|
|
|
 Cape Hatteras lighthouse. The entire width of the Outer Banks can be seen in this photo |
Hatteras Lighthouse Coming to a town near you! by Mike Arendt MAKING WAVES, March 1998 |
|
Anybody who has ever traveled south along Highway 12 on the Outer Banks of North Carolina can appreciate the emotional response that the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse elicits. The Cape Hatteras Lighthouse provides terrestrial travelers of today with the same sense of hope and re-assurance that it provided mariners of long ago. Activated in 1870 as the second Hatteras Lighthouse, the 208 foot tall structure was designed to warn passing ships of the dangerous shoals and subsequent currents just offshore. It's functional necessity all but gone, the lighthouse has come to symbolize history and recreation along North Carolina beaches. And like the waves that focus their energy on this tiny point of land, so do the masses of people that migrate to the lighthouse each year. These people come for the historical significance; to tour the diverse ecosystem of the park; and to surf, fish, or to lay out and get tan under the omnipresence of the towering lighthouse so close to the sea. But the very appeal of the lighthouse is in jeopardy because of rising sea level and subsequent island migration; and the one aspect of constancy on this dynamic shoreline, that the lighthouse will always be visible just onshore from the breaking surf, is a constant no longer. When the second Cape Hatteras Lighthouse was built in 1870, the shoreline was 1500 feet to the east. By 1935, the shoreline had advanced to within 100 feet of the base of the lighthouse. Since this time, many attempts have been made to contain the migrating shoreline and hold it in place. Protective measures used in various erosion control projects included construction of an artificial duneline and steel sheet pile installation along the shoreline in the 1930's; multiple sand replenishment projects in the late 1960's and early 1970's; construction of a groinfield in 1969 to trap the littoral drift of sand between the groins; and physically trying to hold the beach in place with combinations of artificial seagrass, rip-rap boulders, and sand bag revetments in the 1980's and 1990's. Human engineering and intervention with short- and intermediate-term measures has been able to buy some time for the lighthouse, but time is not as critical as distance. Conditions at the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse are rapidly approaching the all time low recorded in 1935. In January 1997, the base of the lighthouse stood just 120 feet from the shoreline. Man can not keep the ocean from progressing landward. If the distance between the lighthouse and the ocean is to be increased in the future, the lighthouse must be relocated. This recommendation is not new! In July 1987, a diverse group of scientists, historians, and other professionals from the National Academy of Sciences/National Resource Council (NAS/NRC) met to discuss and evaluate the options and policy implications for saving the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse from falling into the sea. The committee used four criteria (engineering design; natural processes affecting shoreline position; historic value of the lighthouse; legal ramifications) to evaluate the relocation alternative and nine other alternatives for a permanent solution for saving the lighthouse. Only the relocation alternative adequately satisfied all of the criteria. If the lighthouse is not moved it will topple when it's foundation is compromised. The foundation of the lighthouse (which sits just eight feet underground) consists of a crossed array of yellow pine timber submersed in a pool of freshwater. If seawater were permitted to interact with the freshwater lens the foundation of the lighthouse would be exposed to the elements and subject to dry-rotting, resulting in the collapse of the lighthouse. At the time of the recommendation, the freshwater lens was only two feet above mean sea level. Relocation of the lighthouse also provides the maximum compliance with National Park Service (NPS) regulations to protect and preserve items of historical and cultural value without disturbing the natural processes of the area (island migration) and the Coastal Area Management Act which prohibits the use of hardened shoreline stabilization efforts. Relocation of the lighthouse also restores the lighthouse to it's historic position relative to the sea. The National Park Service has endorsed the relocation option as it's preferred option since 1989. In the years since the NAS/NRC study, three studies have examined the environmental conditions in the park and have concluded that the threat of seawater reaching the foundation is increasing as the shoreline recedes and the strength of coastal storms increases. So why hasn't the lighthouse been moved yet? Even when all the evidence points to an irrefutable conclusion, some people refuse to abandon their personal convictions about what would constitute the best way to permanently save the lighthouse. As a result, discussions on