nger canals

(continued on next page)

650 D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670

Table 1 (continued)

Geoindicators Site-speci"c property damage risk category for coastal areas in unconsolidated
erodible materials

High risk Moderate risk Low risk

Interior parameters
Dune con"guration No dunes or dunes Discontinuous; High, forested dunes;
arti"cially removed, moderately well roads go around dune
disrupted by road cuts, vegetated; minor "elds; walkovers keep foot
building sites, footpaths; disruption (roadcuts; tra$c o! of dunes
deforestation or leveling for building
vegetation removal sites)
Drainage Poor Moderate Good
Soil Compactable; lacks Reasonable good bearing Permeable; good bearing
suitability for septic strength; variable strength
facilities (impermeable) permeability
Other features Open water (sound, Floodplain or low- Upland
lagoon, estuary) on elevation terrace
backside of barrier;
marsh, or swamp
(mangrove)

This table represents a qualitative checklist of the common geoindicators that should be considered
when evaluating risk. Quantitative limits can be placed on individual parameters if the dynamics of the
system are known. For example, the elevations given are typical of southeastern US barrier islands.

2. Evaluating changing shoreline positions: precision versus practicality

Determination and monitoring of historical shoreline position and change ranges

from detailed three-dimensional onshore/o!shore surveys using towed sleds or am-
phibious vehicles, and kinematic Global Positioning Systems [16], to applying digital
technology to shoreline mapping and analysis [17,18], to the simple, but traditional
`Emery methoda of beach pro"ling [19]. Historical shoreline mapping and shoreline
monitoring programs are important because they allow characterization of a coastal
system (e.g., as erosional or accretionary), and examination of its evolution through
time. Historical shoreline mapping also provides a basis for coastal zone management.
For example, several states including Florida, Michigan, and North Carolina use
historical erosion rates to calculate building setbacks and regulate coastal develop-
ment. Nationally in the USA, the application of a formula relating erosion-rate based
setbacks and insurance rates has been recommended by the National Research
Council and the Federal Emergency Management Agency [20].
Setbacks and insurance rates must be based on high-technology techniques to
provide the most precise and accurate shoreline position information available. But
high precision is not necessarily a requisite for decision making, and applying
a checklist of local-scale geoindicators provides a quick, inexpensive, practical evalu-
ation of shoreline change (a major geoindicator) along any particular stretch of
 D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670 651

shoreline [21]. Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate some of the indicators listed in Tables 1 and 2.
Although many of the world's shorelines are eroding, some shoreline stretches are
accreting [22,23]. In a "eld evaluation an individual will simply check o! all of the
indicators listed in Table 2 that are visible at the site. Examining all of these criteria is
very important because some of the geoindicators may be ambiguous without corrob-
oration. For example, a narrow beach does not necessarily indicate erosion. The
individual will then make a judgement as to whether this shoreline is eroding, severely
eroding, or accreting/stable. A simple photographic record taken at each site is an
easy way to begin documenting changes as well as to allow re-evaluation of the
surveyor's characterizations.
A shoreline monitoring program can be carried out simply by characterizing (Table
2) and photographing (from "xed positions) each coastal site annually or biannually,
and after storms. Rapid environmental change over such short time frames could be
indicated by a drastic change in the characterization of the assessments which would
not be detected in a timely fashion from analysis of air photos or mapping programs
carried out over decades. For example, if, over a period of only a couple of years, the
shoreline changed from 30% erosional to 50% or 60% erosional, the documentation
would indicate that the nearshore dynamics have changed, and the corresponding
management response should change. Unfortunately, the exact causative factors for
environmental change are often di$cult to determine in the coastal zone.

3. Natural clues to coastal-hazard risk assessment

Coastal geomorphology is controlled by a wide range of geologic and climatic

factors and processes operating at a variety of scales. The frequency, intensity, and
location of active physical processes (or `eventsa) are controlled by regional factors
(such as seismic setting and latitude), local factors (such as protective o!shore barriers
and coastal con"guration), and site-specixc factors (such as site elevation and vegeta-
tion). Geoindicators tend to focus on the local and site-speci"c factors which show the
less-than-100 year variation.
Earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, coastal erosion, storm waves, storm surge,
overwash, river #ooding, and landslides are among the short-term, intense processes
that may a!ect a coastal area. When human developments are placed in the path of
these physical processes, natural events become geologic hazards from the human
perspective. Of course, storms and #oods also alter natural ecosystems, but the
designation `hazarda usually implies threat to human life or property. The e!ects of
these coastal processes and their potentially disastrous impacts need to be considered
in managing any coastal reach. A number of environmental features provide clues to
a shoreline's active physical processes, its natural history, and the associated natural
hazards. Critically observing each of these features can help assess the relative
intensity of the various processes that have acted in the past, and thus can provide an
indication of the level of safety or risk associated with the development of a given site.
Table 2 provides a checklist of some of the more important geologic factors of
active coastal processes. Evaluating these particular site-safety parameters in
652 D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670

