EM 1110-2-1100 (Part V)
31 Jul 2003
Table V-3-11
Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, Shore Protection History
Year
Action Taken
1930s
Civilian Conservation Corps builds sand dune system along Hatteras Island
Beach Nourishment 239,000 m3 (312,000 cu yd) of sand placed along Buxton Motel area north of lighthouse
1966
1967
Sandbags placed along 340 m of shoreline to protect former Navy Facility north of lighthouse
1970
Navy constructs three concrete & steel groins
Beach Nourishment 150,000 m3 (200,000 cu yd) of sand placed along Buxton Motel area north of lighthouse
1971
Beach Nourishment 960,000 m3 (1,250,000 cu yd) of sand placed along Buxton Motel area north of lighthouse
1973
1974
Repairs made to northern & southern Navy groins
1980
Emergency Repairs 50 m landward extension of south groin
1981
Riprap and sandbags placed beyond landward extension of south groin
1982
Additional 50 m landward extension of south groin. Seven hundred sandbags placed around the base of the
lighthouse
1983
Riprap scour apron placed along landward end of south groin
1992
Additional sandbags placed around base of lighthouse
1994
Additional sandbags placed around base of lighthouse
1995
Rehabilitation of landward end of south groin with 56 m of steel sheetpiling
Also contributing to the controversy was a NPS committee study in 1992 to make recommendations
for interim measures, as required, to ensure that the lighthouse remain protected, until the retreat
solution could be implemented. An intermediate measure (15 - 25-year design life) was selected to
add a fourth groin south of the existing groin field. The NPS employed the Wilmington District to
make this design (USAED, Wilmington, 1996). Opponents to the move cited the costs for the fourth
groin alternative (.5 million) in the USACE study when objecting to the retreat alternative costs
(estimated as million). A complete economic analysis using a 100-year design life to determine
life-cycle costs of a groin field with terminal groin versus the retreat alternative has never been made
by the USACE.
The National Academy of Sciences study and report (National Research Council 1988) reveals the
following NPS policies that dictated the choice of the retreat alternative.
- Historic preservation is more important than a do nothing or "let nature take its course" policy.
- The NPS does not have to follow a benefit/cost analysis procedure with benefits exceeding costs
regarding the choice of alternative for shore protection.
- The NPS policy for coastal shorelines is to not interfere with natural, coastal processes. This
policy eliminated all structural options as discussed in Chapter 5 of the NRC 1988 report and
made their analysis superficial and irrelevant. The retreat option was the only alternative given
consideration.
Shore Protection Projects
V-3-85
Previous Page
