National Park Service A 

Tom & Lucy Gilgo House

Portsmouth Village

Cape Lookout National Seashore

Historic Structure Report

December 2015

for

Cape Lookout National Seashore Southeast Region, National Park Service

by

JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN–ARCHITECT, P.A. 

539 N. Trade Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 

www.jkoa.net | office@jkoa.net | (336)721-1711
A Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR
National Park Service A 

Tom & Lucy Gilgo House

Portsmouth Village

Cape Lookout National Seashore

Historic Structure Report

December 2015

for

Cape Lookout National Seashore Southeast Region, National Park Service

by

JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN–ARCHITECT, P.A. 539 N. Trade Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 

www.jkoa.net | office@jkoa.net | (336)721-1711
A Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR

The historic structure report presented here exists in 

two formats. A traditional, printed version is available 

for study at the park, at the Southeast Regional 

Office of the NPS (SERO), and at a variety of other 

repositories. For more widespread access, the historic 

structure report also exists in digital format through 

the IRMA Portal, Integrated Resource Management 

Applications, including the NPS Data Store, accessed 

at <https://irma.nps.gov/App/Reference/Welcome>, a 

website of the National Park Service.

Cultural Resources, Partnerships, 

 and Science Division

Southeast Region

National Park Service

100 Alabama St. SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

(404) 507-5847

2015

Historic Structure Report

Tom Gilgo House

Portsmouth Village

Cape Lookout National Seashore (CALO)

Tom and Lucy Gilgo House

LCS#: 012521

CALO ID#: 512

Cover image: Joseph K. Oppermann, 2013
Tom and Lucy Gilgo House 

Portsmouth Village 

Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Historic Structure Report 

2015 

Approved by: 

Date 

Recommended by: 

~:;)J 

Chief, Cultur 

4j2~Llb 

Date 

Recommended by: 

Deputy Regional Director, Southeast Region Date 

Approved by: 
A Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR
National Park Service A 

We are pleased to make available this Historic Structures Report, part of our ongoing effort to provide 

comprehensive documentation for the historic structures and cultural landscapes of National Park Service 

units in the Southeast Region. A number of individuals contributed to the successful completion of this 

work, but we would particularly like to thank the Project Team who authored the report. 

The authors would like to thank the staff at Cape Lookout National Seashore who assisted with the project, 

especially Patrick Kenney, Superintendant, and Jeri L. DeYoung, Chief of Resource Management, who 

provided helpful comments. Dr. Ali Miri, historical architect with the National Park Service’s Southeast 

Regional Office, also provided helpful comments as part of his technical review and project oversight. The 

authors extend special appreciation to the Friends of Portsmouth Island and the many volunteers and 

descendants who readily provided information and interviews. We hope that this study will prove valuable 

to park management in ongoing efforts to preserve the Gilgo House and other Portsmouth buildings, and 

to everyone in understanding and interpreting these unique resources.

Dan Scheidt, Chief

Cultural Resources, Partnerships, and Science Division

Southeast Regional Office

2015

Foreword
A Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR
National Park Service A 

Table of Contents

Project Team .................................................................................................................................................. iii

Management Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1

Administrative Data ..................................................................................................................................... 8

Part I - Developmental History

A. Historical Background and Context .................................................................................................. 11

B. Chronology of Development and Use .............................................................................................. 23

 Timeline ................................................................................................................................................. 35

C. Physical Description ............................................................................................................................ 39

General Description .............................................................................................................. 39

Locale ................................................................................................................ 39

The Architecture .............................................................................................. 41

Construction Characteristics ................................................................................................ 42

Structural Systems ............................................................................................ 42

Exterior Features .............................................................................................. 47

Interior Features ............................................................................................... 49

Room-by-Room Descriptions .............................................................................................. 49

Character-Defining Features ................................................................................................ 49

Summary of Concerns ........................................................................................................... 59

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................. 61

Part II - Treatment & Use

A. Ultimate Treatment & Use .................................................................................................................. 65

B. Requirements for Treatment ............................................................................................................... 69

C. Alternatives for Treatment and Use ................................................................................................... 73

D. Recommendations for Treatment and Use ....................................................................................... 75

Appendix

Documentation Drawings: 

 Floor Plan

 North and South Elevations

 East Elevation

 West Elevation

National Park Service i 
Aii Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR
National Park Service A 

Project Team

National Park Service – Southeast Regional Office

 Laurie Chestnut, Contracting Officer

 Dr. Ali Miri, Historical Architect and Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative

National Park Service – Cape Lookout National Seashore

 Patrick Kenney, Superintendent

 Jeri L. DeYoung, Chief of Resource Management

Joseph K. Oppermann–Architect, P.A. (JKOA)

 Joseph K. Oppermann, FAIA, Historical Architect

 Langdon E. Oppermann, Architectural Historian

 Rebecca L. McCormick, AIA

 Christopher M. Woollard, Associate AIA

National Park Service iii 
Aiv Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

National Park Service 1

The purpose of this report is to document the 

development, use, and current condition of the 

Tom and Lucy Gilgo House in the Portsmouth 

Village Historic District at Cape Lookout 

National Seashore. The National Park Service 

(NPS) will use this report to inform and guide its 

stewardship of this historic structure. 

The present study first provides historical 

background and context for Portsmouth Village 

based on a series of studies, interviews, and 

reports developed by NPS since the 1970s. 

Portsmouth’s history has been well documented; 

this Historic Structure Report includes no 

additional archival research on the larger 

community, but does include substantial research 

and historical documentation on the house and 

its considerable changes over the years.

Determination of the physical evolution of the 

house is based primarily on NPS photographs 

and family history combined with building 

investigation and dating of building fabric, a 

process sometimes called “building archaeology.” 

The house is a mix of new and early materials.

The report is divided into two major segments, 

Part I: Developmental History and Part II: 

Treatment & Use. Part I is organized into three 

sections that address in sequence the historical 

background and context of Portsmouth; a 

chronology of development and use of the house 

specifically, including a timeline; and a physical 

description of the house’s exterior and interior 

on a room-by-room basis. This last section 

includes an assessment of condition and a listing 

of character-defining features. A bibliography 

concludes Part I.

Part II presents the recommended “ultimate 

treatment and use,” and also examines 

alternatives for treatment and use as well as 

requirements that guide the house’s treatment 

and use. A bibliography follows. 

Management Summary

The Appendix contains scaled drawings of the 

existing building, including floor plan, exterior 

elevations, and selected details.

Historical Overview

Established in 1753 by an act of the colonial 

legislature of North Carolina, Portsmouth is 

located on the south side of Ocracoke Inlet, which 

was the principal access into Pamlico Sound and 

North Carolina’s seaports until a storm opened 

competing Hatteras Inlet in 1846. The community 

flourished in the late eighteenth century and by 

1800 was the largest on the Outer Banks with 

a population between 200 and 250. Because 

Portsmouth was a center of maritime trade, the 

Federal government established a customs house 

there in 1806, a marine hospital in 1827, and a 

post office in 1840. The town reached its peak 

population in 1860 with more than 600 residents.

Evacuated during the Civil War, Portsmouth 

recovered neither its population nor its economic 

vitality, and the customs house was abolished in 

1867. As the inlet shoaled up and the population 

declined, the number of houses in the town 

dwindled as well, falling from 109 in 1860, to 

59 in 1870, and to 44 in 1880. Many buildings 

must have sat abandoned in the late nineteenth 

century, including the marine hospital, which 

burned in 1894. Of those that survived hurricanes 

and the generally harsh environment, most were 

dismantled or relocated as the village slowly 

contracted along with the local economy. After 

1883, the shifting sands of the Outer Banks closed 

Ocracoke Inlet to shipping.

The village got a boost in 1894 when the U. S. 

Life-Saving Service built a station at Portsmouth. 

Over the next four decades, a number of 

Portsmouth residents found employment there. 

Others made a livelihood in commercial fishing or 

catering to the wealthy sportsmen who frequented 

the Outer Banks to hunt and fish.
2 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

The island was regularly inundated by tidal surges 

accompanying tropical storms and hurricanes; 

these often caused more damage than the wind. 

In September 1913, for example, a relatively 

weak hurricane blew across Portsmouth, but 

the accompanying storm surge destroyed both 

the Primitive Baptist and Methodist churches, 

the only buildings of worship on the island. The 

community was still strong enough, however, to 

support construction of a new church.

In 1933, a strong hurricane hit the village with 

sustained winds of 100 mph and torrential rain that 

flooded most of the island and destroyed many 

houses. Many residents moved to the mainland.

In 1937, the Coast Guard Station (former LifeSaving Station) was closed, further diminishing the 

town’s vitality, until by 1940 only 42 permanent 

residents remained, and after another devastating 

hurricane in 1944, the number dwindled further. 

By the 1950s, Portsmouth had only fourteen yearround residents.

Several unused buildings were adapted for use 

by sport fishermen, especially after World War 

II, including the Coast Guard Station, which was 

declared surplus property in 1946 and used as 

a sportsmen’s clubhouse. The post office was 

discontinued in 1959, and by the time the Cape 

Lookout National Seashore was authorized in 

1966, only a handful of permanent residents 

remained.

With the death of the village’s last surviving male 

resident in 1971, the two remaining residents 

moved to the mainland. Portsmouth Village 

became uninhabited, without permanent residents 

for the first time since the eighteenth century. A 

number of buildings continued to be occupied 

seasonally as private residences through an NPS 

lease program that only recently ended. Other 

buildings, such as the Methodist Church and Coast 

Guard Station, are open year-round to the public. 

In all but the coldest months Portsmouth Village is 

a popular destination for day-trippers arriving by 

small boat from Ocracoke.

The House

In 1976, the Cape Lookout National Seashore was 

established. Among the buildings of Portsmouth 

included in the new park is the small one-story 

residence known as the Tom and Lucy Gilgo 

House, named for the young couple who first lived 

there after moving it to the village. 

Originally rectangular in plan, the house consisted 

of two rooms: a small living room and smaller 

bedroom. It was constructed in the mid-1920s 

Figure 1. View of Doctor’s Creek and surrounding vegetation. Tom and Lucy Gilgo House in distance at the left. 

(2013, JKOA)
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

National Park Service 3

at the Coast Guard Station to house enlisted 

personnel who performed rescue operations. 

Soon thereafter and before 1928, it was acquired 

by Tom and Lucy Gilgo. As a newlywed couple, 

they had returned to Portsmouth in late 1925 and 

moved into the crowded home of Tom’s parents 

and two other families. Both Tom and Lucy 

worked at the Coast Guard Station and perhaps 

through associations there arranged to purchase 

the house and move it to its current location. 

Tom, a fisherman, and Lucy, who supplemented 

her income by making clothes for others, raised 

their young children in this small house. After the 

devastating hurricane of 1933, they moved inland 

to Oriental, a mainland community with a more 

robust economy.

The vacated house was sold to Jesse and Gladys 

Bookhardt, a couple not from Portsmouth but who 

had spent summers in the village. They added a 

kitchen wing and used the enlarged residence as a 

vacation house until 1969 when the family sold it to 

the State of North Carolina for eventual transfer to 

NPS.

Statement of Significance

The Portsmouth Historic District was listed in the 

National Register of Historic Places in 1978 for its 

significance to the state’s early maritime history 

and as the only remaining village on Core Banks. 

As the park’s Long-Range Interpretive Plan (2011) 

points out, “the park contains cultural resources 

rich in the maritime history of human-kind’s 

attempt to survive at the edge of the sea.”1

The 1978 National Register nomination identifies 

thirty-one historic structures and sites that 

contribute to the district’s historic character, 

one of which is the Tom and Lucy Gilgo House. 

Unfortunately, several of those structures were 

already in ruins when the nomination was written, 

and others have since been lost to storms and 

decay. No eighteenth-century buildings remain, 

and only a handful of nineteenth-century buildings 

have survived into the twenty-first century.

The nomination identifies no period of 

significance; it was written before these were 

included in nominations. More recently, 

1. NPS,Cape Lookout National Seashore Long-Range 

Interpretive Plan (2011), p.11.

the Cultural Landscape Report (2007) has 

recommended a period of significance ending 

in 1971, when the island lost its last permanent 

residents. The authors of this report agree with that 

recommendation.

The Gilgo House continues to contribute to 

the historic character of Portsmouth. It is 

historically significant for its role in the evolution 

of the community and for its association with the 

Gilgo family, one of the earliest to settle in the 

community.

The house is architecturally significant as an 

example of a building that began as simple 

housing for an enlisted Coast Guard surfman and 

subsequently was moved and adapted as a single 

family residence, then expanded and further 

modified to be a seasonal vacation home.

Methodology

The objectives of this Historic Structure Report 

(HSR), which complies with the guidelines at NPS28 (Cultural Resource Management Guideline), 

are to research and prepare a comprehensive and 

scholarly assessment of the building’s history and 

fabric, to describe its existing physical conditions, 

and to recommend treatment for preservation.

The findings and recommendations made in this 

report rely on the combined research of primary 

and secondary sources, early photographs, oral 

histories, and the physical investigation of extant 

building fabric.

The Scope of Work prescribed by NPS for this 

HSR specifies “limited” historical research 

as defined by Director’s Order #28: Cultural 

Resources Management Guidelines. Nevertheless, 

additional research was necessary for an adequate 

understanding of the context and history of the 

site because documentation associated with the 

house and the people who lived there before Park 

ownership is scarce. Information gathered from 

that period comes from the park’s genealogical 

research, census records, and especially a 

published history of Lucy Gilgo’s recollections. 

The earliest photograph found in park records was 

a 1969 aerial. 

The Scope of Work also specifies “limited” 

physical investigation of the building to determine 
4 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

its evolutionary history. However, given the lean 

archival information, our investigation of the 

building fabric, the “building archaeology,” was 

a large component of the work. Investigations 

involved a close look at architectural features and 

details such as surviving framing materials and 

methods; the relationship of finish treatments; and 

the variety of siding, ghost marks, and nail types. 

Together these research efforts, both documentary 

and physical, provide a dual, coordinated approach 

to determining how the building was used and 

adapted over the progression of its history.

The firm of Joseph K. Oppermann–Architect, 

P.A. (JKOA), prepared this HSR. The team for 

the work was led by Joseph K. Oppermann, 

FAIA, historical architect and principal-incharge; Rebecca L. McCormick, AIA and 

Christopher M. Woollard, Associate AIA, assisting 

architects; and Langdon Edmunds Oppermann, 

architectural historian. The team conducted the 

historical research and building investigation, 

documented the building with photography 

and measured drawings, and authored this 

HSR. This interdisciplinary approach improves 

understanding of the building’s history and 

present conditions, both necessary prerequisites 

for the development of appropriate treatment 

recommendations.

An initial multi-day visit to the site and the 

archives was made in September 2013 with 

follow-up visits in April and October 2014. 

Measurements were compiled using manual 

measuring tape, carpenter ruler, digital cameras, 

and digital recorder, a Leica Disto laser distance 

meter. Photography was completed for the 

building’s exterior and its interior spaces. 

Detailed field drawings were made and used to 

create digitized AutoCAD drawings of floor plan 

and elevations. The initial digitized drawings were 

the base document on which final recordations 

and assessed conditions were made during the 

subsequent return trips.