Fig. 1. (a) Application of geoindicators quickly identi"es a high-risk zone along this reach of Pine Knoll
Shores, Bogue Banks, NC, grading to moderate risk in the interior of the island. The high elevation and
protective maritime forest cover seen on the right has been destroyed by the dense development on the left.
The narrow dry beach, bare scarped dune blu! with downed vegetation, and lack of talus indicate severe
erosion. The notching of the foredune by the pool, aligned with the shore-perpendicular driveway and
parking area, provides a pathway for potential overwash. In contrast, the houses beyond US Route 58 in
the background are elevated and surrounded by protective vegetation. The house in the right foreground is
well elevated but exposed to the wind hazard and is within the erosion zone; (b) same area after Hurricane
Fran, September 1996. Note the complete erosion of the foredune on the left with heavy damage to
buildings, pool, and parking lots (minor overwash). Wind damage to elevated house, and heavy dune
scarping to right. Houses in background were not damaged.
 D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670 653

Fig. 2. (a) Emerald Isle area of Bogue Banks, NC, shows a narrow dry beach, and variable total beach
width, backed by a blu!ed-to-scarped dune that is either bare or sparsely vegetated. Although the houses
are elevated, the width of the dune is inadequate for protection against a moderate hurricane or similar-
sized winter storm, and there is a minimum of protective vegetation. Geoindicators give an immediate
high-risk ranking. (b) This narrow portion of Emerald Isle, Bogue Banks, NC, illustrates the site-speci"c
variability of risk, and the application of geoindicators to site analysis. The high-risk beach front is elevated
but eroding. Note the narrow dry beach, the bare dune blu! scarped by recent erosion, and the sand fencing
attempt to stabilize the toe of the dune. The interior of the island is well elevated and has local patches of
protective maritime forest or shrub thicket. Construction has preserved some of this natural protection, but
the shore-perpendicular road, lined up with the footpath notch in the foredune provides a potential channel
for overwash or storm-surge #ood waters. When combined with the narrowness of the island, backed by
open water in a zone of historic inlets, even the best interior site is at moderate risk for property damage.
654 D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670

Table 2
Checklist of supplementary geoindicators for evaluating the major geoindicator of shoreline change

Severe erosion
Dunes absent with overwash common
Active wave scarping of blu!s or dune remnants
Tidal channels exposed in surf zone
Vegetation absent
Man-made shoreline structures now on beach or o!shore
Beach scraping (piled sand) evident
Erosion
Dunes scarped or breached
Blu!s steep with no talus ramp
Peat, mud, or tree stumps exposed on beach
Beach narrow or no high-tide beach (no dry beach)
Overwash passes or fans; arti"cial gaps (for example, road cuts)
Vegetation ephemeral or toppled along scarp line
Accretion or long-term stability
Dunes and beach ridges robust, unbreached, vegetated
Blu!s vegetated with stable (vegetated) ramp at toe
Beach wide with well-developed berm
Overwash absent
Vegetation well-developed from interior maritime forest, to dune shrubs, and pioneer beach grass

conjunction with an evaluation of shoreline change using Table 1 can indicate process
frequency and intensity, o!er insights into coastal processes as potential geologic
hazards, and indicate the vulnerability of the site with respect to potential global
change (e.g., sea-level rise). The speci"c nature of the geoindicators checklist also
provides a direct guide for speci"c mitigation actions [13].

3.1. Regional setting factors inyuencing coastal risk

A quick look at a shoreline community's regional geologic and oceanographic

setting can give insight into the types of processes that should be active in an area. The
regional setting, in part, determines hazard potential. For example, latitude will
determine some climatic and oceanographic factors (e.g., wind and wave patterns,
currents, susceptibility to hurricanes). The oceanographic setting of the adjacent
continental shelf and regional coastal con"guration will in#uence the distribution of
energy reaching the shoreline (e.g., narrow shelves allow more wave energy to reach
a coast, but a wide shelf may increase the potential elevation of storm-surge #ooding).
The presence of local natural o!shore features such as sand bars or reefs may dissipate
wave energy and a!ord some natural protection. The geologic setting will determine
whether shorelines are rocky and resistant, or are composed of unconsolidated,
erodible material.
The con"guration of the shoreline can play an important part in increasing or
reducing the intensity of various coastal processes, and thus, coastal hazards. An
 D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670 655

embayed coast may be protected somewhat from the intensity of the wave attack
during a storm; yet, storm surge #ooding can be magni"ed as surge waters are
funneled up the embayment. On the other hand, a convex coast is not at risk for storm
surge ampli"cation; yet, it is likely to experience focused wave energy.