the subject have been numerous but until recently action had been limited. After the release of the most recent study by an Ad Hoc Committee from North Carolina State University in January 1997, State Senate Pro Tem Marc Basnight held a joint public hearing (with the NPS) in Buxton, NC, to discuss the two options on the table: Relocating the lighthouse immediately or constructing a temporary fourth groin until funding for relocation could become available. Given that the fourth groin option had been rejected by the NC Coastal Commission a year earlier, given the 1997 Ad Hoc study which re-affirmed the urgency in relocating the lighthouse, and given the outcome of the public hearing, the decision was made to diligently pursue funding for relocating the lighthouse in May 1999. Senator Basnight met with federal level leaders from North Carolina and President Clinton in the months following the public hearing. As a result of these meetings and ensuing efforts by these leaders, $2 million has been approved for FY 1998 and the remaining $10.5 million needed for relocation is included in President Clinton's budget request for FY 1999 and awaits congressional approval in the early part of the year. Until the money is in hand, the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse is far from being rescued. The recent decision of the Dare County (NC) Board of Commissioners to oppose the relocation and push for re-consideration of the fourth groin as a viable option for saving the lighthouse highlights the need for a heavy dose of support (and re-affirmation of support) for the relocation alternative to be administered to the elected officials who will ultimately decide the fate of the lighthouse. The fourth groin is not intended as a permanent solution because it can not adequately safeguard the lighthouse from the rising sea level and increasing storm intensity which pose the greatest threat to the lighthouse. The fourth groin will facilitate greater and longer-term damage to the habitat of the nearshore zone, whereas the relocation option is characterized by minor, short-term, and revocable disturbance of habitat. The fourth groin option has already been rejected on legal grounds. Furthermore, the concept of this option was only suggested as a temporary option until the funding could become available. Significant progress has been made to acquire the needed funding. Proponents of the fourth groin option can be classified as one of three types: Property owners who equate relocation with eventual relocation of their own assets; Citizens who fret that the lighthouse will topple during the relocation effort; and some members of the surfing community who equate the fourth groin with an enhanced surfing experience. The property owners are correct in their assumptions; however, loss of their property will merely result later as opposed to sooner if the groin is built. What a great misfortune it would be to lose a public treasure to selfish interest that in the end amounted to little more than a few extra years of personal gain. To those who fear the destruction of the lighthouse during the relocation, I can only tell you that the technology does exist to perform this enormous task and that the engineers feel confident that it can be done successfully. To the surfing community I offer the following insight. First and foremost, Surfrider Foundation is an environmental group and therefore should be opposed to the fourth groin option. Constructing the fourth groin may or may not result in better waves depending on how effective it is in trapping sand. There are a lot of great spots to surf on Hatteras Island that are true beachbreaks and lack man-made interference. A fourth groin might provide two new peaks, but is it really worth the environmental cost, especially considering that the Outer Banks is rich in good surf to begin with? The much anticipated swell of political support has arrived, but the power of the swell is weakened with actions like the recent Dare County Commissioner's decision. Do not sit idle while the fate of something you care about is decided. Democracy is working for the groin proponents. We need to make it work for us, too. Please write (Honorable ___; House of Representatives/U.S. Senate; Washington, DC; 20515/20510) or call [(202)225-3121 House; (202)224-3121 Senate] your U.S. Senators and Representatives to let them know that you don't want to see a fourth groin in Buxton, NC. Encourage them to support the funding request for the relocation alternative included in the President's budget and explain to them that this is the only viable option. |
Next Article: 1998 International Year of the Ocean
MAKING WAVES table of contents
 |
Surfrider Foundation USA: 122 S. El Camino Real #67 San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 492-8170 fax (949) 492-8142 
|
Email addresses: Membership: jwright@surfrider.org Chapter Issues: emazzarella@surfrider.org Legal Issues: mkremer@surfrider.org Website Staff: mbabski@surfrider.org Catalog/Online Store: scantu@surfrider.org Other: info@surfrider.org |
Copyright © 2000 Surfrider Foundation
All rights reserved