During these subsequent trips, a standard 

assessment methodology was used for the 

condition survey of each exterior feature and each 

interior room, itemizing features and elements, 

and correlating with research findings. Detail 

photography was conducted. Visual observation 

of surface conditions, supplemented by a 

20-power magnification loupe and Protimeter 

BLD 2000 moisture meter, was the basis for 

assessing the physical condition of building 

materials. In accordance with the NPS Scope 

of Work, no building system components were 

tested, and no invasive methods of investigation 

were employed.

Unique to these field visits was the necessity of 

wearing hooded net suits while on Portsmouth 

Island. Present for most of the year, mosquitoes 

can be so thick at times that the tour boats cease 

operation. It is not uncommon for visitors and work 

crews to don mosquito suits while on the island.

Findings

Little is known about the house as it stood at the 

Coat Guard Station. When moved to the village, 

it was small, rectangular in plan and one story in 

height with a simple gable roof. Along the front 

elevation were two windows and a centered 

doorway. A single window was centrally placed on 

each gable end, and a doorway was centered on the 

back wall opening to a porch. The only two rooms 

were separated by a board wall; the larger room the 

living room, the smaller the bedroom. Both had 

beaded boards at walls and ceiling, painted in the 

living room and unpainted in the bedroom. 

The house apparently remained much the same 

after being acquired as a vacation house. A kitchen 

wing added after the Gilgos moved away appears to 

have been an existing building moved and attached 

to the rear elevation. A small bathroom addition 

was later built anew. By 1983 an Historic American 

Buildings Survey team (HABS) found that “due 

to bad roof problems, structure is not used.” Felt 

roll roofing was installed over the entire house as a 

temporary repair.

By the turn of the twenty-first century, the house 

was in dire condition. As a Portsmouth descendant 

said, the termites left because they were going to 

starve. Despite a 1984 recommendation to allow 

the house to deteriorate to a “discovery site,” NPS 

embarked on a major project to save the building in 

2002. The bathroom addition was removed and the 

house was extensively rebuilt by NPS crews with 

reattachment of salvaged materials. 
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

National Park Service 5

As a result of those repairs, the exterior reflects its 

appearance at mid-twentieth-century when used 

as a summer house with kitchen wing. The interior 

retains portions of early elements, but is missing its 

original dividing wall.

Existing Conditions 

The repaired and rebuilt house remains in good 

condition with a few exceptions. Poor drainage 

is characteristic of most of Portsmouth, in part 

the natural process of decay of vegetation and 

generation of new humus, which creates a bowllike depression beneath buildings. This traps 

water and keeps the area damp for extended 

periods of time, which not only exacerbates 

rotting of wood posts, but also creates conditions 

conducive to termites. This condition does not 

currently exist at the Gilgo House site, due in large 

part to the extensive repairs and replacement of 

foundation piers. However, given the prevalence 

of this condition in Portsmouth, it would be 

wise to watch for signs of its development. The 

majority of the foundation posts remain in good 

condition.

The floor, wall and roof framing of the original 

house and kitchen addition were largely replaced 

in 2002 and remain in good condition. The roof 

framing systems are largely exposed on the interior.

There are two exterior doorways, each with an 

early door in place and without screen door. Both 

doors are in sound condition. The door of the rear 

entrance is fixed in place.

Window sash, many early if not original, are in 

place in all window openings and are in generally 

sound condition. However, the protective exterior 

finish and glazing is failing on most.

The recently installed cedar shingle roofing 

appears to be in good condition with no apparent 

leaks. No shingles appear to be damaged, missing 

or loose. As with most Portsmouth buildings, no 

gutters are present. 

Salvaged remnants of three siding materials from 

multiple installation periods were reinstalled in 

2002, including board-and-batten, weatherboard, 

and wood shingle. New weatherboards and 

board-and-batten siding completed the protective 

Figure 2. Tom and Lucy Gilgo House at left on access road to Henry Pigott House, seen in background. (2013, 

JKOA)
6 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

exterior envelope. Salvaged trim pieces of various 

types were also reinstalled, supplemented by 

matching new pieces. The new elements are in 

good condition in general. The salvaged elements 

are generally sound. None appear to have a 

protective finish.

The front porch was also built new in 2002. A 

porch joist has failed and attached deck boards 

have partially collapsed.

Salvaged materials were reinstalled on interior 

surfaces. New material was not installed in the 

interior to supplement what was missing, except 

for flooring. Therefore, there are gaps in the finish 

materials; framing is exposed in every room and 

the dividing wall of the original house was not 

replaced. Some unused salvaged elements are 

stored in the house, including the door and beaded 

board siding for that dividing wall. 

General Threats

Barrier islands, such as Portsmouth, will be 

especially vulnerable to the effects of climate 

change and sea-level rise, which may negatively 

affect cultural resources on these islands. 

It must be noted that as buildings age, they tend to 

be less able to stand the stress of constant exposure 

to the harsh marine environment. The maintenance 

of a protective exterior paint layer on exterior 

wood elements is difficult but critical. Unpainted 

wooden surfaces are eroded by UV sunlight. 

Termites and wood rot attack and weaken wood 

framing, and blasts of wind-driven sand abrade 

exterior surfaces.

More ominous for the historic structure, the nailed 

connections that hold the house together have 

been compromised by the inevitable oxidation 

of nails and other ferrous materials, a condition 

that may not be readily evident. While wood 

framing that uses mortise-and-tenon joinery, 

such as the nearby Washington Roberts House, 

may withstand high winds and storm surge with 

minor damage, aging balloon or stick frames with 

severely corroded nails are less likely to do so. If 

sea-level rise continues at its present pace, much 

of Portsmouth Island will be inundated, and 

the effects of hurricanes and nor’easters will be 

amplified many times over.

Recommendations for 

Treatment and Use

The Recommended Ultimate Treatment for 

the house is Preservation of the exterior 

in acknowledgement of the house as a 

major feature in the district’s cultural 

landscape, and Preservation of the interior 

in its current unfinished state, ready for 

Rehabilitation for occupancy as a residence, 

if the opportunity presents itself.

General Recommendations for 

Portsmouth Village

• Consult with Janet Cakir PhD, NPS SER 

Climate Change, Socioeconomics, and 

Adaptation Coordinator to guide management 

policies.

• Use results from the climate change study 

“Identify Cultural Resources Sites Aff ected 

by Sea-Level Rise at Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore” to guide management policies. This 

study is also applicable to Portsmouth Island.

• Prepare or update a Topographic Survey for 

the site.

• Prepare a Log of Flood Occurrences. Record 

at a minimum the dates of occurrences and 

approximate extent and severity (e.g. depth at 

specifi c locations). Correlate recordings with 

Topographic Survey. Maintain data so that 

they can be correlated with conditions such as 

tide, moon phase, etc.

• Evaluate site for fl ood avoidance potential 

including the introduction of dams and/or 

swales to divert or direct fl ooding waters.

• Evaluate each building, structure, and 

signifi cant site feature for fl ood avoidance 

potential and/or enhancement potential for 

better withstanding the projected threatening 

events.

• Identify critical services (fresh water supply, 

waste disposal, energy sources, etc.), evaluate 

options, and develop a contingency plan for 

each. 

• Strive to maintain for all buildings a sound 

structural system and a weather-tight exterior 

envelope, especially the roof.

• Use maintenance activities as opportunities 

to enhance the resistive capacities of the 

buildings and structures whenever feasible.

• Prepare minimum level of record 

documentation (overall view photographs 
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

National Park Service 7

and text descriptions) for all undocumented 

cultural resources in the community that are at 

risk; prepare more extensive documentation 

(including scaled record drawings with 

descriptions) for the more signifi cant 

resources at risk.

House Site

Recommendations for House Site

• Keep lawn grasses mowed and regularly remove 

volunteer plants and shrubs close to the house.

• Observe drainage patterns of the site during 

periods of signifi cant rainfall and fl ooding; 

determine the feasibility of creating shallow 

swales to promote drainage away from building.

• Monitor conditions beneath the house; be 

prepared to add fi ll to depressions should they 

begin to form.

• Conduct rigorous inspections for termite 

infestation and treat accordingly.

• Secure clearance from an archaeologist before 

commencing work that might require ground 

disturbance.

House Exterior

Recommendations for Foundation Posts

• Keep vegetation closely trimmed near 

foundation posts.

• Investigate condition of foundation posts on a 

regular basis.

• Replace foundation posts in-kind as they fail.

• Install termite shields wherever possible.

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.

Recommendations for Floor, Wall and Roof Framing

• Conduct regular inspections for the presence 

of wood-damaging plants and insects; treat 

accordingly.

• Conduct routine inspections, some preferably 

during rainstorms, to inspect for evidence of 

water intrusion and instances of damage. 

• Periodically review for evidence of defl ection 

across planes of framing, framing members out 

of square or plumb, or heightened vibration in 

framing members. 

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.

Recommendations for Doors and Entrances

• Ensure all hardware remains operable. Apply 

lubricant on a regular basis.

• Reconstruct step to ground at side stairs.

• Maintain sound paint fi nish at all exposed 

surfaces.

• Monitor condition and operation on a regular 

basis.

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.

Recommendations for Windows

• Ensure all sash are in working order, reglaze 

and repaint exterior surfaces.

• Monitor condition and operation on a regular 

basis.

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.

Recommendations for Roofing

• Routinely inspect for missing, damaged or 

loose shingles and repair or replace as needed.

• Routinely inspect for roof leaks, especially at 

valleys and roof ridges. On some occasions 

inspect during rainstorms.

Recommendations for Siding and Trim

• Apply a clear, sheenless wood preservative. 

Monitor and reapply on a regular basis or as 

needed.

• Monitor regularly for open joints, displaced 

or loose elements, or other evidence of 

movement; renail loose pieces.

• Monitor checking, splitting, and instances of 

rot, and plan remedial actions accordingly. 

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.

Recommendations for Front Porch

• Replace in-kind the failed porch deck joist, 

reusing deck boards if sound.

• Regularly inspect for signs of deterioration or 

distress and for evidence of harmful insects 

and plants and treat accordingly.

• Apply a clear, sheenless wood preservative. 

Monitor and reapply on a regular basis or as 

needed.

House Interior

Recommendations for Interior

• Confi rm with NPS personnel involved with 

the 2002 campaign that the door now stored 

loosely in the house is indeed the door of 

the unreconstructed dividing wall. Label 

accordingly with a permanent marking 
8 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

material in an inconspicuous location. 

Place out of harm’s way on top of the ceiling 

joists with other stored salvaged building 

elements.

• Confi rm with NPS personnel involved with the 

2002 campaign that the beaded boards now 

stored on ceiling joists of the original house 

are indeed boards from the unreconstructed 

dividing wall. Label accordingly with 

a permanent marking material in an 

inconspicuous location. Return to storage 

location atop the ceiling joists of the original 

house.

• Remove any loose debris.

• Keep rooms broom-swept of dirt and other 

materials to facilitate inspections.

• Conduct paint and fi nish analyses to 

document the sequence and types of paints 

and fi nishes used on salvaged interior 

surfaces, with special emphases on the Coast 

Guard surfman and Gilgo (early-twentieth 

century Portsmouth) periods, of which little 

is known. 

• Also conduct paint and fi nish analyses to 

document the sequence and types of paints 

and fi nishes used on salvaged features, now 

interior but formerly exterior surfaces (rear 

entrance now enclosed and partially covered 

by the kitchen wing) with special emphases 

on the Coast Guard surfman and Gilgo (earlytwentieth-century Portsmouth) periods, of 

which little is known. 

Remedial Action by Priority

Highest Priority

Remedial actions of highest priority are those that 

address immediate threats to life and safety of 

persons, closely followed by immediate and serious 

threats to the building.

• Replace in-kind broken joist at front porch. 

Repair associated deck boards as needed.

• Repair in-kind damaged steps of side entrance.

High Priority

Remedial actions of high priority are those that 

address conditions that have a high potential for 

serious threat to persons or the building.

• Evaluate option to fi ll gaps in checking of 

exterior boards and trim that are interpreted as 

weathered and without fi nish.

• Apply a clear, sheenless wood preservative 

to the unfi nished exterior wood elements. 

Regularly reapply or on as-needed basis.

• Reglaze and repaint window sash. 

• Repaint exterior doors.

Medium Priority

Remedial actions of medium priority address 

conditions that have a medium potential for serious 

threat to persons or the building.

• Renail loose boards of the box cistern. Replace 

in-kind unsalvageable elements. Apply wood 

preservative as on the house.
ADMINISTRATIVE DATA

National Park Service 9

Administrative Data

Locational Data

Building Name: Tom & Lucy Gilgo House

Location: Portsmouth Village, Cape Lookout National Seashore

County: Carteret County

State: North Carolina

Real Property Information

Acquisition Date: 1976

Numbering Information

CALO ID: 512

LCS ID: 012521

Size Information

Total Floor Area: 366 square feet ±

Roof Area: 600 square feet ±

Number of Stories: 1

Number of Rooms: 3

Number of Bathrooms: 0

Cultural Resource Data

National Register Status: Contributing structure in Portsmouth Village Historic District,

 Listed November 29, 1978. 

Period of Significance: No period of significance included in the National Register nomination; 

 it was written before these were included in nominations. 

 

Proposed Treatment 

Preservation of the exterior and Preservation of the interior in its current unfinished state, ready for Rehabilitation for occupancy.
10 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

Related NPS Studies

 Bemisderfer, Tim and Rene Cote. “Portsmouth Village Storm Damage Assessment 

Report,” November 27, 2012.

 Cape Lookout National Seashore. Master Plan, Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

Harkers Island NC: Cape Lookout National Seashore, 1971.

 Cape Lookout National Seashore. Final Environmental Impact Statement on 

General Management Plan / Development Concept Plan, December 1982.

 Cape Lookout National Seashore, Foundation Document, October 2012.

 Cape Lookout National Seashore, Long-Range Interpretive Plan, June 2011.

 Cape Lookout National Seashore, “Portsmouth Village, Historic Structures 

Management Recommendations,” August 1984.

 Cape Lookout National Seashore. Resources Management Plan and 

Environmental Assessment, 1984.

 Cote, Rene. “Narrative Report on the Findings of Historic Structures 

Examination; Preliminary Test of Historic Structures Survey, Portsmouth Village,” 

1984.

 Denver Service Center. General Management Plan/Development Concept Plan, 

Cape Lookout National Seashore. Finalized 1982, approved 1983.

 Ehrenhard, John E. Cape Lookout National Seashore: Assessment of Archeological 

and Historical Resources. SEAC, NPS, 1976.

 Holland, F. Ross. A Survey History of Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

Department of History, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, NPS, 1968.

 Impact Assessment, Inc. Ethnohistorical Description of the Eight Villages adjoining 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Interpretive Themes of History and Heritage. 

Final Technical Report, Vol. 2. Atlanta: National Park Service Southeast Regional 

Office, November 2005.

 Jones, Tommy. George Dixon House Historic Structure Report. Atlanta: National 

Park Service Southeast Regional Office, 2004. 

 _______ Wash Roberts House Historic Structure Report. Atlanta: National Park 

Service Southeast Regional Office, 2003. 

 _______ Portsmouth Life-Saving Station Historic Structure Report. Atlanta: 

National Park Service Southeast Regional Office, 2006. 