3.2. Site-specixc factors inyuencing coastal risk

Site-speci"c factors are the primary indicators of the hazards likely to cause
property damage (e.g., erosion, #ooding, and wave attack). The shoreline type existing
in any particular area is a function of rock or sediment type, the landforms being
deposited or eroded by the waves, their storm response, the dominant direction of
wave approach, wave heights, elevation, and human in#uence. Geoindicators can be
divided into groups including general parameters (elevation, vegetation), shoreline
parameters (o!shore setting; erosion rate; beach width, slope, and thickness; blu! or
dune con"guration; overwash; and presence and types of shoreline engineering), inlet
parameters (site distance from inlet or river mouth; inlet formation and migration
potential), interior parameters (interior dune con"guration, drainage, soil), and other
features (Table 1).

3.2.1. Elevation
Site elevation is a primary determinant of susceptibility to inundation. The speci"c
critical elevation will vary between locations depending on regional #ood experience
and predicted levels of storm surge. However, low, #at areas are subject to destructive
wave attack, overwash, storm-surge #ooding, tsunami #ooding, and sometimes blow-
ing sand. In addition to a quick visual assessment of elevation, logs, wood debris, and
refuse scattered on a site that is some distance inland or salt-water kills of vegetation
are good clues that the e!ects of storms were felt there in the recent past, and are likely
to be felt again in the future. Previously #ooded areas are known hazard sites.
Property damage mitigation can be achieved by locating at elevations above potential
wave height and coastal #ooding, particularly on rocky shorelines, but on coastal
lowlands only through construction techniques. Elevating even well-constructed
buildings does not reduce or eliminate the natural hazards.

3.2.2. Vegetation
In general, a thick vegetation cover on unconsolidated slopes is a good indicator of
stability and low hazard potential except in tropical areas where even unstable areas
revegetate quickly. Vegetation at or near the shoreline may be considered a nuisance
when it obstructs the ocean view, however, natural vegetation is an asset and
should be conserved. The very presence of well-developed growth of grass, shrubs,
and trees high on the backshore of a beach suggests low erosion potential, and
infrequent salt water intrusion. Mature maritime forests are often the best cover
against wind.
The same can be true of mangroves along low-lying coasts. Mangroves develop
only on very low-elevation coasts where such salt-tolerant vegetation #ourishes.
However, this vegetation also indicates past as well as future #oodable areas.
656 D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670

Mangroves hold the shoreline in place, and can o!er protection from waves and wind,
as was well illustrated during Hurricane Andrew in south Florida [24]. Although
these areas are often accreting, they are not safe for development and erode very
rapidly when destabilized by the death or arti"cial removal of the mangroves.
Removal of mangroves guarantees shoreline erosion. Vegetation also ba%es runo!,
traps sediment, and reduces erosion potential. Marsh and swamp vegetative cover on
the backsides of barrier islands and along estuarine, lagoonal, and backwater shores
serve the same protective role. Mitigation is best achieved through regulations that
prevent (or limit) the removal of native vegetation during development. Revegetating
dunes and back beaches with natural grasses is a well-known technique, and plantings
of marsh grasses have successfully reestablished bay and sound shores against erosion
[13].

3.2.3. Water exposure ( fetch): seaward and landward of site

The area of open water a shoreline faces partly determines the size of the storm
waves to be expected. The greater this fetch, the larger the wave-making potential.
Other things being equal, waterfront property on restricted bodies of water (for
example, protected bays, lagoons, sounds, estuaries), is at risk from fewer hazards than
property on a shoreline facing a large expanse of open sea. For example, the northern
coast of Puerto Rico is exposed to the higher average wave energies of the North
Atlantic Ocean in contrast to the lower wave energies of the southern, Caribbean
coast. However, bodies of water such as sounds, lagoons, embayments, estuaries,
rivers and associated #oodplains, swamps, or marshes on the landward side of a site
usually indicate potential for backside erosion, #ooding, storm-surge ebb scour, or
possible new inlet formation. Barriers such as coral reefs, submerged rock or sand
shoals, and tidal deltas, can modify exposure by dampening wave energy. In meso-
tidal (2}4 m tidal range) barrier-island systems, back-barrier tidal creeks and channels
often erode the backside of an island as fast as open-ocean waves erode the front side,
and erosion indicators are the same.

