Stanley R. Riggs, William J. Cleary and Stephen W. SnyderOnslow Bay are highly migratory (Cleary and Hosier, 1979).They conclude that over 70% of the barrier island lengthsouth of New River Inlet h<strong>as</strong> inlet channel-dominated shorefaces<strong>as</strong> a result of inlets migrating along the island duringthe l<strong>as</strong>t several centuries. For example, most of the co<strong>as</strong>talarea of Shell, Figure Eight, and Coke Islands have historicallybeen occupied by inlets (Fig. 11) .The result is a shorefacesystem that is underlain by channel sands and gravelsthat formed in response to a series of rapidly migratingHolocene inlets. Steel (1980) drilled and mapped a minimumof eleven relict inlets in the Holocene record beneath BogueBanks.Channel-Dominated Valley-Fill ShorefacesPortions of barrier islands that are within the valleys ofmajor Piedmont drainage systems (Fig. 2) have shorefacesthat are characterized by complex sediment sequencesdeposited in ancient paleofluvial valleys (Pearson, 1979;Hine and Snyder, 1985; Riggs et al., 1992; Snyder et al.,1994). These drainage systems have repeatedly incisedthemselves into their valleys and <strong>as</strong>sociated valley fill duringeach Pleistocene glacial episode when sea-level occupiedlowstand positions. During the subsequent transgression,these large channel complexes were systematically backfilledwith a new vertical succession of fluvial and estuarinesediments. The upper estuarine sediments generally are composedof fine-grained, muddy sediments. As the shorefacerecedes in response to ongoing transgression, the portion thatis underlain by estuarine valley fill, erodes rapidly relative tothe adjacent headland dominated shorefaces (Fig. 2).CONCLUSIONSAlong continental margins with limited sand supplies,such <strong>as</strong> the U.S. Atlantic co<strong>as</strong>t, the shoreface is not an infinitelythick pile of sand. Rather, it is a thin, variable, andtemporal accumulation of sand superimposed or perchedupon a pre-existing and highly dissected geologic framework.Holocene sea-level rise h<strong>as</strong> produced a modern transgressivebarrier island, estuarine, and fluvial sequence ofco<strong>as</strong>tal sediments that are being deposited unconformablyover irregularly preserved remnants of pre-existing stratigraphicsequences consisting of many sediment and rockunits of variable ages, origins, and compositions. It is thecomplex variability in this underlying geologic framework,in consort with the physical dynamics of each specificco<strong>as</strong>tal system, that ultimately determines the 1) threedimensionalshoreface morphology, 2) composition and textureof beach sediments, and 3) shoreline recession rates.B<strong>as</strong>ed upon the pre-Modern geologic framework, thereare six general categories of shoreface systems that occuralong the Onslow Bay co<strong>as</strong>t of North <strong>Carolina</strong>. Headlandsare morphological features that rise above the active ravinementsurface and are composed of semi-indurated to indurated,Pleistocene or older sediment units. 1. Subaerialheadlands are characterized by the active incisement of awavecut platform and cliff into Pleistocene or older stratigraphicunits with an <strong>as</strong>sociated perched beach. 2. Submarineheadlands are submerged morphological featurescomposed of Pleistocene or older stratigraphic units thathave been incorporated into the modern shoreface and uponwhich the barrier-estuarine system is perched. Ancient sedimentscrop out on the eroding shoreface and commonlyoccur on the inner shelf <strong>as</strong> bathymetric highs seaward of themodern shoreface and thus, modify incoming waves and currents.Nonheadland shorefaces are dominated by Holoceneprocesses and sediments and can be divided into four generalsubcl<strong>as</strong>ses. 3. Transgressive shorefaces are composed ofcompact peat and mud that extend from the modern estuaries,under the barrier sands, and crop out within the surf zoneand upper shoreface. The steep shoreface is often characterizedby an irregular geometry and the beach is dominated bydiscontinuous and highly scarped dune ridges with abundantw<strong>as</strong>hover fans. 4. Regressive shorefaces are composed ofunconsolidated sand and occur along barrier segments thathave adequate sediment supplies and are often <strong>as</strong>sociatedwith inlets, headlands, and cape structures. The beaches aredominated by progradational geometries with accretionarybeach ridges. Channel-dominated shorefaces consist of twodistinctive types of systems. 