 _______ Ed Styron House Historic Structure Report. Atlanta: National Park Service 

Southeast Regional Office, 2004. 

 Life-Saving Station Logs, excerpted by Tommy Jones, NPS.

 National Park Service. “List of Classified Structures Park/Region Report,” 

March 11, 1987.
ADMINISTRATIVE DATA

National Park Service 11

 National Park Service, Office of Policy. “NPS-28: Cultural Resource 

Management,” June 11, 1998. 

 NPS files including drawings, maps, memos, images and administrative files.

 Olson, Sarah. Historic Resource Study, Portsmouth Village, Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, North Carolina. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service, Denver Service Center, March 1982.

 Olszewski, George J. Historic Resource Study for History of Portsmouth Village, 

typewritten draft for NPS, September 1970.

 VanBeck, Sara L. Cape Lookout National Seashore, Archives and Records 

Management Review. NPS, 2000.

 Whisnant , David E., and Anne Mitchell Whisnant. Cape Lookout National 

Seashore Historic Resource Study, prepared for the Organization of American 

Historians under Cooperative Agreement with the National Park Service, Draft, 

January 14, 2010.

 Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Portsmouth Village, Cultural Resources 

Report. Atlanta: National Park Service Southeast Regional Office, 2007. 
12 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 
PART I.A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

National Park Service 13

 “Just think, Portsmouth in 1815 or 150 years 

ago was the largest seaport in North Carolina 

and now there are just four people who live 

there year around. Oh! what changes have 

come about or taken place in 50 years in my 

lifetime and remembrance. What will happen 

in the next 50 years? God only knows.”

 --Ben B. Salter, 19622

From the early days of the eighteenth century, 

North Carolina was dependent on ocean trade 

2. Letter to editor, Carteret News Times, 1962, printed in 

Ben B. Salter, Portsmouth Island: Short Stories & History, 

1972, p. 47.

with other colonies and with the West Indies and 

Europe, exporting pine products–lumber, tar, 

pitch–and importing foods and manufactured 

goods. But access to its ports was not direct; the 

colony’s coastal geography made shipping difficult. 

With the single exception of Wilmington, North 

Carolina’s ports fronted not the ocean but the 

waters of Pamlico Sound, separated from ocean 

trade by the long stretch of the Outer Banks. 

Several inlets spaced along the Banks allowed 

seagoing traffic to reach mainland ports, but by the 

1730s most of these inlets were unusable as storms 

I.A Historical Background and 

Context

Figure 3. Detail of the 1770 A Compleat Map of North-Carolina from an actual Survey by Capt’n Collet, Governor 

of Fort Johnston. Engraved by I. Bayly, London. The map shows Portsmouth just south of the winding channel 

of the inlet. 
14 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR

closed or shoaled them. Ocracoke Inlet remained 

navigable and was to become the principal ocean 

passage.3

In 1753, the colonial legislature of North Carolina 

established Portsmouth Village on the south side of 

that inlet. The town was a planned community, the 

act specifying “fifty acres of land on Core Banks, 

most convenient to the said harbour, adjoining the 

said Banks, for a town, by the name of Portsmouth, 

into lots of half an acre each, with convenient 

streets, as they may think requisite.”4 John Tolson 

bought the first lot in 1756. Buildings were to be 

substantial; purchasers were required to build a 

frame or brick house or warehouse, specified to be 

not less than twenty feet long by sixteen feet wide.5

Portsmouth quickly became the largest settlement 

on the Outer Banks, and was soon the largest English 

port south of Virginia.6 A 1770 Survey Map shows 

Portsmouth and Ocracoke Inlet with the essential 

outline of its twisting underwater channel (Fig. 3).

Ocracoke Inlet provided the principal access 

for shipping trade. However, the underwater 

geography of the inlet was precarious, with a 

sandbar at the inlet's entrance and a shoal within. 

Because the waters were too shallow for large, 

heavy-laden ships to navigate, cargo was offloaded 

onto lighters, small boats suited to the shallow 

waters of the inlet, and taken to Portsmouth's 

warehouses while the ships passed through the 

inlet.7

This practice, known as lightering, was the reason 

for Portsmouth’s establishment and for its success. 

At Portsmouth were built the warehouses, wharves, 

and boats needed for the lightering business, 

as well as structures for its residents. The town 

was home to the many pilots and crew, mariners, 

3. Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., Portsmouth Village, 

Cultural Resources Report (Atlanta: National Park Service 

Southeast Regional Office, 2007), p. 17.

4. David Stick, The Outer Banks of North Carolina, 1584-

1958 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 

1958), p. 40, quotes the act.

5. Sarah Olson, Historic Resource Study, Portsmouth Village, 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina (Denver, 

Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service, Denver Service Center, March 1982), p. 17, citing 

State Records of North Carolina, Vol. 25, pp. 252-54.

6. Pat Dula Davis and Kathleen Hill Hamilton, eds., 

The Heritage of Carteret County North Carolina, Vol. 1

(Beaufort, NC: Carteret Historical Research Association, 

1982), p. 63.

7. Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., Portsmouth Village, 

Cultural Resources Report, p. 17. 

channel markers and boat builders. Related 

businesses developed, in addition to those needed 

to support a growing population. Five years after 

Collet, Henry Mouzon’s 1775 map of the two 

Carolinas shows Portsmouth as a developed town 

with buildings delineated. The inlet is marked as a 

ship passage (Fig. 4).

Census data give a picture of the village, although 

the listings for Portsmouth are not precise and 

Figure 4. A portion of Henry Mouzon’s 1775 An 

Accurate Map of North and South Carolina, showing 

the lower part of the Outer Banks with Portsmouth 

on the south side of Ocracoke Inlet. Ships are shown 

passing through the inlet at Portsmouth. (North 

Carolina Collection, Wilson Library, UNC-Chapel Hill) 

Figure 5. Nautical chart of 1806 shows the inlet's 

bar and shoals in detail. Skilled local pilots were 

required to navigate the channel, which changed 

with tides, time, and storms. “Ocracock [sic] Bar 

including Shell Castle,” A Chart of the coast of North 

Carolina between Cape Hatteras and Cape Fear from 

a Survey Taken in the Year 1806, Thomas Coles and 

Jonathan Price.
PART I.A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

National Park Service 15

result in differing interpretations. Nevertheless, the 

figures show the healthy growth of the settlement 

and the importance of slaves to the enterprise. The 

white population in 1800 was 165; slaves numbered 

98. The total of 25 families gives an indication of 

the number of houses in the village. By 1810 the 

white population had increased to 226, the slave 

population to 121. 

As expected, the census reveals that over eighty 

percent of workers engaged in some aspect of 

maritime activity.8

 Portsmouth’s life depended on 

the inlet; residents made their living from trade 

through the passage, working as pilots, lighter 

captains, mariners, ship owners. Some were 

customs agents who sailed out to collect duties. 

Others had occupations necessary to support the 

town: teachers, merchants, doctors, and fisherman. 

Supporting all were the slaves, whose labor kept 

the enterprise a success. Slaves were involved 

in most activities of the village. They loaded and 

unloaded cargo, but also operated a dolphin fishery 

and served the critical roles of pilots, who manned 

all types of vessels.9 David Cecelski reports, "At 

Portsmouth Island, slave crews piloted vessels 

through Ocracoke inlet, lightered their cargoes, and 

then guided them to distant seaports of the other 

side of Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds."10

Portsmouth continued to grow, with almost 400 

people by 1830. Two years earlier, Currituck Inlet 

farther north had closed, leaving all shipping 

dependent on Portsmouth’s help at Ocracoke Inlet. 

The community was robust; more than 1,400 vessels 

passed through the inlet in 1836-37.11 Recognizing 

Portsmouth’s importance to commerce, the federal 

government established a customs house there in 

1806, and in 1827 provided for a marine hospital. A 

U.S. post office was established in 1840, and in 1842, 

Congress appropriated funds to buy land and build 

a new marine hospital, which when completed was 

the largest structure ever built in Portsmouth.12

8. Olson, Portsmouth HRS, p. 68. 

9. David E. Whisnant and Anne Mitchell Whisnant, 

Cape Lookout National Seashore Historic Resource Study

(prepared for the Organization of American Historians 

under Cooperative Agreement with the National Park 

Service, Draft, January 14, 2010), pp. 121, 137-138.

10. David Cecelski, The Waterman’s Song: Slavery and 

Freedom in Maritime North Carolina (Chapel Hill: University 

of North Carolina Press, 2001), p. xiii.

11. Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., Portsmouth 

Village, Cultural Resources Report, p. 24, cites Stick, The 

Outer Banks, p. 306.

12. Tommy Jones, Portsmouth Life-Saving Station Historic 

Structure Report (Atlanta: National Park Service Southeast 

Portsmouth is considered today remote and isolated, 

but in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth 

centuries it was a bustling commercial center with 

direct contact with European and Atlantic trade 

and culture, far less isolated than most of North 

Carolina.13 In 1842 the U.S. House Committee on 

Commerce stated, “Ocracoke Inlet is the outlet for 

all commerce of the state of North Carolina, from 

the ports of Newbern [sic], Washington, Plymouth, 

Edenton, and Elizabeth City...more than two thirds 

of the exports of the State of North Carolina pass 

out to sea at this point.”14 

An event four years later would change the shipping 

industry in North Carolina. In 1846, a hurricane 

created an inlet at Hatteras, about twenty miles 

north of the Ocracoke Inlet. This was the undoing 

of Portsmouth. Where Ocracoke Inlet was tricky 

and required lightering, the new Hatteras Inlet 

was deep and navigable. By 1850, Portsmouth’s 

population reached 463—Hatteras had grown to 

661.

Portsmouth depended on its lightering and piloting 

jobs. The 1850 census recorded 27 pilots, 37 

mariners, 7 boat men, 3 fishermen, 5 merchants, 

4 carpenters, 2 farmers, and a teacher with 77 

students.

Portsmouth, with its facilities well established, 

grew in the next ten years to more than 600 and the 

census reported 109 dwellings. This was its peak, 

not only in population but in importance.

The growth of railroads also affected trade, not only 

at Portsmouth but on the ports facing the sound, as 

they strengthened easier north-south travel to the 

port of Wilmington over the east-west trade to the 

sound.15

Portsmouth was still operating as a lightering port 

in 1860 when, during Edmund Ruffin’s visit, he 

explained,

The village of Portsmouth owes its existence 

to the fact of its adjoining the nearest water of 

Pamlico sound, where vessels must anchor and 

wait for fair winds and tides to cross the shallow 

and dangerous bar of Ocracoke inlet—and 

Regional Office, 2006), p. 17.

13. Whisnant, Cape Lookout National Seashore Historic 

Resource Study, pp. 81-82.

14. Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., Portsmouth 

Village, Cultural Resources Report, p. 25, cites Stick, Outer 

Banks, pp. 87-88.

15. William S. Powell, North Carolina through Four 

Centuries (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 

1989), pp. 261-63.
16 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR

after passing outward, as usual but partly laden, 

to wait to receive the remainder of the cargo, 

carried across the bar by lighters.16 

Ruffin also described the village:

The occupations of the whole resident 

population of Portsmouth are connected with 

the vessels which have to wait here. Pilots, 

and sailors, or owners of vessels, make up the 

greater number of the heads of families and 

adult mails—and the remainder are the few, 

who as shopkeepers, &tc, are necessary to 

minister to the wants of the others.17

Ruffin’s description then became a forecast:

If Ocracoke inlet should be closed by sand 

(which is no improbable event) the village 

of Portsmouth would disappear—or (like 

Nagshead) [sic] remain only for its other use, as 

a summer retreat for transient visitors, sought 

for health and sea-bathing.18

Ruffin’s forecast was timely. The shoals of 

Ocracoke Inlet were spreading into the inlet, no 

longer the easiest access to mainland ports. The 

steady withdrawal of shipping traffic continued and 

Portsmouth lost its strategic importance. Hatteras 

with its favored inlet surpassed Portsmouth.19

The Civil War brought changes to Portsmouth as 

it did throughout the South. Residents fled for the 

mainland as the Union Army advanced down the 

Outer Banks. Many chose not to return; among 

the former slaves and free blacks, only one family 

returned to the island. After the war, the town’s 

decline spiraled. By 1870, the number of houses 

fell from 109 to only 59, and then to 44 in 1880. 

By 1883, the inlet was no longer navigable for 

lightering. Many more left, or turned to fishing as 

occupation.

Other means of livelihood sustained the village. In 

1894 the U.S. established a Life-Saving Station in 

16. Edmund Ruffin, Agricultural, Geological, and 

Descriptive Sketches of Lower North Carolina, and the 

Similar Adjacent Lands. (Raleigh: Printed at the Institution 

for the Deaf & Dumb & the Blind, 1861).

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Impact Assessment, Inc. Ethnohistorical Description 

of the Eight Villages adjoining Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore and Interpretive Themes of History and Heritage. 

Final Technical Report, Vol. 2 (Atlanta: National Park Service 

Southeast Regional Office, November 2005), pp. 408-410. 

http://www.nps.gov/history/ethnography/research/docs/

caha_ethno_v2.pdf.

Portsmouth that provided jobs for some residents 

as cooks, surfmen, or mechanics. Others worked 

for the several hunting clubs that opened nearby in 

the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 

Wealthy northern sportsmen formed clubs near 

the flocks of water fowl that wintered on the warm 

waters of Pamlico Sound. One was the Pilentary 

Club, built by wealthy New Yorkers about ten 

miles from Portsmouth Village and among seven 

similar gun clubs in Carteret County. Despite its 

isolation, the elegant club was visited by prominent 

figures, including Franklin D. Roosevelt while he 

was Assistant Secretary of the Navy. The clubs 

provided jobs for both men and women as hunting 

guides, cooks, maids and laundresses.

Hurricanes were a constant threat to Portsmouth. 

The “Great Hurricane of August 1899” brought 

winds that reached 140 miles per hour at Hatteras 

Figure 6. Duck hunter with live decoys near 

Portsmouth, December 1915. (CALO Coll. a33)

Figure 7. FDR travelling by oxcart on a visit to the 

Pilentary Club while Assistant Secretary of the Navy. 

(CALO Coll. a55)
PART I.A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

National Park Service 17

before the anemometer blew away, and submerged 

Portsmouth and Ocracoke under ten feet of 

water in some places.20 The storm destroyed a 

Methodist church. Two churches were destroyed 

in a 1913 storm, though the community was still 

strong enough to support construction of a new 

Methodist Church in 1915-16. 

Many left Portsmouth after the devastation of 

another hurricane in 1933. The last general store 

closed its doors. The force of the hurricane 

opened a new inlet through the Core Banks south 

of Portsmouth, creating an island thereafter called 

Portsmouth Island. Until then, as seen on the old 

maps, Portsmouth had been a town at the north 

end of Core Banks, not its own island.21 

Life on the island in the first half of the twentieth 

century was far different from its prosperous and 

bustling earlier years. Older methods of living 

and housekeeping were rarely updated. Cooking 

stoves were fueled with kerosene for decades after 

electricity was common elsewhere. Heat from the 

stoves dictated summer kitchens, outbuildings 

more typical of the nineteenth and early twentieth 

centuries. Refrigeration was not available, either 

from ice or fuel. Instead, small screened houses, 

known as dairy houses or milk houses but more 

akin to a small compartment, were used for shortterm storage, sheltering the food from the sun 

while welcoming ocean breezes. Electricity from 

generators came late to Portsmouth, after World 

War II, and only to a few houses.