3.2.4. Shoreline stability

In most cases, the shoreline is the least stable component of the coastal zone and
receives the greatest management attention because of potential real estate loss and
property at risk located near the shoreline. Although some shorelines are stable (for
example, bedrock and accreting shores), erosional shorelines are more common.
Because of the potential rapid changes in shoreline stability, geoindicators are best
suited as a tool for short-term evaluations. Changes in erosion rates, loss or gain in
frontal dunes, development of weak points such as overwash passes, and storm
impacts will be re#ected in the geoindicator evaluation (Table 2).
Shoreline engineering projects can also be indicators of shoreline instability.
Coastal engineering structures are intended to halt shoreline erosion or protect
buildings. Such e!orts in the coastal zone have concentrated on the beach; either
armoring the shoreline, replenishing the beach itself, or moving buildings back from
the beach, largely neglecting the island interior areas. The presence of hard engineer-
ing structures or soft projects such as beach scraping, arti"cial dunes, and beach
 D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670 657

nourishment, should be a clear indication of past and present problems, and a likely
indication of future problems at that site.

3.2.5. Beach, overwash, dune conxguration

High, continuous, heavily vegetated sand dunes at the back of the beach are
evidence of a stable or accretionary shoreline, and thus, a lower-risk site. A study of
the geomorphological changes caused by Hurricane Hugo along the South Carolina
coast showed that wide (30 m, 100 ft, or more) dune "elds protected buildings during
the storm. Eighty-four percent of all buildings completely destroyed or removed from
their foundations were fronted by dune "elds less than 15 m (50 ft) wide [7]. Dunes
played a similar protective role in Hurricane Opal [15]. Bare scarps at the back of the
beach indicate very recent wave or storm-surge erosion, and dune protective capabil-
ity is reduced until sand accumulates and the dunes rebuild. Beaches without dunes or
stable vegetation, with obvious overwash, or with mud, peat, or tree stumps exposed
in the surf zone are erosional and high risk. Breaches or breaks, including road access
points and foot paths, in a dune line backed by overwash fans are indicators of at least
moderate risk. Wide beach systems with well-developed berms are more likely to be
stable.

3.2.6. Bluw conxguration

Blu!s and banks are erosional escarpments in unconsolidated material produced
by waves, slope failure such as collapse, slumping and mud #ows, groundwater
seepage, and surface water runo! (Fig. 3). The resulting retreat of the blu! edge is
often rapid, and the threat to upland property is usually more immediate than realized
[25]. Blu! collapse, slumps, and earth #ows produce talus at the toe of the blu!,
forming a temporary protective ramp. Wave erosion removes the talus, the blu! is
again destabilized, and mass wasting is repeated, however, the process produces
sediment which nourishes the beach. Blu!s stabilized by seawalls or bulkheads lose
their beach, and continue to retreat by slope failure, often triggered by surface or
subsurface drainage. A large talus ramp covered with mature vegetation indicates at
least short-term stability, while steep, bare slopes, free of talus, or with fresh debris
indicate active erosion. Unfortunately, blu!s do not retreat foot by foot, but by tens of
feet when rotational slumping occurs. Blu!s warrant detailed evaluations of several
geoindicators (Table 3).
Cli!s are cut in bedrock which is usually solid and wave resistant. Poorly con-
solidated rocks will behave in the same fashion as blu!s, and should be evaluated in
the same fashion. Rocky cli!s and headlands typically resist wave attack, stand with
higher elevations than sandy coasts, and have low retreat rates. However, low risk is
not implicit as the base of a cli! is often notched by wave erosion, oversteepened, and
subject to slope failure. The stability of the active sea cli!, as well as former sea cli!s
within the coastal zone, is a function of the structure and strength of the rock and the
slope angle. Dipping beds, faults, fractures, joints, and foliation can act as slip planes
to cause landslides and rock falls. Again, rock talus at the toe of the cli! may provide
temporary stability.
658 D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670

Fig. 3. Blu! eroding in glacial till, eastern shore of Lake Michigan. Compare with Table 3 and note the
steep, bare face to the right of the z-wall, and the narrow beach with a small talus toe that is rilled. The
z-wall did not prevent additional slumping.

3.2.7. Inlets and river mouths

Some beaches or beach/dune complexes may form features such as spits, baymouth
bars, or other barrier-like features with open water on both sides of the landform.
These features provide beautiful locations, but such sites are low in elevation and
ephemeral, likely to be overwashed, #ooded and eroded. Such accretionary features
are useful for determining the dominant directions of longshore sediment transport
(local sediment supply) which is toward the end of the bar or spit [26].
If the open water is the mouth of a river, or an inlet breaching a barrier island
system, the current and wave conditions are very dynamic. Shorelines in these areas,
almost without exception, are high-risk zones with respect to coastal hazards. Inlets
are unstable and they migrate.