5. Inlet-fi!l shorefaces are composedof unconsolidated sand and gravel sediments with clinoforminfill geometry that forms in response to activelymigrating inlets. 6. Va!ley-fi!l shorefaces have historicallybeen occupied by large paleofluvial drainage systems andare underlain by thick accumulations of fluvial- estuarinechannel-fill sediments in response to deglaciation andHolocene sea-Ievel rise. Valley-fill sediments are typicallycomposed of fine-grained sediment and therefore will erodedifferently than inlet- fill sands and gravels. The sedimentsderived from valley-fill erosion are often not compatible withthe dynamics of the adjacent beach systems. Consequently,valley-fill shorefaces are often characterized by lower slopesand sediment deficient beaches that are actively eroding.Thus, the b<strong>as</strong>ic structural, stratigraphic, and geomorphiccharacteristics of the pre-barrier land surface interacts in acomplex way with modern co<strong>as</strong>tal processes to determinethe barrier beachmorphology and shoreface dynamics. Eachbarrier beach and shoreface are total products of their geologicheritage; the signature of their geologic history controlsand influences the present morphology, shoreface dynamics,and rates of shoreline recession. Consequently, the conceptof a common equilibrium profile for all shorefaces is neitherrealistic nor adequate when considering detailed processesalong any given co<strong>as</strong>tal segment. It is imperative that societylearn to live with and manage our complex shorelines. Inorder to do this, we must understand the detailed geologicframework underlying the shoreface and the inner shelf, <strong>as</strong>38
MORPHOLOGY AND DYNAMICS OF BARRIER AND HEADLAND SHOREFACES IN ONSLOW BAY, NORTH CAROLINAwell <strong>as</strong> the physical dynamics operating within and uponregional segments of the shoreface system. Then we canrealistically begin to model the large-scale behavior ofco<strong>as</strong>tal systems.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis research is in part a product of research supportedby the following grants: N.C. Office of Marine Affairs(1978-1979) to SRR; National Science Foundation OCE-8110907, OCE-8118164, and OCE- 8342777 (1981-1984) toSRR; U.S. Marine Corps at Camp Lejeune, N.C. (1985-1987) to WJC; NOAA- National Undersea Research Center/University of North <strong>Carolina</strong> at Wilmington (1992-1993) toWJC and SRR. Appreciation is expressed to the many studentsof the Geology Departments at E<strong>as</strong>t <strong>Carolina</strong> Universityand University of North <strong>Carolina</strong> at Wilmington whohave helped develop the level of understanding of North<strong>Carolina</strong> co<strong>as</strong>tal systems that lead to this paper.REFERENCESBenton, S.B., Bellis, C.J., Overton, M.F., Fisher, J.S., and Hench,J.L., 1993, Long term average annual rates of shoreline change:methods report 1992 update: North <strong>Carolina</strong> Department ofEnvironment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division ofCo<strong>as</strong>tal Management, Raleigh, NC, 27611, 16 p, 14 plates.Brooks, W.B., and Cleary, W.J., 1989, Variations in island morphologyand inlet history: Figure Eight Island, N.C.: <strong>Geological</strong><strong>Society</strong> of America, Abstracts with Programs, v. 21 , no.3, p. 6.Bruun, P., 1962, Sea-Ievel rise <strong>as</strong> a cause of storm erosion: Proceedingsof the American <strong>Society</strong> of Civil Engineers, Journal of theWaterways and Harbors Division, 88(WWI), p. 117-130.Clark, P., Cleary, W.J., and Laws, R.A., 1986, ALate Pleistocenebay-barrier system: Topsail Sound, North <strong>Carolina</strong>: <strong>Geological</strong><strong>Society</strong> of America, Abstracts with Programs, v. 18, no.3, p.215.Cleary, W.J., and Hosier, P.E., 1979, Co<strong>as</strong>tal geomorphology, w<strong>as</strong>hoverhistory, and inlet zonation: Cape Lookout to Bird Island,North <strong>Carolina</strong>, in Leatherman, S.D., ed., Barrier islands fromthe Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico: AcademicPress, New York, p. 237-262.Cleary, W.J., and Hosier, P.E., 1987, Onslow Beach, North <strong>Carolina</strong>:morphology and stratigraphy: Proc., Co<strong>as</strong>tal Sediments'87, American <strong>Society</strong> Civil Engineering, New