Drinking water was not taken for granted. There 

was only one deep freshwater well on the island, 

and that eventually became brackish. Residents 

depended on rainwater collected from roofs into 

cisterns built adjacent to the houses. These were 

carefully designed and regularly cleaned. Special 

preparations were made before hurricanes to 

prevent infiltration of salt water.22

Years later Ada Roberts Styron visited the island 

and recalled aspects of life there. 

20. Tommy Jones, George Dixon House Historic Structure 

Report (Atlanta: National Park Service Southeast Regional 

Office, 2004), p. 10.

21. The inlet later closed, then reopened. Today the sand 

between Portsmouth and the Core Banks is more often 

above water than below.

22. Delores Gaskins interview, April 26, 2014 Homecoming 

(Babb descendant).

"Usually two of our cows would come up 

from the range at night, to nourish their 

penned-up calves and supply us with milk, 

cream and butter. For them we drew 

brackish water from a shallow well. We 

drank rain water from our large juniper 

cistern. There was only one deep well of 

good, fresh drinking water on the island. It 

was on land Up-the-Banks."23 

Essential to the island were provisions from 

Ocracoke across the inlet, and especially from the 

mainland. The mailboat Aleta served multiple 

functions. Officially the ferry to Ocracoke across 

the inlet, it also came out to the inlet to serve 

Portsmouth. In the 1930s, the Aleta made a round 

trip to the mainland every day, leaving Ocracoke 

at 6 am for Atlantic, then leaving the mainland at 

1 pm for a stop at Cedar Island and a second stop 

at Portsmouth. A designated resident took a small 

boat over the shallow waters to meet the mailboat 

and pick up or deliver items. From the Aleta came 

mail, groceries and provisions from general stores 

in Atlantic. It also served as a passenger ferry.

24

In 1937, the Coast Guard's Life-Saving Station 

was closed, further diminishing the town's vitality. 

The population by 1940 dropped to 42 people 

and continued its rapid decline. There were two 

students in the school when it closed in 1943 (Fig 

11). Families still lived on the island, but their older 

children went to school off the island, probably in 

Ocracoke.25 

23. Ada Roberts Styron recalling 1968 visit to Portsmouth, 

Ocracoke Newsletter, February 21, 2011, http://www.

villagecraftsmen.com/news022111.htm.

24. Charles S. Killebrew, Raleigh News & Observer, February 

1, 1948, quoted in "Doctor's Creek Journal," Summer 2015 

newsletter of Friends of Portsmouth Island, p. 11.

25. Lynn Salsi and Frances Eubanks, The Crystal Coast.

(Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2000), p. 90.

Figure 8. The mailboat Aleta. (NPS photo gallery 

website)
18 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR

A year later the Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944 

flooded Portsmouth and caused great damage to 

buildings, causing yet more residents to relocate 

to Ocracoke or to the mainland. Families with 

young children had no choice but to leave.26 The 

Coast Guard reactivated the station during World 

War II, but in 1945 closed the station, taking 

more jobs from the island. The church was next; 

it ended services in 1956. Thereafter, a minister 

26. By 1950 the youngest resident was 28; NPS exhibit at 

Portsmouth Visitor Center (Dixon-Salter House).

from the mainland visited congregants at their 

houses once a month. Finally, the mailboat made 

its last Portsmouth stop in the late 1950s and the 

Portsmouth Post Office closed in 1959. The former 

Life-Saving Station (Coast Guard) was used as a 

lodge by a hunting and fishing club.27

In the 1950s while Portsmouth institutions were 

closing their doors, individuals began buying 

abandoned houses for use as summer cottages, and 

the State of North Carolina began purchasing land 

on Core Banks, including properties in Portsmouth 

Village, for the purpose of preserving the natural 

barrier islands.

When the Cape Lookout National Seashore was 

authorized in 1966, the State of North Carolina 

began acquiring buildings in Portsmouth for 

eventual transfer to the National Park Service. 

Most owners who used the properties seasonally 

sold outright, but the remaining residents were 

granted life estates allowing them to live in their 

houses until their deaths. The state transferred all 

27. Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Portsmouth Village 

Cultural Landscape Report, pp. 43-44.

Figure 9. Carl Dixon taking mail from the mailboat to 

the Post Office by wheelbarrow, ca 1930. (CALO c29, 

Aycock Brown Coll.) 

Figure 10. Only three people on Portsmouth owned 

automobiles, among them Walter Styron's 1929 

Chevy shown in 1931 on a barge at Portsmouth, 

heading for Atlantic on the mainland. (CALO a15, 

Sarah Roberts Styron Coll.)

Figure 11. Teacher Mary Dixon with two of her last 

students. (CALO Coll. b04)
PART I.A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

National Park Service 19

properties to the Park Service in 1976 when the 

National Seashore was established.28 

Although Portsmouth houses continued in 

seasonal use, in 1950 only fourteen residents 

remained, and only four were living year-round on 

the island in 1962. Soon there were three, a man 

and two women, all elderly. By the late 1960s, all 

spent their winters at Ocracoke or on the mainland 

but the majority of the year at Portsmouth.29 In 

1970 the man, Henry Pigott, became ill and moved 

to Ocracoke to live with a friend.30 After his death 

in 1971, the women agreed reluctantly to move to 

Beaufort. Those were the island’s last year-round 

residents. Marian Babb retained a lifetime right to 

her house and continued to return to Portsmouth 

in the summers.31

In the 1970s, the Park Service was juggling life 

estates, special use permits, and a court judgment 

for a 25-year lease.32 It began a successful leasing 

program for several Portsmouth houses. The longterm agreements, generally twenty years, required 

leaseholders to maintain and improve the buildings 

following the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards 

for Rehabilitation" and specific conditions of the 

lease, including a requirement for a compost toilet 

if a flush toilet was not installed.33 A typical rental 

amount was about $5,000 per year.34 Some were 

leased to fishermen and many to families with a 

connection to Portsmouth, who used the houses 

for weekends and summer vacations. The program 

was successful for many years in putting the houses 

to use and helping with their maintenance.35 

NPS Planning Efforts

The first planning document for the park that 

addresses Portsmouth is the 1971 Master Plan, 

compiled from studies carried out from the 1966 

28. George J. Olszewski, "Historic Resource Study for 

History of Portsmouth Village," typewritten draft, 

September 1970, p. 73.

29. Olszewski, "Historic Resource Study,"pp. 70, 72.

30. Rudy and Celestine Carter of Hampton, Virginia, 

interview, April 26, 2014 Homecoming. Pigott was Rudy 

Carter's uncle.

31. Salsi and Eubanks, Crystal Coast, p. 86.

32. Site map, "Special Use Permits," showing categories of 

agreements, June 24, 1976.

33. Ellen Fulcher Cloud interview, April 26, 2014 

Homecoming.

34. For example, the lease of January 3, 1990 made to 

Charles Jackson Gilley and Jacob Eli Fisher, Jr. for the Henry 

Pigott House.

35. Cloud interview, 2014 Homecoming.

authorization of the park to 1970.36 One of the 

studies for the plan was a preliminary Historic 

Resource Study (HRS), produced by NPS historian 

George Olszewski in a 1970 draft "to satisfy the 

research needs specified in the Historical Resource 

Study Proposal CALO-H-1, Historic Resource 

Study, Portsmouth Village." The area's historic 

sites were identified, evaluated, and plotted on an 

historical base map.37 The HRS examined a large 

number of primary documents not previously 

researched, and may be the first academic study of 

the island's history. 

The Study recommended the "theme" that 

should guide the National Seashore's treatment 

of Portsmouth. The village "should be restored 

to accent the cultural and economic life of the 

Bankers. At Portsmouth the story could be 

told of how the people lived, earned their daily 

bread, raised their children and adapted to their 

environment. Economic activity centering around 

Ocracoke Inlet should be emphasized since it 

relates so closely to the life of the Portsmouthers."38

36. Cape Lookout National Seashore, Master Plan, Cape 

Lookout National Seashore (Harkers Island NC: Cape 

Lookout National Seashore, 1971).

37. Olszewski, "Historic Resource Study," p. 1.

38. Ibid., p. 77.

Figure 12. View of the village from the Coast Guard 

tower ca 1928, when wild cattle grazed the island. 

(CALO c19, Aycock Brown Coll.)
20 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR

The 1971 Master Plan repeated earlier informal 

proposals in focusing on the natural environment. 

It introduces historic resources only generally, 

loosely stating an intention to “restore the 

historical scene” at Portsmouth Village.39

The Park Service did address immediate issues 

at Portsmouth. Vegetation had grown up on the 

island since the 1950s when the state of North 

Carolina outlawed free-range grazing on the Outer 

Banks (Fig. 12). In the following years, trees and 

low vegetation took over much of the open land in 

the village when only a tiny and elderly population 

lived on island. In the late 1970s and early 1980s 

after the Seashore was established, NPS began 

clearing the trees and overgrown brush and began 

an as-needed program of repair to buildings.

In response to requirements of the National Parks 

and Recreation Act of 1978, NPS completed a more 

comprehensive General Management Plan (GMP) 

in 1982 (printed in 1983).40 The plan reflects 

additional research on Portsmouth, for which a 

National Register nomination had been completed. 

The plan incorporated historic resources planning 

and introduced interpretive themes for the village, 

39. Master Plan,1971, p. 81.

40. General Management Plan / Development Concept 

Plan, 1982-83

mostly taken from Ross Holland’s 1968 Survey 

History of Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

The GMP was preceded by a draft released in 

August 1978. Work at this time is explained in an 

undated article:

According to its proposed management plan, 

released in August of 1978, the National 

Park Service intends to preserve the exterior 

of the buildings remaining on Portsmouth. 

Work has already started on some of the 

buildings. The Coast Guard Station has been 

reshingled and both the church and the post 

office-general store have been painted. 

The Park Service hopes to provide 

transportation to the island for 150 visitors a 

day. These visitors will receive guided tours 

during the busy season and may go on selfguided tours in the off-season. Also planned 

for the village is a dock, water and sanitation 

facilities, a ranger station, and a maintenance 

area.

According to Portsmouth district ranger 

Kevin Kacer, in The News-Times, a halfmillion dollars has been appropriated by 

Congress for restoration of the buildings over 

the next five years. However, it will be ten 

years before restoration is finished.41

41. Caroline Smith, "Historic Portsmouth,” undated article 

in SHPO files.

Figure 13. Path through the overgrowth to the church. Undated. (CALO Coll. 04847)
PART I.A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

National Park Service 21

The early history of Portsmouth is compelling, and 

is reflected in planning documents as it supersedes 

the more recent history of the town. Economics 

and hurricanes destroyed all eighteenth century 

and all but two nineteenth-century buildings, yet 

the documents do not address an interpretive plan 

for the buildings actually on site. 

In 1982 the park finalized the Historic Resource 

Study on Portsmouth Village, many years in the 

making. The 1970 draft was delayed by the park’s 

work on the 1976 American Bicentennial. When 

picked up again it was revised and updated by three 

other historians before its 1982 publication.42

The park completed a Resources Management 

Plan and Environmental Assessment in 1984 

that more explicitly addresses historic resources. 

This was the first indication of a systematic 

look at cultural resources by the park, mainly 

to comply with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Its emphasis 

is on preventing deterioration; the plan places 

historic resources as the park’s third priority, 

behind recreation and natural resources. 

Recommendations for cultural resources 

management, focus largely on Portsmouth and the 

42. Olson, Portsmouth HRS, preface.

Cape Lookout Light Station (because both were 

listed in the National Register), the park museum, 

archives, and archaeological sites. 43 Portions of 

this plan apparently were written some years earlier 

and state in one place that Portsmouth was not yet 

listed in the National Register, though the listing 

was effective in 1978.44

The Resources Management Plan recommended 

detailed HSRs, necessary to conduct proper 

stabilization as well as management of rampant 

overgrowth around the buildings of the village. At 

that time, work in the village was unprogrammed 

and reactive, without benefit of historic research 

to guide decisions. No interpretive themes were 

proposed in the plan, but the report recommended 

hiring a full-time park historian.45 

In December 1983, NPS staff led by Rene Cote, 

Southeast Region Historical Architect, inspected 

the buildings of Portsmouth and prepared a 

report in January 1984, its purpose “to establish 

areas of priority which can later be systematically 

43. Resources Management Plan and Environmental 

Assessment, (Cape Lookout National Seashore, 1984), 

pp. 8-9, 115-16; the plan includes a chronology of 

archaeological work in the park.

44. Ibid, Archaeological Data Section.

45. Ibid, pp. 162-72, 173-74.

Figure 14. The marsh at Doctor's Creek, looking out to the sound. (JKOA, 2013)
22 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR

programmed into budget proposals.” The report 

first recognizes the inalterable geographical 

conditions of Portsmouth that affect its buildings: 

the limited natural horizontal drainage, the 

aggressive marine environment (wind, salt, sun, 

flooding, humidity), the high water table, and the 

saline soil.46 

The geography of the waterways surrounding the 

island was also noted as a preservation issue, their 

shallow channels limiting the size of boats and 

transport of equipment, materials and crews to 

the buildings. The shoaling that contributed to 

Portsmouth's economic decline was now affecting 

its preservation.

After their inspections, Cote and his team 

addressed factors that could be improved. 

• crews (carpenters, painters, roofers) who 

had conducted repairs and maintenance 

were not adequately qualified;

• crews were using incompatible paints on 

structures, applying oil-based primer coat 

and one latex finish coat;

• water was ponding under and around 

structures, and sand buildup had caused 

some structures to sit below grade, leading to 

moisture deterioration and insect infestation;

• these conditions were causing structural 

settlement, in turn restricting the operation 

of windows and doors for interior 

ventilation.

NPS completed Structure Survey forms in the field 

to assess conditions at Portsmouth’s buildings. 

These are dated 1984 in CALO files, but are more 

likely the field notes that Cote’s team made in 

December 1983 to create the January 1984 report 

cited above. 

A management plan completed in 1990 includes 

brief historical information on Portsmouth. A 1997 

plan addresses interpretive themes, not mentioned 

in the 1984 plan, but a repeat of the “sea” theme 

in the General Management Plan. The focus for 

Portsmouth was its early development associated 

with shipping at Ocracoke Inlet. The plan gave 

some emphasis to the need for in-depth historical 

study of Portsmouth's buildings.47 

46. Rene Cote, “Narrative Report on the Findings of 

Historic Structures Examination; Preliminary Test of Historic 

Structures Survey, Portsmouth Village,” 1984.

47. Resources Management Plan, pp. 31, 42, 50. 

In the early and mid-2000s, four Historic Structure 

Reports (HSRs) were completed by Tommy Jones of 

the NPS Southeast Regional Office. These in-depth 

studies of the physical histories of buildings are 

invaluable to the park's decisions for repair.

