Satellite photo shows channels and shoaling in Bar- 

 den Inlet. Body ol land on right is Core Banks, on 

 left, Shackleford Banks. 



But there are some experts who side with the pop- 

 ular opinion held by Hodges. Dr. Robert Dolan, a 

 coastal geologist who has studied the Cape Lookout 

 erosion problem, agrees that it is a difficult issue to 

 handle. "One can debate the devil out of that forever," 

 he says. 



Dolan believes that when man interferes with in- 

 lets, things start happening in an unpredictable way. 

 "These tidal inlets are so complex and the balance be- 

 tween erosion and deposition in the channel is so 

 delicate that anything that is done from an engineer- 

 ing standpoint contributes to the erosion," he says. 



Dolan points to the case of Oregon Inlet, which he 

 believes has been radically affected by the construc- 

 tion of the Oregon Inlet Bridge. 



But Dolan and Vallianos agree on one point: with 

 the water almost lapping at the lighthouse, it's too 

 late to bicker over who's responsible for the eroding 

 shoreline. Any plan for saving the lighthouse must be 

 undertaken immediately. 



Nitty gritty 



If things go on schedule, the question of what will 

 become of the Cape Lookout Lighthouse will be 

 decided by late spring. Work on the project could 

 begin by early fall. And, if present erosion rates con- 

 tinue, that might be just in the nick of time. 



The National Park Service, which operates the 

 Cape Lookout National Seashore, began to take a 

 serious look at the Core Banks erosion problem in late 

 1976. That year, the agency commissioned Dr. Robert 

 Dolan, a coastal geologist at the University of 

 Virginia, to study the problem. During 1978 the Park 

 Service funded two other studies— one to examine the 

 feasibility of moving the lighthouse and another ero- 

 sion study by Dolan. In October, 1978, the U.S. Army 

 Corps of Engineers completed an in-depth study of 

 the erosion problem at the cape. The U.S. Coast 

 Guard also has drawn up suggestions for manage- 

 ment of the lighthouse. These agencies have held 

 several joint meetings to discuss the problem. 



The issue was officially opened to public debate in 

 mid-January this year with meetings held on Bogue 

 Banks and in Raleigh. Representatives of the Park 

 Service, the Coast Guard, the Corps of Engineers and 

 the N. C. Division of Archives and History presented 

 their recommendations for action. 



Prior to the meetings, a summary of official 

 proposals for management of the lighthouse was 

 mailed to about 300 people on the Park Service mail- 

 ing list. The Park Service will receive public comment 

 through February 17. Letters should be addressed to 

 Superintendent, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

 P.O. Box 690, Beaufort, N.C. 28516. Proposal sum- 

 maries are available upon request. 



After considering public comment, the group of 

 concerned agencies will jointly decide which plan to 

 use. One of the agencies— either the Park Service or 

 Coast Guard— will then request emergency funding 

 from its Congressional budgetary committee. 



At the moment, seven official proposals are being 

 considered. Agency officials seem to be agreed on one 

 point: there is no time to waste. Consequently, they 

 are skeptical of any plan which might require an en- 

 vironmental impact statement. That process could 

 hold up the work for years. 



What follows is a summary of the proposals put 

 forward by the Corps, the Coast Guard and the Park 

 Service. 



The Corps of Engineers research project was head- 

 ed by chief coastal engineer at the Wilmington office, 

 Lim Vallianos. The Corps sees four possibilities: 



Plan 1A, Bank Revetment The first and pre- 

 ferred alternative calls for a revetment 2350 feet long 

 to be constructed of granitic stone riprap on the shore 

 in front of the lighthouse. The initial cost of this em- 

 bankment would be about $3.3 million. Additional 

 annual costs, including interest, maintenance and 

 surveys, would total $225,000. Construction time is 

 estimated to be 110 days. 



Plan IB, Extended Revetment This plan calls 

 for the revetment to extend to a length of 3800 feet. 