Orleans, p.1745-1759.Cleary, W.J., and Hosier, P.E., 1990, Storm climate and inlet stabilizationeffects on a transgressive barrier, M<strong>as</strong>onboro Island,North <strong>Carolina</strong>: <strong>Geological</strong> <strong>Society</strong> of America, Abstracts withPrograms, v. 22, no.4, p. 7.Cleary, W.J., Theiler, E.R., and Riggs, S.R., 1992, A reconnaissancesurvey of shoreface sedimentation off a replenished barrier,Wrightsville Beach, N.C.: <strong>Geological</strong> <strong>Society</strong> of New Zealand,Misc. Pub. 65A, Abstracts for IGCP 274 International Symposiumon Diversity in Co<strong>as</strong>tal Evolution in the Quaternary, 1992,Wellington, N.Z., p. 13.Cleary, W.J., Riggs, S.R., and Theiler, E.R., 1993, Barrier/lagoonand shoreface Holocene stratigraphy: M<strong>as</strong>onboro Island, N.C.:<strong>Geological</strong> <strong>Society</strong> of America, Abstracts with Programs, v. 25,no.4, p. 8.Crowson, R.A., 1980, Nearshore rock exposures and their relationshipto modern shelf sedimentation, Onslow Bay, North <strong>Carolina</strong>:Unpub. M.S. Thesis, Dept. of Geology, E<strong>as</strong>t <strong>Carolina</strong>Univ., Greenville, 128 p.Dean, R.G., 1983, Principles of beach nourishment, in P. Komar,ed., Handbook of co<strong>as</strong>tal processes and erosion: Boca Raton,Florida, CRC Press, p. 217-231.DuBar, J.R., Johnson, H.S., Thorn, B.G., and Hatchell, W.O., 1974,Neogene stratigraphy and morphology, south flank of the CapeFear Arch, North and South <strong>Carolina</strong>, in Oaks, R.Q., andDuBar, J.R., eds., Post Miocene stratigraphy, central and southernAtlantic Co<strong>as</strong>tal Plain: logan, Utah, Utah State Univ. Press,p. 139-173.Eames, G.B., 1983, The late Quaternary seismic stratigraphy, lithostratigraphy,and geologic history of a shelf-barrier-estuarinesystem, Dare Co., North <strong>Carolina</strong>: Unpub. M.S. Thesis, Dept.of Geology, E<strong>as</strong>t <strong>Carolina</strong> Univ., Greenville, 196 p.Fenneman, N.M., 1902, Development of the profile of equilibriumof the subaqueous shore terrace: Journal of Geology, v. 10, p. 1-32.Fisher, J.J., 1962, Geomorphic expression of former inlets along theOuter Banks of North <strong>Carolina</strong>: Unpub. M.A. thesis, Universityof North <strong>Carolina</strong>, Chapel Hill, N.C., 120 p.Fisher, J.J., 1967, Development patterns of relict beach ridges,Outer Banks barrier chain: Unpub. Ph.D. dissert., University ofNorth <strong>Carolina</strong>, Chapel Hill, N.C., 225 p.Griffin, W. T., Cleary, W.J., and Hosier, P.E., 1977, late Holoceneevolution of Oak Island, North <strong>Carolina</strong>: <strong>Geological</strong> <strong>Society</strong> ofAmerica, Abstracts with Programs, v. 11, no.4, p. 180.Hayes, M.O., 1976, Terrigenous cl<strong>as</strong>tic depositional environments,in Hayes, M.O., and Kana, T.W., eds., A field course for theAmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists: University ofSouth <strong>Carolina</strong>, Co<strong>as</strong>tal Research Division, Tech. Rpt. No. 11-CRD, p.I-1 to 1-131.Hine, A.C., and Snyder, S. W., 1985, Co<strong>as</strong>tallithosome preservation:evidence from the shoreface and inner continental shelfoff Bogue Banks, North <strong>Carolina</strong>: Marine Geology, v. 63, p.307-330.Hosier, P.E., and Cleary, W.J., 1977, Cyclic geomorphic patterns onan overw<strong>as</strong>h dominated barrier island in southe<strong>as</strong>tern North<strong>Carolina</strong>: Environmental Geology, v. 2, p. 23-31.Kriebel, D.l., Kraus, N.C., and larson, M., 1991 , Engineering methodsfor predicting beach profile response: Co<strong>as</strong>tal Sediments'91, American <strong>Society</strong> of Civil Engineers, p. 557-571.Larson, M., 1991, Equilibrium profile of a beach with varying grainsize: Co<strong>as</strong>tal Sediments '91 , American <strong>Society</strong> of Civil Engineers,p. 905-919.Meisburger, E.P., 1979, Reconnaissance geology of the inner continentalshelf, Cape Fear region, North <strong>Carolina</strong>: U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, Co<strong>as</strong>tal Engineering Research CenterTech. Paper 79-3, 135 p.Moorefield, T.P., 1978, Geologic processes and history of the FortFisher co<strong>as</strong>tal area, North <strong>Carolina</strong>: Unpub. M.S. Thesis, Dept.of Geology, E<strong>as</strong>t <strong>Carolina</strong> Univ., Greenville, 100 p.Niedoroda, A.W., Swift, D.J.P., Figueiredo, A.G., and Freeland,39