The park’s first comprehensive study of Portsmouth 

was not until 2007, when the Cultural Landscape 

Report provided a lengthy history of the island and 

specific recommendations. The CLR endorsed the 

finding of the 1978 National Register nomination 

that Portsmouth was over 200 years old, and "the 

only existing village on the Core Banks south of 

Ocracoke Inlet.” It recommended an extension 

of the period of significance to the 1971 end of 

permanent residency.48

In 2010, David and Anne Whisnant submitted their 

excellent draft Historic Resource Study for CALO, 

which includes a comprehensive history of the 

lands within the park, including Portsmouth, and 

recommendations for interpretation.

The Long-Range Interpretive Plan of 2011 

addresses the difficulties of providing adequate 

sanitary facilities for leasing Portsmouth's buildings 

for residential use. Other daytime, administrative 

uses might be found, since such facilities for nonresidential uses may be feasible. Compost toilets can 

be housed in the village's outbuildings with minimal 

impact on historical fabric.

Hurricanes have continued to flood and damage 

Portsmouth's buildings during NPS ownership. 

During Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, the 

village was flooded by storm tides. The Post Office 

received approximately eight inches of water and 

the Portsmouth School lost some windows. The 

Methodist Church was damaged by the heavy 

winds, loosing roof shingles and developing a 

significant structural tilt.49

Documented changes in climate are projected to 

produce larger and more violent storms. Sea levels 

are rising as predicted, and the dangers affecting 

the buildings of Portsmouth Village are expected 

to increase. Faced with these threats, the National 

Park Service (NPS) recognized the need to record 

the buildings of the village. The impact of sea level 

rise is addressed in the Foundation Document of 

2012. Eight properties are extensively documented 

48. Wiss, Janney, Elstner. and John Milner Associates, Inc., 

Cultural Landscape Report, .

49. NPS press release, "Historic Portsmouth Village 

Methodist Church is Damaged by Hurricane Sandy," 

November 16, 2012.
PART I.A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

National Park Service 23

in HSRs; NPS selected thirteen other building 

complexes to be documented in a new approach to 

create a permanent visual and descriptive record of 

the buildings. The Portsmouth Village Documentation 

Project was completed in August 2015, with thirteen 

stand-alone reports bound in two large volumes.

Portsmouth is celebrated and not forgotten. In 

1992 the first Portsmouth Homecoming was held, 

and has continued to be held in April every other 

year. In 2000, only nine people were living who 

were born on Portsmouth; two of them attended 

the homecoming, including Jesse Lee who was 

reputedly the last baby born on the island.50 

50. Village Craftsman, Ocracoke Newsletter, May 4, 2000.

The 2014 Homecoming was held on April 26. Over 

400 people attended, arriving over several hours 

in small groups as shallow-draft boats made 

the rounds from Ocracoke, Core Banks, and 

Cedar Island. From many states and as far away 

as California, nineteen Portsmouth families 

were represented by their descendants, many 

of whom had spent summers and vacations in 

Portsmouth houses through NPS leases. The 

Homecomings are important to the people 

and beneficial to the village, helping retain an 

attachment to place. Planning for the 2016 

Homecoming is underway.
24 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR

MAP OF PORTSMOUTH VILLAGE

OCRACOKE

INLET

N

Map of Portsmouth Village showing location of the Tom and Lucy Gilgo House. (CALO base map)
National Park Service 25 

The 1894 establishment of a Life-Saving Station 

at Portsmouth gave a boost to the declining 

community, offering employment to several 

islanders not only as rescue crew, known as 

surfmen, but also as cooks, mechanics and other 

support jobs. Some worked there for decades, but 

most for shorter periods or intermittently.51 

The LSS complex was southeast of the village and 

included a variety of support structures, including 

an oil house, privy, stables, boat house and later a 

summer kitchen, among others. The main building 

was large, the island’s largest. On the second floor 

were the crew’s quarters in one large open room, 

though some officers and surfmen lived in simple 

houses on station property.52 The Tom and Lucy 

Gilgo House is one of those surfman’s houses.

Tom and Lucy Gilgo

Thomas Gilgo (ca. 1902-1949) was born into a large 

family who had lived on the island since the early 

1800s. Tom was the son of Sarah J. Gilgo (1875-

1956) and William Thomas Gilgo (1870-1942), 

who was also known as Tom.53 About the time Tom 

was born, the elder Tom Gilgo and his brothers 

Warren and George had a fish scrap and oil factory 

near Davis, south of Portsmouth on Core Sound, 

though it operated for only a few years. The son 

Tom became a fisherman at a young age, but at least 

for a short time was among the cooks employed at 

the LSS.54 

51. Jones, LSS HSR, p. 16.

52. Ibid., p. 19.

53. 1910 census; ancestry.com; Portsmouth online 

genealogy compiled by Karen Duggan http://search.

ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?uidh=000&rank=1&new=1&so=

3&msT=1&gsln=Gilgo&gss=angs-c&MSAV=1&cp=0&cpxt=0&

catBucket=rstp&sbo=t&gsbco=Sweden&gl=34&gst=&ghc=20

&fh=220&pgoff=11&noredir=true.

54. Interview with James Salter in Mabel Murphy Piner, 

Once Upon A Time, Stories of Davis, North Carolina

(Morehead City, NC: Carteret County Historical Society, 

I.B Chronology of Development 

and Use

Figure 15. Tom Gilgo as a student at the Portsmouth 

school, 1916. Former residents identified two boys 

on the back row as Tom. (Core Sound Waterfowl 

Museum, www.downeasttour.com)

Figure 16. Tom Gilgo in 1920 at about age eighteen. 

(Lucy Beacham Gilgo Coll.)
26 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

Lucy Beacham Gilgo (1904-1987) was born and 

grew up on her parents’ farm in Beaufort, south 

of Portsmouth on the mainland. Her father Paul 

Beachum was a farmer, her mother Lizzie a mother 

of ten and a midwife. At a time when few women 

went to college, Lucy left eastern North Carolina 

for Greensboro to attend the North Carolina 

College for Women, where she took instruction 

to become a teacher. Her first job took her to 

Portsmouth, of which she had never heard. She 

arrived there in 1922 after a seven-hour journey on 

the mailboat, then on a shallow skiff to the island. 

There she lived at the LSS, by then the Coast Guard 

Station, with the captain and his two daughters. 

She was eighteen, teaching grades one through 

seven in Portsmouth’s one-room schoolhouse.55

2002), http://www.downeasttour.com/davis/oyster-creekmemories.htm. Jones, LSS HSR, p. 22.

55. James E. White III, School Mom of Portsmouth: 

Memories of Lucy Beacham Gilgo (Trent Woods, NC: Mount 

Truxton Publishing Company, 2011), pp. 6-8. White is the 

grandson of Tom and Lucy Gilgo. The college was later 

named Woman’s College; today it is the University of North 

Carolina at Greensboro.

Lucy and Tom began dating, though after a year she 

left to teach near Edenton. She then moved back 

to her parents’ house and taught near Beaufort. 

Nevertheless, she and Tom Gilgo were married on 

February 7, 1925 when Tom was 23 and Lucy was 

20, and immediately moved to Norfolk where Tom 

had a job at the shipyard.56

The Gilgos returned to Portsmouth late that 

year and lived with Tom’s parents and two other 

families. Lucy Gilgo later remembered, “Four 

families in one house was just too much.”57 As an 

alternative, they acquired a two-room house from 

the Coast Guard complex and moved it to the 

west bank of Doctor’s Creek (see map p. 24). Their 

small house was reportedly built in the mid-1920s 

near the station as the home of a surfman and his 

family. The date and circumstances of the Gilgos’ 

acquisition and move are unknown, and may have 

been as late as 1928. Both Tom and Lucy had close 

association with the station, Tom as a cook, and 

Lucy a boarder with the captain’s family.58

As Lucy Gilgo recalled,

Our house was on the Coast Guard property, 

and he [Tom] had to move it. We moved it over 

there right in front of Henry’s house.... He had 

to move it down there and got it livable.59 

The house was small, with two front windows and 

a central door. Inside were the two rooms, a living 

room with painted walls and ceiling, and a smaller, 

unpainted bedroom. Rising from the living room 

was a brick flue. A back door led to a porch. 60

Remaining on Portsmouth today is a house 

strikingly similar to the Gilgos’ (Figs. 18-19). The 

Ed and Kate Styron House is also small, of similar 

proportions and massing. Both houses have 

board-and-batten siding on the front, and the 

same fenestration pattern of two front windows 

with central door. The Styron House most likely 

had a front porch, and the Gilgo chimney, now 

gone, was in roughly the same position as that of 

the Styron House. It is likely that the Styron House 

also originated at the LSS and was moved to the 

56. White, pp. 12-13. Portsmouth online genealogy.

57. Ibid., pp. 19-20.

58. Outline research by CALO ranger Karen Duggan, ca. 

2006. Other surfmen’s houses were moved to the village, 

some in the 1930s when the station was decommissioned, 

among them the Lionel and Emma Gilgo House and the Ed, 

Nora, and Elma Dixon House.

59. White, pp. 19-20. Henry was Henry Pigott, whose house 

still stands north of the Gilgo House.

60. Determined through physical investigations, NPS 

photographs, and Lucy's published recollections.

Figure 17. Lucy Beacham at about age seventeen, 

photographed in 1921 at the Woman’s College in 

Greensboro. (Lucy Beacham Gilgo Coll.)
PART I.B CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE

National Park Service 27

village. Two other extant LSS houses in the village 

are larger. There were others as well, but they were 

lost in storms. 

Tom and Lucy lived in the small two-room 

house with their small children, Tom working 

as a fisherman. Lucy no longer taught, but 

supplemented Tom’s income by occasionally 

making clothes for others. She remembered that 

they had in the house “beds, chairs of course, a 

heater, cook stove (we cooked with kerosene), 

table.” Outside they had a milk house, or cool 

house: “We had a little house called a milk house 

sitting out in the backyard that was screened all 

around. We put our food out there so it would stay 

cool. That was the only way we had.” Water was 

collected in a wooden cistern, or water box, but as 

mainlander Lucy explained, “the water was very 

different and took some getting used to. It tasted 

different, and was always hot.”61

61. White, pp. 23, 27-29, 47. Children were Nina, William, 

Blanche, Paul, Jane, George, Billie, Jack, Jimmy, Peggy, and 

Sylvia.

Though their house was simple, the Gilgos also 

had a car, one of the few on the island, as well as 

a garage. Tom had a motor boat with cabin for 

his fishing, and various nets that he repaired in 

the yard and hung on a net line. Lucy Gilgo in 

interviews recalled that they had no garden, grew 

no vegetables, deterred by the strong winds that 

brought salt water into the yard from Doctor’s 

Creek.62 

The Gilgos lived on Portsmouth only until 1933 

when they joined the many who left after a major 

hurricane. Preparations for storms were not 

infrequent. Furniture was piled off the floor in case 

of flooding. In some houses, a table was placed 

on its side with the top against the door to prevent 

furniture from being swept away. Food was set 

aside, and containers were filled with water from 

the cistern. But the islanders’ preparations could 

not protect against the hurricane of September 

1933, which brought sustained winds of 100 mph 

and torrential rain that flooded most of the island 

and destroyed many houses.63

62. White, p. 27.

63. Interviews, and Jones, George Dixon House HSR, p. 10.

Figure 18. The Tom and Lucy Gilgo House in 2013.

Figure 19. The Ed and Kate Styron House in 2013.

Figure 20. Tom Gilgo and his car, ca. 1923. (Lucy 

Beacham Gilgo Coll.)
28 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

The storm remained a harrowing memory 

throughout Lucy’s life. A hurricane a few weeks 

earlier brought water up to the door sill but not 

into the house, but September’s storm was violent. 

Tom feared the house, because their house was not 

tied down, would be lifted as the water rose and 

begin to fall apart. “Breakers were crashing over 

the shorter houses,” the water so high that Tom had 

to swim part of the way to his neighbor’s house. He 

and the neighbor pulled a skiff to get Lucy and the 

children to take them back to the neighbor’s twostory house for the night.64

The next day they saw that their house, flooded 

with salt water, was still standing, though the back 

porch “had been washed up from the ground” and 

the garage was destroyed. The storm was the worst 

in islanders’ memories. Boats, nets, outbuildings 

and equipment were swept away. Houses were 

destroyed, others were left unrepaired and vacant 

as families left for the mainland. The storm flooded 

64. White, pp 32-33. The neighboring house was Walker 

and Sarah Styron’s, also known as the Wallace House or Old 

Grace.

the water boxes on the island with salt water. Lucy 

insisted that they leave. “There was no way to make 

a living. We just had to leave. We couldn’t get any 

fresh water.” At the end of October, Tom moved 

to Oriental while Lucy, who was Portsmouth’s 

registrar, remained in the house until after the 

pending election.65

Tom and Lucy lived the rest of their lives in Oriental, 

a center of commercial fishing. Lucy Gilgo said of 

her life as a fisherman’s wife, “It weren’t a good 

living, but we had something to eat, had something 

to wear. What more did you need? I never worried 

about him much because he didn’t go out much. 

They would go out in the water in the sound.... 

They’d be gone all night long drop netting.”66 

The couple ultimately had eleven children, and 

Lucy taught seventh and eighth grades at Oriental 

Elementary School. After Tom died in 1949 of a 

heart attack while fishing, Lucy raised her family 

and was chosen Pamlico County Mother of the 

Year in 1962. She died in 1987. Both are buried in 

Oriental Cemetery.67

After the Gilgos 

The Gilgos’ vacated house was bought by Jesse 

Brenard Bookhardt (1903-1982) and Gladys 

Lorraine Byrum Bookhardt (1903-2000) (Figs. 

22-23). Unlike the Gilgos, the Bookhardts used 

the house only as a summer residence. Both were 

familiar with the island. While at Duke Divinity 

School, Jesse spent a summer serving churches at 

both Portsmouth and Ocracoke. Gladys grew up in 

Raleigh but spent summers in Portsmouth with her 

parents in a house they bought in 1920.68 In June 

1926 after her graduation from Meredith College, 

Gladys and Jesse were married and moved to Winter 

Park, Florida where their first child was born. 

What year the Bookhardts began using the house 

is not known, nor the nature of their repairs to the 

hurricane-damaged building. And the house was 

65. White, pp. 34-35. The storm was the deadliest in North 

Carolina at that time, killing 21 people.

66. Ibid., p. 22.

67. Ibid., pp. 46-47.

68. Gladys’s parents were Augustus Holly Byrum and 

Maime Stelle Byrum; http://www.geni.com/people/GladysBookhardt/3939789930920122483. One of her sisters was 

Dorothy Byrum Bedwell, who wrote Portsmouth, Island 

with a Soul, recounting her early memories of living on 

remote Portsmouth. Carolyn Bookhardt Erwin, interviewed 

by the authors at April 26, 2014 Homecoming.

Figure 21. Lucy Gilgo, undated. (CALO Coll. f16)
PART I.B CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE

National Park Service 29

small. To add a kitchen, they brought up a smaller, 

existing structure, probably an outbuilding, and 

extended the roof of one of its small gable ends out 

over the existing wood shingle roof. They centered 

the structure on the back of the house with the 

former back door opening into the new wing. A 

door on the east elevation of the wing probably 

opened to a small side porch. Whether they 

attached the wing shortly after their purchase or at 

a later time is not known. 