 The extension would be designed to prevent severe 

 erosion at the edges of the revetment. Initial costs 

 would be about $5.5 million and annual costs would 

 total $414,000. Construction time would be about 170 

 days. Vallianos favors construction of the shorter re- 

 vetment outlined in Plan 1A. 



Plan 2, Training Dikes A series of training dikes 

 would be constructed, extending perpendicularly 

 from the shore in front of the lighthouse. The dike 

 system would be designed to induce flows away from 

 the eroding bank. According to Vallianos, this would 

 be the most visually obtrusive of the Corps' 

 proposals. Initial costs would be about $3.5 million 

 and annual costs would total $274,000. Construction 

 time is estimated at 160 days. 



Vallianos notes that similar systems constructed in 

 river beds have required bank revetments because 

 eddy currents which set up in between the dikes may 

 continue to erode the shore. In that case costs of the 

 project would be considerably higher. Vallianos adds 

 that this plan would have a greater chance of success 

 if a physical model were constructed. But that would 

 take a year. There is also the possibility that the dikes 

 might present a navigation hazard at night, he adds. 



Plan 3, Relocation of the channel A new chan- 

 nel would be dredged to the west of the main channel. 

 The old one would be filled in and sand would be 

 pumped onto the shore in front of the lighthouse. 

 This would take about 195 days. The relocated chan- 

 nel, like the present one, would naturally migrate 

 toward Core Banks, Vallianos contends. That means 

 that the entire dredging operation would need to be 

 repeated every 10 years. The cost of moving the chan- 

 nel would be $2.9 million; annual costs would be 

 about $428,000. 



Vallianos believes that because of the design risks, 

 this plan is least likely to be successful. It will also 

 probably require an environmental impact state- 

 ment, and environmental constrictions ten years 

 from now might prevent relocating the channel. The 

 plan's only advantage, Vallianos believes, is that it 

 would not change the appearance of the cape area. 



Vallianos estimates that five to seven months 

 would be required to make plans and award a con- 

 tract for any of the Corps' proposals. Some protection 

 would be afforded to the lighthouse during construc- 

 tion of either Plan 1 or 2. But Plan 3 would afford lit- 

 tle erosion control until completion. 



Moving the lighthouse Last fall the Park Service 

 commissioned MTMA, a Raleigh consulting firm, to 

 investigate the possibility of moving the lighthouse, 

 the keeper's quarters, the summer kitchen and the 

 storage shed. The lighthouse is 169 feet tall, with 

 walls eight feet thick at its base tapering to two feet 

 thick at the top. MTMA determined that the light- 

 house could be moved if masonry saws were used to 

 cut it into seven parts, each weighing less than 300 

 tons. "It would be sort of like cutting a frankfurter 



up," says firm member Chris McLure. The co9t would 

 be about $2.1 million. 



The Coast Guard has proposed three alternatives: 

 Replacement of the lighthouse If the decision is 

 made to abandon the lighthouse, the Coast Guard 

 would replace it with a navigation tower. A 150-foot 

 steel tower would be built near the Cape Lookout 

 Coast Guard Station. The cost would be about $525,- 

 000. 



Protective barriers To save the present struc- 

 ture, the Coast Guard proposes to construct either of 

 two types of protective barrier around the lighthouse 

 to prevent erosion. A steel sheet pile bulkhead with a 

 tieback system would cost $1.6 million. A stone rip 

 rap would cost $2.6 million. Both systems would be 

 designed to withstand a scour of up to 20 feet below 

 mean low water. 



The decision makers are likely to be influenced by 

 Dr. Larry Tise, the state historic preservation officer. 

 Because the lighthouse and surrounding buildings 

 are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, 

 Tise is responsible for seeing that they are pre- 

 served. 



Tise does not endorse the Coast Guard proposal to 

 protect the lighthouse but abandon the surrounding 

 buildings. He also is skeptical of the proposal to move 

 the lighthouse and buildings because that would 

 destroy the historic setting and the possibility of 

 archaeological excavations in the future. 



Park superintendent Preston Riddel in front of 

 keeper's quarters and lighthouse. 