3.2.8. Interior dunes, drainage, and soil types

Dunes found on island interiors serve an important function with respect to
reducing the risk of property damage. Dunes provide elevation and protection (bu!er)
from storm surge #ooding and waves, and their height can act as a shield against
damaging winds. Frontal dunes are protected in many states, but interior dunes often
are not given the same consideration. As a result, precious sand volume is reduced and
elevation lowered (Fig. 4).
 D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670 659

Table 3
Geoindicators of blu! stability

Blu! character Risk of failure

High Moderate Low

Slope angle Oversteepened to steep Steep to moderate Low

Vegetation Bare; ephemeral; toppled Mature; undisturbed to Mature, dense;
or rotated minor rotation undisturbed
Topography Hummocky; stepped; Irregular; stepped; Even slope; free of
gullied (v-notches); rills; possible slump scars; erosional features
fans; slump scars minor gullies or rills
Toe/talus ramp No talus; fresh talus; Vegetated talus; no Old talus; well vegetated
wave-cut notch evidence of wave
erosion
Groundwater activity Active springs or seeps Potential for springs No groundwater loading
in blu! face (icicles on or seeps in wet periods
blu! face in winter); (porous beds); potential
blind gullies (sapping); for groundwater loading
alternate porous and (e.g., irrigation)
nonporous beds
Protective beach Absent to narrow; mud Moderate to wide; few Wide; free of engineering
ramp or thin beach; or no structures structures
engineering structures
cut o! sediment supply
Climate/soil type High runo!/in"ltration; Moderate to low ppt.; Low ppt.; homogeneous,
swelling soils; soil moderately drained; stable, well-drained soil
fractures; liquefaction minor variability
Other evidence of Buildings and man-made Building back from Threatened buildings; in
erosion problems structures at/near edge; blu! edge; water shore waters clear
gravel on beach same as generally clear
in blu!; muddy water in
surf

The lesson from Hurricane Hugo in South Carolina was that the higher, wider, and
more continuous the dune system, the greater the protection against damage. If a wide
healthy beach exists, island-front dunes have a sand supply for healing and growth,
but interior dunes on developed islands do not have this capacity. The sand supply is
covered by houses, lawns, and streets. Once an interior dune is destroyed, it can only
be rebuilt or repaired arti"cially. The better choice is to conserve the dunes and design
the architecture around and over the landforms. Damage potential will be less, the
costs of dune reconstruction eliminated, and a safer, more aesthetically pleasing
development will result.
How well a site drains is important, and good drainage is one of several indicators
suggesting lower risk potential. Drainage is a function of soil type, and the typical
sandy soils of barrier islands suggest good drainage, however, problems often lurk just
660 D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670

Fig. 4. Sketch map of a developed area on western Bogue Banks, NC, showing extensive area of dune and
maritime forest removal (open pattern). Rapid development patterns change the face of the coastal zone just
as quickly as storms, and alter the vulnerability to coastal hazards signi"cantly. Geoindicators provide
a tool for frequent qualitative reevaluation of risk and appropriate relevant mitigation actions.

below the surface. Clays of buried marsh or back-island muds may block percolation,
and provide poor footings for buildings. Similarly, buried peats may compress and
cause subsidence or unstable footings.
Well-developed soil pro"les are indicative of stability. However, when such a pro"le
is exposed in wave scarps or cut banks, the evidence for active erosion negates the
implied stability.

4. A case study: Bogue Banks, North Carolina

Bogue Banks is a barrier island located along the central North Carolina coast at
the southern end of the Outer Banks. The east}west island is over 25 miles long and
varies in width from over one mile wide to less than 1000 ft at its narrowest point in
Emerald Isle where Hurricane Hazel breached the island in 1954. Much of the island is
backed by the open water of Bogue Sound and faces the open Atlantic's moderate-to-
high wave energy and microtidal conditions. Potential storm surge is only moderate,
 D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670 661

but a category 5 hurricane would #ood most of the eastern half and a signi"cant
portion of the western half of the island [27].
The island is somewhat unusual in that extensive dune areas reach elevations in
excess of 35 ft and much of the island originally was covered by dense maritime forest
or shrub thickets. This natural protection, however, has been lost to both storms and
human development. Stanczuk [28] documented some of the early impact of develop-
ment such as the removal of a large dune "eld where the community of Atlantic Beach
was developed in the eastern segment of the island. Since then continued development
of the "ve separate communities platted on the island has removed frontal and
interior dunes, notched dunes with roads, removed large areas of forest (Fig. 4), and
cut sound-side "nger canals and shore-perpendicular roads.