State of North Carolina

The Bookhardts continued her Byrum family 

tradition of summers in Portsmouth even after 

the rest of the Byrum family stopped. Then in 

1969 they sold the house to the State of North 

Carolina for eventual transfer to the Park Service.69

Photographs indicate that it continued to be used, 

probably under lease as a summer or fishing/

hunting house.

An addition was made to the house in the 1970s. 

A 1969 aerial photograph shows the house with 

69. CALO outline.

configuration of only the main block and back 

wing (Fig. 24). The earliest known image of the 

house taken from the ground, shows the front and 

east sides of the house in 1970 with a portion of 

the back wing visible. There is no addition (Fig. 

25). The front is sheathed with vertical boardand-batten siding. The east-side gable-end wall 

is weatherboarded with wood shingles covering 

the weatherboards in the upper gable. The entire 

gable end may have been shingled at one time 

for additional weather protection. Wood-framed 

screens appear to cover lower sash. 

Soon thereafter, but before an aerial photograph 

of 1978, a small bathroom addition was built (Fig. 

26). Although some histories report the bathroom 

added in the 1960s, and the CLR reports the 1950s, 

the 1969 aerial and 1970 photo clearly show its 

absence. The addition was placed in front of the 

kitchen wing’s side door, at the northeast corner 

of the house created by the main block and wing. 

The side door of the wing now became an interior 

door to the addition, which had its own exterior 

door. A photograph taken in 1996 shows that 

the addition was built inexpensively, typical of 

Figure 22. Jesse Bookhardt with his family ca. 1906 

when he was about three, sitting on his grandfather’s 

lap. His parents are centered in the back row. 

(Findagrave website http://www.findagrave.com/cgibin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=24192161)

Figure 23. Gladys Lorraine Byrum as a senior 

at Meredith College, 1926. (Find-a-Grave 

website http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/

fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=53106961)
30 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

Figure 24. Aerial photograph looking south, 1969. Gilgo House, circled at right, is on the west bank of 

Doctor’s Creek. The kitchen wing can be seen at the back; the bathroom addition has not yet been built. 

(CALO Coll. c09)

Figure 25. Earliest known photograph of the house seen from the ground, labeled 1970, taken before 

construction of a small bathroom addition. The original photograph is out of focus. It shows the board-andbatten siding of the front and weatherboards with shingles at the east side. (CALO Coll. f432)
PART I.B CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE

National Park Service 31

bathroom additions in some other leased houses 

on Portsmouth (Fig. 27). The addition had a metal 

roof, and its exterior walls were sheathed with 

plywood covered with utilitarian red asphalt 

sheeting, apparently with a stamped brick design. 

Probably at the same time, the upper portion of 

the east gable end was covered with the same 

sheeting.70

70. Asphalt building siding was a popular alternative to 

painting deteriorated wood siding as early as the 1930s 

and, particularly in the 1940s and 50s, was also used for 

low-cost housing.

National Park Service 

In 1976 when the National Seashore was 

established, the state transferred the acquired 

properties to the National Park Service, including 

this house and other Portsmouth buildings. In 

1979 and 1980, architect John L. Thompson 

produced sketch plans and elevations of buildings 

in the village. He made two sets of drawings 

for the Gilgo House, one dated 1979, the other 

undated. The drawings can be used only as 

general information, however, because there 

are significant differences in the two. One front 

elevation shows an engaged front porch, the 

other shows it attached. The measurements and 

proportions of the front door, windows, and 

chimney vary between the two drawings, as well as 

the chimney corbelling. The chimney is positioned 

behind the ridge on one drawing, but at the ridge 

line on the other.

Thompson’s two floor plans of the house also vary. 

On the exterior, the front porch, labeled a stoop 

although shown with posts and roof, is significantly 

deeper in one drawing, and the cistern is about two 

feet wide in one drawing and over three feet wide 

in the other. The swing of the front door is shown 

hinged on the east in one drawing and on the west 

in the other, and the door from the main block to 

the kitchen wing is shown opening into the main 

block in one and to the kitchen in the other. Both 

Figure 26. Aerial photograph looking northwest, 1978, showing the Gilgo House at upper left. By this time the 

metal-roofed bathroom wing has been added. (CALO Coll. c17a)

Figure 27. House in 1996 shows bathroom addition 

with asphalt sheeting, and remnants of sheeting on 

east upper gable. Rolled roof sheathing covers wood 

shingles. Chimney is not present. (CALO album)
32 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

plans show a suspended flue almost centered on 

the ridge line.

Ultimately, Thompson’s drawings provide an 

overall indication of the building at that time, but 

cannot be used as accurate documentation of its 

architectural elements.

NPS began renovations of some houses in the 

late 1970s and early 1980s, but this house was not 

among them. An NPS “Historic Building Survey” 

of Portsmouth’s buildings was made in 1983-

84, with a crew taking notes on the condition of 

building components. The Tom and Lucy Gilgo 

House was then under lease through a special use 

permit to a Charles McKay, but “due to bad roof 

problems, structure is not used.” 

The survey reported that “roof deterioration has 

resulted in structural damage and pest infestation 

caused damage to foundation.” Despite the 

recommendations of the 1982-83 GMP to 

preserve the exterior of all buildings, this survey’s 

recommended action was to “record structure 

and perform no preservation action. Treat as a 

discovery site. Section 106 compliance required.” 

Nevertheless, in 1983 NPS built a temporary roof 

on the 1970s bathroom addition and installed 

90-pound felt over the entire roof. No further 

information is provided.71 

2002: Repairs and Replacement

By 2002 the house was in dire condition. As a 

Portsmouth descendant said, the termites left 

because they were going to starve. Despite the 1984 

recommendation to allow the house to deteriorate 

to a “discovery site,” NPS took on a major project 

to save the building. A series of photographs show 

the house as the Park Service began the project. 

Photographs taken before the work began are 

undated, but deciduous trees suggest perhaps 

late winter or early spring (Figs. 28-29). The 

house retains its form of main block with simple 

porch, rear wing, and 1970s corner addition. An 

altered roof form over the addition is probably the 

temporary structure built in 1983, and the roof 

covering seen in 1996 is no longer present. The 

mix of board-and-batten and weatherboard siding 

remains, as well as wood wall shingles at the west 

gable end. 

71. Historic Building Survey form.

Figure 28. Back of the house showing 1970s addition 

with temporary roof structure; back wall of wing is 

missing. (undated, probably March or April 2002, 

CALO album)

Figure 29. East elevation in April 2002, showing front 

porch and 1970s addition. Temporary roof has been 

removed. (date stamped 4/23/2002, CALO album)

Figure 30. The back wing has been emptied and 

braced. Bathroom addition is at the left. Wood 

shingles cover weatherboards in west upper gable. 

Cistern remains in northwest corner, collapsed, and 

plumbing pipes and electrical wiring are visible 

under the house. (undated, possibly 4/23/2002, CALO 

album)
PART I.B CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE

National Park Service 33

The large rectangular wood-plank cistern remains 

in place at the northwest corner where it was 

better shielded from the sun. Partially collapsed, 

its west and long north elevations are of wide flush 

horizontal boards; a squared opening has been cut 

for unknown purpose (Fig. 30).

An album of photographs in CALO files document 

much of the 2002 work. The earliest dated 

photographs were taken on April 23, a Tuesday. 

Work began with bracing the east side of the leaning 

house and the interior of the back wing. The 1983 

temporary roof was removed from the addition.

Work progressed quickly during the week. A 

photograph taken the next week shows that the 

entire kitchen wing was removed, leaving only its 

foundation posts and the original two-room house 

(Fig. 31). This and other images show the wood 

roofing shingles that were covered when the wing 

Figure 31. Back of house after removal of rear wing 

exposes original back wall and roof shingles. Flush 

vertical boards flank the back door; above door is a 

shallow section of board-and-batten. (date stamped 

5/1/2002, CALO album)

Figure 32. Removal of front porch in process. (date 

stamped 5/1/2002, CALO album)

Figure 33. Only the two-room block remains. Roof 

structure, foundation, front board-and-batten 

siding, and all sash doors have been removed. (date 

stamped 5/15/2002, CALO album)

Figure 34. Looking from the back of the house 

during removal of interior partition. The painted 

finish of the living room and unpainted walls of 

the bedroom are visible. Casing has been removed 

from bedroom window, and the interior beaded 

boards of the back wall are being taken down. A 

large hole is in the ceiling. (date stamped 5/15/2002, 

CALO album) 
34 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

Figure 35. Construction of new frame for main block begins in June. (date stamped 6/6/2002, CALO album)

Figure 36. By June 12, roof structure has been built 

and salvaged areas of siding are being attached to 

the frame. (date stamped 6/12/2002, CALO album)

Figure 37. New foundation for back wing, and 

attachment of original vertical flush boards flanking 

back door of main block. (date stamped 6/12/2002, 

CALO album)

Figure 38. Structural frame is complete by late June. 

Figure 39. Salvaged portion of weatherboard wall to 

be reattached. 
PART I.B CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE

National Park Service 35

board-and-batten siding was attached, though not 

the casing, as well as the wider, lower weatherboards 

of the gable ends (Fig. 36). These wider boards are 

visible in the 1970 photograph, probably added to 

replace boards rotted by splash from rain runoff, 

and possibly salvaged from an earlier building.

At the back, foundation posts, sill and joists for the 

back wing were in place. The original back doorway 

and flanking vertical-board walls were reattached to 

the main block (Fig. 37).

By the end of June, construction of the structural 

frame of the kitchen wing was complete (Fig. 

38). Additional portions of exterior siding 

were retained in large portions, including a 

section of weatherboarded wall, the shingle-onweatherboard siding of the upper west gable, and 

the weatherboarded siding of the back gable (Figs. 

39-41). These and other salvaged boards were 

replaced onto the new frame before the new siding 

was installed. The upper boards of the east gable 

end had been covered with asphalt sheeting for 

several decades, which apparently protected them 

from weather. They were returned to the same area 

and remain a lighter color today. 

Photographs of the reinstallation of interior 

elements are apparently not included in CALO 

files. Much of the beaded-board wall covering was 

reinstalled, apparently board-by-board. Other 

walls are open to the framing. Window casing was 

replaced in the living room but not the bedroom, 

and both rooms were left without ceilings. Notably, 

the board wall with its doorway between rooms 

was not rebuilt, leaving the two-room house as one 

open space. The painted finish of the living room 

was brought up and attached to the house. The 

original back wall is also exposed, revealing fullheight flush vertical boards flanking the back door. 

Above the door is a shallow section of boardand-batten siding. The casing of the back door is 

simple, painted what is now a blue-green color, and 

retains an exterior hinge and wood swivel latch. At 

the front, the porch foundation, floor, and posts 

were removed, with the shed roof braced before 

removal (Fig. 32).

By May 15, only the two-room block remained, 

and the roof and roof structure had been removed. 

Large holes in the ceiling attest to its condition. 

The house was lifted, placed on temporary 

beams, and rotted foundation posts removed. 

The front wall with board-and-batten siding was 

removed, along with all sash and doors (Fig. 33). 

Inside, workers began dismantling. Beaded-board 

sheathing at walls and ceilings was taken down, 

and casings removed from the bedroom windows. 

More significantly, the vertical board wall dividing 

the house into living room and bedroom was 

removed (Fig. 34).

The Rebuilding

Demolition and dismantling was complete by 

the beginning of June, and construction of a new 

structural frame began. Photographs show the new 

framing on June 6. A salvaged sill is visible, and 

salvaged siding is laid on the ground near the house 

(Fig. 35). 

By June 12 a new roof structure had been built 

and portions of exterior siding were being 

attached to the frame. On the front, most of the 

Figure 40. Salvaged upper gable end of back kitchen 

wing to be reattached. 

Figure 41. Salvaged upper gable end of west gable to 

be reattached. 
36 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

and unfinished boards of the bedroom identify the 

location of the former wall. Boards stored on ceiling 

joists are likely remnants from this rebuilding.

A new front porch and steps were built, and some 

window sash were replaced. The exterior of the 

completed house was not painted, except for the 

window sash and the side porch door, and remains 

without paint. Apparently unused since the early 

1980s, the house is vacant today.

Figure 42. Front and east elevations in 2013. Figure 43. West elevations in 2013.
TIMELINE

National Park Service 37

Timeline

1753 Portsmouth established by bill “appointing and laying out a Town on Core Banks, near 

Ocacock [sic] Inlet, in Carteret County” passes in the North Carolina colonial assembly. 

1756 First lots in Portsmouth Village are sold.

1770s 1770, Collet map of North Carolina shows Portsmouth and winding channel of inlet.

1775, Mouzon map depicts Portsmouth. 

1800 White population 165, slaves 98.

1806 Customs Office established. Coles and Price map shows windmill and two-story 

“academy” at Portsmouth.

1810 White population 226, slaves 121.

1820s 1827, Marine Hospital authorized.

1828, Currituck Inlet closes, sending more shipping to Portsmouth.

1836-37 1,400 vessels pass through Ocracoke Inlet.

1842 U.S. House Committee on Commerce states “Ocracoke Inlet is the outlet for all commerce 

of the state of North Carolina, from the ports of Newbern [sic], Washington, Plymouth, 

Edenton, and Elizabeth City...more than two thirds of the exports of the State of North 

Carolina pass out to sea at this point.”

1842 Congress appropriates funds for new Marine Hospital.

1846 Storms create an inlet at Hatteras. The new, deeper inlet draws trade from Ocracoke Inlet 

and Portsmouth.

1850 Portsmouth population is 463; Hatteras has grown to 661.

1852 Coast Survey of Ocracoke Inlet shows two churches at Portsmouth.

1860 Population is over 600 residents with 109 dwellings.

1870 Census records 59 dwellings.

1880 Census records 44 dwellings.

1883 Ocracoke Inlet no longer navigable for lightering.

1894 Portsmouth Life-Saving Station (LSS) is established.

1899 Great Hurricane of August 1899, the San Ciriacio Hurricane, submerges Portsmouth and 

destroys many buildings.

1901 New Methodist church is built.
38 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

1902-04 Thomas Gilgo (ca. 1902-1949) and Lucy Beacham (1904-1987) are born.

1913 Hurricane destroys the island’s two churches.

1915-16 Current Methodist church is built.

1920s Surfman’s houses continue to be built at Coast Guard Station (former LSS).

1923 Tom and Lucy Gilgo are married; move to Norfolk.

1925-28 Gilgos return to Portsmouth, live with his parents until they acquire and move a surfman’s 

house to the village.

1933 Major hurricane causes many to relocate to the mainland. Gilgos move to Oriental, NC. 

Hurricane opens new inlet south of Portsmouth, creating Portsmouth Island. 

after 1933 Jesse B. and Gladys Byrum Bookhardt purchase the Gilgo property as a summer house, 

add existing building as a rear kitchen wing. 

1937-38 Coast Guard Station is deactivated.

1940 Census lists 42 residents.

1943 School closes.

1944 Great Atlantic Hurricane brings major flooding and damage to Portsmouth; many 

residents leave for the mainland. 

1946 Coast Guard Station closes.

1956 Regular church services are discontinued; 17 permanent residents at Portsmouth, the 

youngest is 59. 

