ever been granted since the no-bulkheading law 

 went into effect," says Robin Smith, assistant at- 

 torney general with the N.C. Attorney General's 

 office. 



Rogers says the Fort Fisher case presents the 

 extreme of both sides of an erosion issue. 



Historians argue that the fort's cultural value far 

 outweighs the value of maintaining adjacent 

 beaches. But on the other extreme, conservation- 

 ists say that granting a variance could set a 

 precedent and lead to more hardening of the 

 state's shoreline. 



But most of the other erosion control methods 

 just won't work at Fort Fisher, Rogers says. 



There are typically six options for dealing with 

 erosion, he says. 



1. Don't locate a structure in high-erosion 

 areas. But it's too late for that option since the fort 

 is already in place. 



2. Move it. That's been proposed to save the 

 famed Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. Moving the 

 lighthouse is a viable option, but moving an 

 earthworks fort is not. 



3. Install sand traps, such as groins or break- 

 waters. But they are typically too expensive and 

 don't provide protection from major storms. 



The Atlantic Ocean is 

 relentlessly bombarding 

 the historic fort. And with 

 every wave, history is 

 washing away. 



4. Nourish the beach. But at Fort Fisher, the 

 erosion rate averages 10 feet per year. Tom Jar- 

 rett, with the Corps of Engineers, estimates 

 beach nourishment would cost $23 million more 

 than the revetment. 



5. Take no action, and let the sea claim it— 

 obviously not an option favored by historians. 



6. Harden the shoreline. 



The issue of hardening the shoreline often 

 revolves around the adjacent beaches. 



Fort Fisher is located at the end of a developed 

 stretch of Kure Beach and just before several 

 miles of state-owned beach. 



If a revetment were installed, it would probably 

 result in a slight increase in the erosion rate for 

 the beach south of Fort Fisher, Rogers says. 



This rubble is all that stands between the ocean 

 and the fort. 



But it wouldn't be a big loss, he adds, because 

 there's so much public beach available. And, Fort 

 Fisher is not a safe place for swimmers anyway. 

 Rip currents occur there frequently. 



In the end, "It's a matter of weighing the trade- 

 offs and consequences," Rogers says. "What is 

 the least wrong answer? 



"The question then becomes, 'Is the historic 

 value of the fort worth the reduction of the beach 

 in front of the fort and a slight increase in erosion 

 farther south?' " Rogers says. "The clear choices 

 are either preserve the fort and lose a small 

 amount of beach or preserve the beach and lose 

 the fort." 



The proposed revetment isn't the first attempt 

 to save Fort Fisher. 



Concrete and brick rubble from the demolition 

 of a nearby industrial plant was placed along 

 portions of the shoreline. And in the early 70s, a 

 small revetment was constructed along most of 

 the rest of the shoreline. 



But that structure gradually failed and has set- 

 tled onto the beach. 



Now the state is under the gun to make a deci- 

 sion about the $7 million revetment. The state 

 must pay for half of the project. And Corps proj- 

 ects are deauthorized if no federal money is 

 spent within 10 years of approval of the project. 



Jarrett says the Fort Fisher project must be 

 under way by 1992 or the review and approval 

 process must begin again. That costly process 

 could take as long as 10 to 15 years. 



And time is not on Fort Fisher's side, Gehrig 

 Spencer says. The historic fort can't hold out 

 much longer. Soon it may be in the hands of the 

 enemy. 