4.1. Geoindicator evaluation of Bogue Banks and mitigation recommendations

Short-term rates of environmental change are high for Bogue Banks because the
communities are subjected to rapid development as well as high energy processes
including hurricanes and northeasters. Ocean shoreline erosion rates are moderate to
high [29] and, when coupled with human interference with island processes, has
resulted in beach narrowing and dune loss. Dune breaching allows potential overwash
to penetrate the interior, and #ooding will occur again in the future. Locally, the
potential for inlet migration or new inlet formation is high. The entire island of Bogue
Banks needs continuous monitoring of risk potential as well as evaluation of

Fig. 5. Risk map for western Bogue Banks, NC, modi"ed from Pilkey et al. [30]. Zones are relative risk for
property damage from a category 3 hurricane or similar-strength winter storm. Such maps can be generated
relatively quickly and inexpensively from geoindicators evaluation.
662 D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670

Table 4
Geoindicators evaluation of western Bogue Banks (Emerald Isle), NC

Parameter Location

Western Emerald Isle Central Emerald Isle Eastern Emerald Isle

Site elevation Low to moderate High to moderate Low to moderate

except where dunes
removed
Shoreline change Erosion (0.6 m/yr Erosion (0.6 m/yr Erosion (0.6 m/yr
(rating from Table 2)
Beach width, slope, Moderate Moderate Moderate
and thickness
Overwash Local Minimal Historic
Site position relative Partially adjacent Distant Distant; but new inlet
to inlet or river mouth potential
Dune con"guration Absent to active Continuous frontal Variable from continuous,
dune with local wide, high in west to
breaches discontinuous, narrow,
low in east
Blu! (unconsolidated) Beach scarped Beach scarped Beach scarped
con"guration
Coastal shape Slightly lobate Straight Straight
Vegetation Poorly vegetated near Middle and back side Variable; sparse forest to
inlet; maritime forest in well forested grassland
mid-island
Drainage Well drained Well drained Well drained
Area landward Inlet and marsh Lagoon and spoil Bogue Sound
islands
Natural o!shore Open water Open water Open water
protection
O!shore shelf Ebb delta platform Moderate width and Moderate width and
depth depth
Other features Some roads follow Roads perpendicular to Island narrow
contours shoreline
General risk rating Extreme to moderate Moderate to low High to moderate

Note: Parameters for evaluating risks from coastal hazards are applied for selected portions of the barrier
island.

site-speci"c changes. Geoindicators provide a method for such monitoring, and

a basis for mitigation.
General risk maps were produced for Bogue Banks based on elevation and forest
cover [30] (for example, Fig. 5). Such maps may be derived quickly from FEMA
FIRMs, topographic maps, and SLOSH models for elevations and #ood zones,
and air photos or "eld observation for vegetation type and cover. For more
 D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670

Fig. 6. Summary maps for Bogue Banks, NC, after geoindicators assessment, with recommendations for mitigation actions: (a) Western Bogue Banks (see
663

Table 4 and compare with Fig. 5), (b) Central Bogue Banks, (c) Eastern Bogue Banks.
664 D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670

Fig. 6. (continued)
D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670 665

Fig. 6. (continued)
666 D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670

Table 5
Property damage mitigation options on the beachfront [13]

Abandonment
Relocation
Active (relocate before damaged)
Passive (rebuild destroyed structures elsewhere)
Long-term relocation plans for communities
Soft stabilization
Adding sand to beach
Beach replenishment
Beach bulldozing/scraping
Increasing sand dune volume
Sand fencing
Raise frontal dune elevation
Plug dune gaps
Vegetation
Stabilize dunes (oceanside)
Marsh (soundside)
Hard stabilization
Shore parallel
Seawalls
Bulkheads
Revetments
O!shore breakwaters
Shore perpendicular
Groins
Jetties
Modi"cation of development and infrastructure
Retro"t homes
Elevate homes
Curve and elevate roads
Block roads terminating in dune gaps
Move utility and service lines into interior or bury below erosion level
Zoning, land use planning
Recognize hazard areas and avoid
Tidal inlets (past, present and future)
Swashes
Permanent overwash passes
Setbacks
Choose elevated building sites
Lower-density development
Things to keep in mind
Each island or coastal community is di!erent
Consider the entire coastal zone not just oceanfront
Rising sea level must be considered

speci"c evaluation, Table 4 illustrates the application of geoindicators to western

Bogue Banks as applied to island segments. The same parameters can be applied
at a speci"c site to rank the risk and identify speci"c parameters to modify for
mitigation.
 D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670 667

Table 6
Options for mitigation of property damage on land (o! the beach) [13]