1959 Post Office closes. 

1960 Census lists 14 residents on Portsmouth; only 4 permanent residents reported in 1962. 

Many buildings now used as vacation houses or hunting and fishing clubs. 

1966 Cape Lookout National Seashore authorized. State of NC begins purchases.

1968 Survey History of Cape Lookout National Seashore is prepared.

1969 State purchases Tom and Lucy Gilgo House and begins leasing it and other Portsmouth 

properties to individuals for vacation residences. Aerial photograph shows house with 

back wing but no bathroom addition.

1970 Draft Historic Resource Study of Portsmouth. 

1971 One of the three remaining residents dies; the others leave. Portsmouth now houses only 

seasonal visitors.

1971 Master Plan focuses on the natural environment, suggests “restor[ing] the historical scene” 

at Portsmouth.

1970s NPS begins clearing overgrowth.

1976 Cape Lookout National Seashore (CALO) is established; state transfers properties 

including those on Portsmouth. Gilgo house under lease as vacation residence.
TIMELINE

National Park Service 39

1979 Portsmouth Village Historic District listed in National Register of Historic Places.

1979-80 Architect John L. Thompson produces sketch plans and elevations of the Gilgo House, 

though with inaccuracies. 

1982 First Historic Resource Study of Portsmouth is finalized.

1983 Gilgo House emergency repairs include temporary roof on 1970s addition and felt 

covering over main roof.

1982-83 General Management Plan states intent to preserve exterior of all buildings.

1983-84 Portsmouth buildings inspected by NPS team. Assessment finds Gilgo House in 

deteriorated condition, recommends NPS “record structure and perform no preservation 

action. Treat as a discovery site.”

1989 Friends of Portsmouth Island is organized.

1990 Management plan repeats the “sea” theme of the 1982 plan. Emphasizes the need for indepth historical study of Portsmouth buildings.

1992 First Homecoming, sponsored by Friends of Portsmouth Island. Seven people born in 

Portsmouth are present. Homecoming celebrations continue biennially.

1999 Hurricanes Dennis and Floyd flood and damage buildings.

2002 Gilgo House in dire condition after termites “left because they were going to starve.” 

House is dismantled and complete new frame is constructed; major repairs to and 

replacement of building components.

2003 & 04 Hurricane Isabel puts water in all buildings; Alex floods island. 

2004-06 Historic Structure Reports completed for Life-Saving Station and three Portsmouth 

houses.

2005 CALO crew spends two years repairing Portsmouth buildings; recently completed Gilgo 

House is probably not among them.

2007 Cultural Landscape Report suggests extension of National Register period of significance 

to 1971.

2010 CALO Historic Resource Study and recommendations are prepared in draft form for the 

Organization of American Historians under cooperative agreement with NPS.

2011 CALO Long-Range Interpretive Plan.

2012 CALO Foundation Document.

2014 Over 400 attend eleventh Homecoming celebration.

2015 Gilgo House included in new Portsmouth brochure.

2015 Portsmouth Documentation Project documents 28 buildings, including 15 outbuildings, 

in an effort to create thorough recordation in the face of rising sea levels.

2015 Historic Structure Reports completed for Tom and Lucy Gilgo House, Portsmouth 

Methodist Church, Henry Pigott House, and Mason-Willis-Dixon House. 
40 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 41

General Description

Locale

Portsmouth Village is located on the north end 

of Portsmouth Island. Once separate from the 

North Core Banks to its south, the island is now 

attached by sand banks except during times of 

very high tide. Though its boundaries depend on 

the tide and currents, the total area is only about 

250 acres. 

Portsmouth Island and North Core Banks are 

part of the long chain of narrow sand reefs that 

fringe the southern Atlantic coast of the United 

States. In North Carolina they form an eastern 

barrier to a series of almost land-locked bays and 

sounds.

Portsmouth Village is on the south shore of 

Ocracoke Inlet, a two-mile-wide passage 

connecting the Atlantic Ocean to the broad and 

shallow Pamlico Sound. Across the inlet to the 

north is Ocracoke Island with the small community 

of Ocracoke at its south end.

Climate

The climate is temperate and seasonal. Summers 

are hot and humid with cooler evenings. The 

warmest month is July with an average high 

temperature of 85°F and average nighttime lows of 

74°F. The hottest temperature on record is 97°F 

recorded in 1988.

The coldest month is January with an average high 

of 53°F and low of 40°F. The coldest temperature 

on record is 6°F recorded in 1985.

The wettest seasons are spring and summer, 

though the annual rainfall of almost 53 inches is 

fairly evenly divided throughout the year. The 

maximum average monthly rainfall is 5.43 inches in 

I.C Physical Description

Figure 44. The Tom & Lucy Gilgo House as viewed from the east bank of Doctor's Creek. Salt marshes, tall 

grasses, and low wind-swept trees are prevalent. Unless otherwise indicated, all photographs in this section 

were taken by JKOA in 2013.
42 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

August. The minimum average monthly rainfall is 

3.19 inches in April.

The humidity, laden with salt, is high through the 

year, typically staying between 80 and 85 percent 

RH.

Daily breezes range from 10 to 12 mph but wind gusts 

can reach two or three times that amount. Winter 

breezes typically come from the north; summer 

breezes typically are from slightly west of south. 

Rising Sea Levels

The land of Portsmouth Village is but two feet 

above sea level, making the village especially 

vulnerable to damage from storms. The soil is 

sandy. The water table is just a few feet below 

grade. There are no freshwater wells.

From early summer through fall, tropical 

disturbances are typical, with hurricanes the most 

powerful, causing damage from both wind and 

flood. Strong winter storms called Nor’easters are 

also common. The location of the Outer Banks so 

far from the mainland makes it the most hurricaneprone area north of Florida. The buildings of the 

Outer Banks have suffered repeated devastation 

from these storms, which with climate change and 

resultant sea level rise are projected to be more 

severe and more frequent.

Estimates of sea level rise have been published by 

a variety of sources. Global estimates from the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, used 

by several parks in their Foundation Documents, 

make estimates for 2100; however, projections 

for the next several decades are more pertinent 

for current planning and decision making. The 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) has published sea level rise scenarios for 

the United States, but these are not readily useful 

for localized decisions.72 

The NPS has developed the Climate Change 

Response Program (CCRP), a cross-disciplinary 

program to preserve the natural and cultural 

resources and values under NPS stewardship.73

The CCRP has collaborated with the University 

of Colorado at Boulder to develop scenarios of 

sea level rise based on local tide gauges and near72. Part of NOAH’S National Climate Assessment.

73. http://www.nps.gov/orgs/ccrp/index.htm

term timeframes. UC Boulder scientists used the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) SeaLevel Change Curve Calculator to develop high, 

intermediate, and low scenarios for 2030, 2050, 

and 2100. 

In general, a “high” scenario reflects current rate 

of increase of greenhouse gases, or “no change.” 

“Intermediate” scenarios reflect a reduction in 

greenhouse gases through changes in human 

behavior and choices. “Low” scenarios reflect 

historic rates of sea level rise, achieved by dramatic 

changes in human behavior and choices. This level 

of change is not anticipated in the near future; 

therefore, the NPS Southeast Region does not 

recommend the use of “low” scenario predictions 

for current planning or decision-making. More 

details about the scenarios can be found at http://

www.corpsclimate.us/ccaceslcurves.cfm.

The Ocracoke Light Station is vulnerable to sea 

level rise and storm surge.  Scenarios based on the 

Beaufort NC tide gauge predict, under current 

rates of increase in greenhouse gas emissions, that 

Ocracoke will experience a little less than a foot of 

sea level rise by 2030, approximately 11⁄2 ft. sea level 

rise by 2050, and about 51⁄4 ft. of sea level rise by 

2100. 

If the rate of greenhouse gas emission increase 

slows, and renewable energy technologies are 

embraced, it is projected that an intermediate 

scenario of sea level rise could unfold at the 

Beaufort tide gauge, the closest point of reference 

for Ocracoke.  With the intermediate scenario 

applied for all projections, results show about 1⁄2 ft. 

of sea level rise by 2030, approximately 3⁄4 ft. of sea 

level rise by 2050, and almost 2 ft. sea level rise by 

2100.  A high, or no-change, scenario shows a rise 

of 0.86 feet by 2030.

Storm surge is also expected to increase with sea 

level rise. The CCRP and UC Boulder scientists 

have modeled storm surge under a low and high 

tide scenario. In general, tomorrow’s low tide 

scenario of surge will be similar to today’s high tide 

scenario. 

Their research indicates that the current no-change 

trajectory or “high” scenario and the high tide 

scenarios of storm surge are the most realistic for 

near-term planning, because dramatic changes 

in global behavior are unlikely in 15 years. In 
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 43

Figure 45. Conducting field inspections in a 

mosquito net suit.

contrast, the intermediate scenario is suggested for 

2050 planning. 

These figures are projections and the future may 

or may not unfold according to these estimates, 

additionally, the science surrounding the 

projection of climate change and sea level rise 

is rapidly advancing, and the Climate Change 

Response Program is already working to revise and 

update these figures.

Seismic Zone

The site is close to an active seismic zone near 

Charleston, South Carolina. The last major quake, 

recorded by the lightkeeper at the Cape Hatteras 

Lighthouse, was in 1886. 

Vegetation

Salt marshes are prevalent. Vegetation includes 

mostly salt-resilient grasses and low, wind-swept 

trees and shrubs (Fig. 44).

Inhabitants

The last two permanent residents left Portsmouth 

Village in 1971. During the tour season, NPS 

volunteers stay usually for two weeks at a time 

to serve as guides for the day visitors arriving 

primarily by private tour boats. Occasionally, 

visitors camp on the beach for a few days. 

The first volunteers typically arrive about midApril, the last leave about the first of November. 

An NPS ranger is on site a twice a week throughout 

the year to maintain the buildings and grounds.

Raccoons live on the island but not the deer 

or ponies found on some barrier islands. The 

most renowned inhabitants, however, are the 

mosquitos. They are present most of the year and 

can be so thick at times that the tour boats cease 

operation. It is not uncommon for visitors and 

work crews to don hooded net suits while on the 

island (Fig. 45).

The Village

The extant buildings of Portsmouth Village are 

grouped at the northwest end of the island. Some 

21 historic building sites are fairly evenly scattered 

on both sides of Village Road, a major sand road 

that runs roughly east-west. Two of the village’s 

largest buildings are close to the two ends of this 

road, forming visual termini. At the east terminus 

is the two-story Jody Styron and Tom Bragg House; 

at the west is the U.S. Life-Saving Station. The 

Methodist Church is a focal point near the center 

of the village. All three of these buildings are wood 

frame clad with wood siding.

Doctor’s Creek extends from Ocracoke Inlet 

southwestward near the center of the village, 

bisecting the settlement into east and west sections, 

with small wooden bridges connecting the two.

Another sand road, Haulover Point Road, extends 

from the ferry dock at the northwest tip of the 

island southeastward to Portsmouth School, the 

southernmost building in the Village.

The House Site 

The Tom and Lucy Gilgo House site is northeast 

of the village center and west of Doctor’s Creek, 

situated on a sand and grass access road that 

leads northeast from Village Road. The sandy 

ground is low and flat. The immediate site is 

mowed grassland, the perimeter defined by tall 

native grasses and shrubs. Pockets of low windbent trees are immediately to the north, west, 

and south. To the east, beyond the access road, is 

marshland extending to Doctor’s Creek (Fig. 46). 

The access road runs roughly parallel with the 
44 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

creek, first to the one-and-one-half-story Walker 

& Sarah Styron House, then to the Tom and Lucy 

Gilgo place, and terminating at the Henry Pigott 

complex on the creek, close to Ocracoke Inlet. 

The Architecture

Description

At one story in height with approximately 366 

square feet of enclosed space, the Tom and Lucy 

Gilgo House is one of the smaller residences in 

Portsmouth Village. 

The building is comprised of two major building 

components, each with a rectangular floor plan, 

arranged to form a T. The top of the T is the 

larger of the two building components, measuring 

22’-6” wide by 12’-4” deep. It is referred to in 

this report as the main block. One of its long 

dimensions is the front of the house and faces 

southwest. The smaller building component, 

measuring 15’-3” long by just 9’-4” wide, is 

centered on the back of the main block and is 

referred to as the rear wing. For the purposes of 

this report the building is described as facing south 

(Fig. 47-48).

Both components are wood framed, sheathed on 

the exterior with wood siding, and covered by a 

gable roof with wood shingles. Both sit low to the 

ground on short wood posts with the top of the 

floor about two feet above grade, the main block 

slightly higher than the rear wing. 

The principal entrance is centered on the south 

elevation of the main block. Three narrow wooden 

steps lead from grade to a small open shed-roofed 

porch and the doorway. A secondary entrance is 

on the east elevation of the rear wing; accessed by a 

small set of wood steps.

Design Composition

The main block is the original building moved to 

the site in the mid-1920s to be the home of Tom 

and Lucy Gilgo. Its bisymmetrical arrangement 

of fenestration reflects its origin as a stand-alone 

building. A central front entrance stands opposite 

the back entrance and both are flanked by a 

single window set immediately across from its 

counterpart on the opposite wall. A single window 

is centered on each of the two gable-end walls. All 

window openings are the same size and contain the 

same window design of double sash with six lights 

over six lights. The front and rear door openings 

are also the same size, though the type of original 

doors has not been identified.

Figure 46. Access road skirts the east side of the Tom 

and Lucy Gilgo House and continues to the Henry 

Pigott House.

Figure 47. Southeast oblique view.

Figure 48. Floor plan.
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 45

The main block likely contained just two rooms 

when first moved. The repairs of 2002 eliminated 

the cross wall that created the larger west-side 

living room and east-side bedroom (Fig. 48). The 

interior casings for door and window are one of 

the few instances of embellishment. Though some 

are missing, they apparently were of the same 

Victorian-era design. The type of beaded board 

applied as finish material to walls and ceiling of 

the two rooms could date to the late nineteenth 

century but were installed well into the twentieth 

century.

The rear building component was originally a 

separate building as well. It was joined to the main 

block sometime after the 1933 hurricane when 

the Gilgo family moved out. It, too, relies on the 

symmetrical arrangement of its fenestration as 

a unifying design feature. However, it lacks the 

embellishment of decorative door and window 

casings. It probably was added to serve as a kitchen 

wing.

Architectural Style

This is a utilitarian shelter of vernacular design 

relying primarily on building materials, massing 

and symmetry to create visual harmony. The 

construction is simple and straightforward with 

little architectural embellishment or stylistic 

flourish.

Construction Characteristics

Structural Systems:

Type

The construction type for this house is wood 

frame.

Foundation & Floor Framing

The main block and the wing earlier rested on 

separate grids of irregularly placed wood posts. 

Figure 49. South, or front, elevation.

Figure 50. East elevation.

Figure 51. North elevation.

Figure 52. West elevation.
46 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

The early posts were both milled and unmilled, in a 

variety of sizes and shapes. 

The repairs of 2002 replaced most of these posts 

with treated wood posts (Fig. 53). A few early 

posts were retained. All replacement posts for the 

two building components uniformly measure 51⁄2” 

square.