Abandonment

Relocation
Active (relocate before damaged)
Passive (rebuild destroyed structures elsewhere)
Long-term relocation plans for communities
Soft stabilization
Adding sand to interior of island
Rebuild interior dunes (including replacing roads)
Raise island elevation (build arti"cial dunes and raised terraces)
In"ll ends of "nger canals, or entire canal (potential new inlet)
In"ll road cuts
Block interior cross-island roads (i.e., sand plugs, barriers, dead-end streets into forest)
Vegetation (native species planting)
Replace forest
Plant tree/shrub thicket windbreaks
Stabilize interior dunes
Stabilize interior overwash terraces (grasses and shrubs)
Plant marsh (Spartina and other natural marsh plants)
Modi"cation of development and infrastructure
Retro"t houses
Elevate houses
Reopen ground-level #oors of elevated houses (that were enclosed)
Curve and elevate roads
Partially block, or replace roads with interior dunes
Zoning, land use planning
Recognize hazard areas and avoid. No construction in
Tidal inlets (past, present and future)
Swashes and breaches
Critical environments (e.g., V-zones, interior marshes, spits, shifting sand dunes, freshwater ponds)
Choose elevated building sites
Lower density development
By ordinance
Protect interior dunes and other topographic highs against modi"cation or removal
Protect vegetation cover against removal or heavy disturbance
Things to keep in mind
Each island or coastal community is di!erent
Consider entire coastal zone not just oceanfront
Rising sea level must be considered

Fig. 6 illustrates Bogue Banks in its entirety with examples of the problems revealed
by geoindicators, and suggestions for corresponding mitigation. As Fig. 6 implies,
mitigation actions may range from regional to site speci"c. For example, a road cut
through a dune could result in a high probability of overwash or inlet formation if on
a narrow part of the island. Plugging the dune gap and reorienting the road would be
a simple mitigation procedure to reduce the risk potential at this site or island
668 D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670

segment. Building both frontal and interior dunes, restoring native vegetation, in"ll-
ing "nger canals, and nourishing beaches are neighborhood or community-scale
approaches to restoring natural stabilization. More conventional approaches such as
retro"tting, elevating, or relocating buildings is required for development in moder-
ate-to-high-hazard zones (Fig. 6). Tables 5 and 6 provide lists of mitigation options for
shorefront and interior island properties.

5. Conclusions

The ideal way to gather information about the current state of the global environ-
ment, the rate of change in the global environment, and how to manage the global
environment is to perform detailed, long-term monitoring. Costs, human resources,
and lack of political will preclude such detailed work, and long-term monitoring is, in
fact, long term. The need for more immediate management guidance as well as the
necessary frequent updates on coastal hazard impact can be met through the qualitat-
ive geoindicators approach. A strength of geoindicators is the "eld-oriented approach
and regular surveillance by local interested parties. Such a tool can be of immediate
application and may be of a more far-reaching consequence than sophisticated
methods relying on instrumentation and long-term, quality data bases.
The island of Bogue Banks, North Carolina, was quickly but adequately evaluated
for this study. The hazard areas of low elevation, rapid erosion, overwash, and
#ooding are easily identi"able. The positive aspects of high elevation, forest cover,
signi"cant island width, and a straight shoreline likewise are evident. The geoindicator
evaluation can be quickly updated as necessary or as desired.
Although the Bogue Banks example was supported by air photos and maps
(topographic and FIRMs), the geoindicators method is especially useful in develop-
ing countries that lack the resources for more sophisticated, long-term coastal
monitoring.

References

[1] Berger AR. The geoindicator concept and its application: an introduction. In: Berger AR, Iams WJ,
editors. Geoindicators: assessing rapid environmental changes in earth systems. A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, 1996:1}14.
[2] Berger AR. Assessing rapid environmental changes using geoindicators. Environmental Geology
1997;32:36}44.
[3] Gornitz VM, Daniels RC, White TW, Birdwell KR. The development of a coastal risk assessment
database: vulnerability to sea-level rise in the U.S. Southeast. In: Finkl Jr. CW, editor, Coastal hazards
perception, susceptibility and mitigation. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue 1994;12:327}38.
[4] Pilkey OH, Morton RA, Kelley JT, Penland S. Coastal Land Loss. American Geophysical Union,
Washington, DC. Short Course in Geology, Vol. 2, 28th International Geological Congress, 1989,
73pp.
[5] Bush DM. Impact of Hurricane Hugo on the Rocky Coast of Puerto Rico. In: Finkl CW, Pilkey OH,
editors, Impacts of hurricane Hugo: September 10}22, 1989. Journal of Coastal Research, Special
Issue 1991;8:49}67.
 D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670 669

[6] Thieler ER, Bush DM. Hurricanes Gilbert and Hugo send powerful messages for coastal develop-
ment. Journal of Geological Education 1991;39:291}9.
[7] Thieler ER, Young RS. Quantitative evaluation of coastal geomorphic changes in South Carolina
after Hurricane Hugo. In: Finkl CW, Pilkey OH, editors, Impacts of Hurricane Hugo: September
10}22, 1989. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue 1991:8:187}200.
[8] Bush DM, Richmond BR. Coastal hazards mapping. In: Schwab WC, RodrmH guez RW, editors,
Progress of studies on the impact of hurricane Hugo on the coastal resources of Puerto Rico. US,
Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-717, 1992:55}63.
[9] Bush DM. Coastal processes, In Hurricane Hugo: Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Charleston,
South Carolina, September 17}22, 1989, National Academy of Sciences, Natural Disaster Studies Vol.
6, pp. 130}154. 1994. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
[10] Bush DM. Coastal hazard mapping and risk assessment. In: Natural disasters, local and global
perspectives. Boston: National Committee on Property Insurance (now the Institute for Business and
Home Safety), 1994. Proceedings of the 1993 annual forum, December 9, 1993, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 19}26.
[11] Bush DM, Pilkey OH. Mitigation of hurricane property damage on barrier islands: a geological view
In: Finkl Jr. CW, editor, Coastal hazards: perception, susceptibility and mitigation. Journal of Coastal
Research Special Issue 1994;12:311}26.
[12] RodrmH guez RW, Webb RMT, Bush DM. Another look at the impact of Hurricane Hugo on
the shelf and coastal resources of Puerto Rico, USA. Journal of Coastal Research 1994;10(2):
278}96.
[13] Bush DM, Pilkey OH, Neal WJ. Living by the Rules of the Sea, Durham, NC: Duke University Press,
1996:179pp.
[14] Bush DM, Richmond BR, Neal WJ. Coastal zone hazard maps: Puerto Rico, hurricane Hugo
impacted portion of the shoreline, Cibuco (Punta Garaza) to Punta Viento. US Geological Survey
Open-File Report 96-506, 1996:12 pp., 1 Fig., 5 Tables, 11 maps.
[15] Webb CA, Bush DM, Young RS. Property damage mitigation lessons from Hurricane Opal: The
Florida panhandle coast, October 4, 1995. Journal of Coastal Research 1997;13(1):246}52.
[16] Crowell M, Leatherman SP, Buckley MK. Historical shoreline change: Error analysis and mapping
accuracy. Journal of Coastal Research 1991;7(3):839}52.
[17] Thieler ER, Danforth WW. Historical shoreline mapping (I): improving techniques and reducing
positioning errors. Journal of Coastal Research 1994;10(3):549}63.
[18] Thieler ER, Danforth WW. Historical shoreline mapping (II): application of the digital shoreline
mapping and analysis systems (DSMS/DSAS) to shoreline change mapping in Puerto Rico. Journal of
Coastal Research 1994;10(3):600}20.
[19] Emery KO. A simple method of measuring beach pro"les. Limnology and Oceanography
1961;6:90}3.
[20] National Research Council. Managing coastal erosion. Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
1990:182p.
[21] Young RS, Bush DM, Pilkey OH, Neal WJ. Evaluating shoreline change and associated risk
from coastal hazards: an inexpensive qualitative approach. In: Berger AR, Iams WJ, editors. Geoindi-
cators: Assessing rapid environmental changes in earth systems. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam: 1996.
p. 193}206.
[22] Dolan R, Fenster MS, Holme SJ. Temporal analysis of shoreline recession and accretion. Journal of
Coastal Research 1991;7(3):723}44.
[23] Dolan R, Peatross J. 1:2,000,000-scale map of shoreline erosion and accretion of the Mid-Atlantic
coast. U.S. Geological Survey Open, File Report 92-0377-A: one sheet, 1992.
[24] Young RS, Thieler ER, Pilkey OH. Opinion: geologic and oceanographic factors mitigating the storm
surge and #ood damage of Hurricane Andrew in south Florida. Geology 1993;21(2):99.
[25] Tainter SP. Blu! slumping and stability: a consumer's guide. Michigan Sea Grant, Ann Arbor, MI,
1982, publication MICHU-SG-82-902, 65.
[26] Morelock J, Schwartz ML, Hernandez-Avila M, Hat"eld DM. Net shore-drift on the north coast of
Puerto Rico. Shore and Beach 1985;53(4):16}21.
670 D.M. Bush et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 42 (1999) 647}670

[27] Eastern North Carolina Hurricane Evacuation Study. Appendix A, Inundation Maps. Division of
Emergency Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Re-
sources, Raleigh, NC. 1987.
[28] Stanczuk DT. E!ects of development on barrier island evolution, Bogue Banks, North Carolina.
Unpublished Master's Thesis, Duke University, Durham, NC, 1975:126 pp.
[29] North Carolina Department of Environment. Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal
Management. Long term average annual shoreline change rates updated through 1992. Raleigh, NC,
1992:17pp. plus maps.
[30] Pilkey OH, Neal WJ, Riggs SR, Webb CA, Bush DM, Pilkey DF, Bullock J, Cowan BA. The North
Carolina shore and its barrier islands: restless ribbons of sand. Durham, NC: Duke University Press,
1998:320pp.