At the main block, the wall sole plates were 

replaced with circular-sawn lumber measuring 35

/8” 

by 13⁄4” and half-lapped at the corner intersections 

and in connections along the long north and south 

walls. A few early floor joists measuring about 2” 

wide by about 6” deep were salvaged and reused. 

Circular-sawn replacement joists measuring 13⁄4” by 

6” were installed (Fig. 54). The joists extend northsouth at spacing that ranges from 32” on center 

(o.c.) to 38” o.c. and half-lap the sole plates.

At the rear kitchen wing, the wall sole plates were 

replaced with circular-sawn lumber measuring 

35

/8” by 13⁄4” which are half-lapped at the corner 

intersections. Circular-sawn replacement floor 

joists measuring 35/8” by 13⁄4” were installed. The 

joists extend east-west at various spacing and halflap the sole plates.

Replacement diagonal ground braces, or hurricane 

braces, of treated lumber measuring 51⁄2” by 51⁄2” 

are positioned at each elevation of the main block 

and wing to provide lateral support. The distant 

end of each brace is embedded in the ground while 

the opposite end is secured against the exterior 

siding at the height of the wall sole plate.

Also in 2002, all foundation posts for the front 

porch were replaced with treated wood posts 

measuring 51⁄2” by 51⁄2” and supporting 11⁄2” by 

51⁄2” replacement joists of treated lumber. Three 

joists span the east-west width of the porch, one at 

the front edge, another at the back edge, and the 

third at mid-porch depth. Lumber of the same size 

extends north-south to cover the east and west 

ends of these joists, boxing in the porch framing.

Wall Framing

In the main block, the great majority of visible wall 

framing is replacement material from the 2002 

project. The early reused material measures 2” by 

4” and 4” by 4”. Replacement material is rough 

cut and circular sawn to modern dimensions. 

Replacement corner posts and window posts 

measure 35

/8” by 35/8”. Replacement wall studs, 

irregularly spaced, and replacement diagonal 

corner braces measure 15/8” by 35/8” (Figs. 55-56). 

The replacement wall plates measure 15/8” by 35/8” 

Figure 53. A few early foundation posts of various 

sizes, milled and unmilled, were able to be reused in 

the 2002 work. Replacement posts, as seen above, 

are made of treated lumber and measure 51⁄2” by 

51⁄2”.

Figure 54. Early floor joists measure 2” by 6” 

and only a few could be reused (sistered at left). 

Replacement joists are made of treated lumber and 

measure 13⁄4” by 6” and lap at the wall plate.
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 47

and are half-lapped and nailed at the corners and at 

connections. Replacement ceiling joists, irregularly 

spaced, measure 15

/8” by 35/8”.

In the rear wing, also, most of the visible wall 

framing is replacement material dating from the 

2002 project (Fig. 59). The early reused material 

measures 2” by 4” and 4” by 4”. Replacement 

material is rough cut and circular sawn to modern 

dimensions. Replacement corner posts measure 

35/8” by 35/8” while replacement window and door 

framing, the mid-height horizontal braces between 

vertical framing, and the diagonal corner braces 

measure 15/8” by 35/8”. The replacement wall plates 

measure 15/8” by 35/8” and are half-lapped and 

nailed at the corners. Replacement ceiling joists 

measure 15/8” by 35/8” and are set 48” o.c.

At the open front porch, two posts support the 

framing for the shed roof. Each post measures 51⁄2” 

by 51⁄2” and both are aligned along the south or 

front edge of the porch (Fig. 60).

Shared Wall Framing: Intersection of Main 

Block and Wing

When the rear wing was first attached to the main 

block, the 2” by 4” wall framing of the south wall 

of the building that became the wing was notched 

to fit around the exterior door casing of the main 

block’s rear doorway. The interior face of that 

south wall of the wing was subsequently sheathed 

with vertical boards, hiding the notched framing 

and the door casing. When the two building 

components were reattached in 2002, the interior 

wall sheathing was left off of the wing. Thus, the 

notched framing and partially hidden early door 

casing are again exposed (Fig. 57). 

Roof Framing

At the main block’s gable roof, most rafters are 

replacements dating to the repairs of 2002. The 

early rafters that were reused include the pair at 

the east end of the gable roof and the pair at the 

west end. The north rafter of the pair second from 

Figure 55. Wall framing of main block is exposed in 

east wall and part of north wall.

Figure 56. Wall framing of rear wing is exposed in 

east, north, and west walls.

Figure 57. Retained early framing of the rear wing 

south wall was notched to fit around the casing 

(blue) of the original rear door of the main block 

when the two buildings were first joined.
48 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

the west gable end is also early. Each of these early 

rafters measures 2” by 4”. The replacement rafters 

measure 15

/8” by 35/8” and have tapered ends. The 

pairs of rafters are irregularly spaced. Each pair is 

nailed together at the ridge. There is no ridge pole. 

Each pair of rafters has a collar beam measuring 1” 

by 4” by approximately 2’-0” long. All deck boards 

are replacements, measuring 1” by 33⁄4” and set 8” 

o.c. (Fig. 58).

At the rear wing’s gable roof, as at the main roof, 

only the two end pairs of roof rafters are early. 

The other rafters are replacements dating from 

the 2002 project. The early rafters measure 2” 

by 4” and are nailed together at the ridge. The 

replacement rafters measure 15

/8” by 35/8” and 

are also nailed together at the ridge. The rafter 

pairs typically have an upper and lower collar 

beam. At the early pair of rafters at the south end 

of the grouping, the upper collar measures 1” by 

6” while the lower collar measures 1” by 8”. The 

replacements are made with modern dimensioned 

wood elements. The replacement upper collar 

beams measure about 7

/8” by 35/8” while the lower 

collar beams measure about 7

/8” by 75/8”. The 

rafters are set 48” o.c. Early deck boards measure 

1” by 8” while replacements measure about 7

/8” by 

75

/8” (Fig. 59).

At the front porch’s shed roof, all materials are 

replacements. The rafters measure 15

/8” by 35/8” 

and are set 36” o.c. The replacement beam atop 

the porch posts and the replacement ledger board 

nailed to the front wall of the main block, which 

together support the porch roof rafters, also 

measure 15

/8” by 35/8”. The replacement deck boards 

measure 7

/8” by 55/8” and are set 9” o.c. (Fig. 60).

Utility Systems

Heating & Cooling

Site orientation for sun angles, presumably 

combined with shading from vegetation and porch, 

and passive ventilation are the only means of 

cooling that have been identified. 

Figure 58. Roof framing of the main block.

Figure 59. Roof framing of the rear wing.

Figure 60. Replacement roof framing at front porch.
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 49

The house is oriented north-south with its small 

gable end facing the hot late-afternoon summer 

sun, and the broad south elevation, susceptible 

to mid-afternoon summer sun, mostly shaded 

by a porch. Presumably, this configuration was 

purposeful to minimize heat gain.

Sketch drawings of 1979-80 indicate there was at 

that time an “8-inch suspended flue” in the west 

room of the main block (Fig. 61). Presumably this 

was a heat source.

Trees and other tall vegetation may have been used 

as a winter wind break. This was a common tactic 

to block northerly winter winds.

The building is on posts, as was typical to promote 

cooling ventilation in the summertime. In this 

locale, posts were also desirable because of the 

frequency of flooding.

Window sash could be opened for cooling and 

closed to retain the heat.

Lighting

Romex electrical cable is visible in park 

photographs taken during the 2002 project. No 

physical evidence was found during the building 

investigations conducted for this report.

Plumbing & Water Supply

A box cistern, partially rebuilt in 2002, is located 

outside in the northwest corner created by the 

living room and the rear wing (Fig. 62). It sits on 

low posts made of sections of trees with a diameter 

ranging from 5” to 8”. The measurements of the 

cistern are approximately 6’-0’ long by 3’-0” wide 

by 3’-0” tall. The sides and bottom are constructed 

of plank boards 1” thick of various widths and 

attached with both wire and cut nails. The modern 

top is constructed in sections to allow access for 

retrieving water; the boards there are thinner, just 

5

/8” thick, in various widths. The wood may be 

cypress, as was often the case for storing water. 

The 1979-80 drawings identify a “bath” in an 

eastside addition to the wing, now demolished. 

Plumbing pipes are visible in park photographs of 

the kitchen prior to the 2002 project. No physical 

evidence of plumbing was found during the 

building investigations conducted for this report.

Security

The building is secured with a mortise door lock 

at the front entrance. The side door of the wing is 

secured in place.

Fire Detection 

There is no fire detection system.

Fire Suppression

There is no automatic fire suppression system or 

hand-held fire extinguishers.

Figure 61. Field sketch by architect John Thompson 

notes a “suspended flue” in the room he identifies as 

the living room. Measurements are approximate.

Figure 62. Early wooden cistern. 
50 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

Exterior Features

Foundation Posts

Beneath the main block, three rows of low wood 

posts run east-west. Beneath the rear wing, three 

rows of low wood posts run north-south. Posts, 

as described above under Structural Systems, are 

visible along the building’s perimeter (Figs. 62 & 63).

Siding & Trim

All three of the house’s narrow, gable-end walls 

have weatherboard siding. On both gable-end 

walls of the main block the bottom three boards 

are early, salvaged and reused; they are 1” thick 

and have an 81⁄2” weather exposure. The other 

weatherboards on these two walls, as well as all 

boards of the gable-end wall of the rear wing, are 

replacement weatherboards installed in 2002. 

These replacement weatherboards measure 1” 

thick and have a 51⁄2” weather exposure. 

At all three gable-end walls, the replacement corner 

boards measure 7

/8” thick by 35/8” wide. The 

replacement cornice is made up of two boards with 

a narrow 3⁄4" thick by 23⁄4” wide plank board atop a 

plank board measuring 3⁄4” thick by 41⁄4” wide.

The upper portion of the west gable-end was 

reused during the 2002 project and retains wood 

shingles (Fig. 64).

The front and back elevations of the main block 

and the side elevations of the rear wing have 

vertical board-and-batten siding. The boards are 1” 

thick with widths varying from 65

/8” to 105/8” wide, 

some early boards mixed in with replacements; 

the battens are 5

/8” thick by 25/8” or 33/8” wide. A 

group of early boards and battens were apparently 

reinstalled along the front wall of the main block. 

The replacement corner boards measure 5/8” thick 

by 81⁄4” wide. The replacement cornice is a 3⁄4” thick 

by 35

/8”-wide plank board (Fig. 65).

Windows

There are nine, double-sash windows of six-light 

over six-light configuration in the main block 

and rear wing (Fig. 66). Each window opening 

measures 2’-4” in width by 3’-10” in height. Ten 

of the eighteen sash are reused and eight are 

replacements of comparable design.

Figure 63. Gable end walls have weatherboard 

siding. Front and rear elevations of main block and 

side elevations of rear wing have board-and-batten 

siding.

Figure 64. Salvaged shingle siding at the west end 

wall. 

Figure 65. Tapered rafter tails, board-and-batten 

siding, plank board and composite cornices, and 

plank corner boards. 
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 51

Figure 66. Typical six-over-six-light double-sash 

windows with plank board casing. 

Figure 67. Front entrance doorway with 

reproduction six-panel door.

Figure 68. Steps to front porch.

Figure 69. Side entrance with sash door likely dating 

to second quarter of twentieth century.
52 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

The replacement exterior window casings are 

made up of unadorned plank boards that measure 

3⁄4” thick by 33⁄4” wide with a lintel cut. The 

replacement window sills measure approximately 

11⁄2” thick at its forward face.

Front Entrance Doorway

The front doorway is on the south elevation of the 

main block. The opening measures 2’-10” wide by 

6’-6” tall and holds a replacement six-panel door.

Casing is made up of plank boards that measure 3⁄4” 

thick by 35/8” wide with a lintel cut (Fig. 67).

Front Entrance Steps & Porch

The front steps are replacements. Wood treads set 

in an open stringer lead from grade onto the front 

porch. The two stringers measure 3⁄4” thick by 8” 

wide. Each tread measures 3⁄4” by 8” and spans 

2’-8” between two 1” by 2” ledger boards. The 

lowest tread is at grade. The rise is 8” at each of the 

three steps up to the porch deck (Fig. 68). 

The front porch, rebuilt with new material in 2002, 

is 12’-4” wide and just 3’-8” deep. The porch deck 

is made up of plank boards of 3⁄4” to 7/8” thickness 

with 61⁄2” to 11” widths. Two porch posts support 

the shed roof.

Side Entrance Doorway

The side entrance doorway is on the east elevation 

of the rear wing. The opening measures 2’-5” wide 

by 6’-6” tall and holds a sash door. New entrance 

steps were built when a 1970s addition was 

removed in 2002 (Fig. 69).

The casing on the doorway is made up of plank 

boards that measure 3⁄4” thick by 33/8” wide with a 

lintel cut.

Roofs

Simple gable roofs cover the main block and the 

rear wing. A shed roof covers the front porch.

Roofing shingles of all roofs were replaced during 

the 2002 project. The replacement shingle is a 

sawn red cedar with widths varying from 31⁄2” to 

91⁄2” and a 5” exposure. According to the site’s 

maintenance person, the roofing material is the 

Certigrade Blue Label Number 1 Grade Red Cedar 

Shingle.

Interior Features Room-by-Room

Room 101: Living Room

The room measures 11’-0” deep by 13’-0” wide 

as defined by the extent of remaining beaded wall 

boards. It is now the west portion of the one large 

open room that fills the main block. The northsouth wall that divided the main block into two 

rooms was removed during the 2002 project. 

Flooring

It appears that all flooring was replaced during the 

2002 project. The flooring runs east-west through 

the entire main block with no seam demarcating 

the rooms. The flooring is 7/8”-thick tongue-andgroove boards of both 21⁄2” width and 31⁄4” width.

Baseboard

There are no baseboards on the three walls that 

remain.

Figure 70. Typical sawn cedar shingles of various 

widths.

Figure 71. Northeast oblique of interior of main 

block.
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 53

Walls 

Tongue-and-groove beaded boards measuring 

7

/8” thick by 41⁄2” wide are on the south, west, and 

north walls, reinstalled during the 2002 project 

(Figs. 73-75). According to pre-repair photographs, 

the east partition wall was a one-board-thick wall 

constructed of the beaded boards typical of the 

main block. The boards were positioned vertically. 

This wall was dismantled in 2002 and not rebuilt. 

Ghost marks of window and door casings indicate 

that most boards appear to be on the wall from 

which it originated. but it is not clear whether 

each board was returned to its specific location on 

that wall. Replacement nails appear to have been 

positioned back into the original nail holes of the 

reinstalled boards, both wall boards and trim.

Doorways

Prior to the 2002 project, there were three 

doorways into this room according to 1979-80 

sketch plans. Two remain, one serving as the 

front entrance and the second connecting to the 

rear wing. The third doorway connected to the 

bedroom in the east portion of the main block; that 

partition wall and doorway were removed in 2002 

and not rebuilt.

The front entrance doorway is discussed above 

in Exterior Features: Front Doorway (Fig. 75). The 

replacement six-panel door has two, six-inch, 

Figure 72. Southeast oblique of main block interior.

Figure 73. Southwest oblique of main block interior.

Figure 74. Northwest oblique of main block interior.

Figure 75. Front entrance doorway.
54 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

T-type modern zinc hinges; it has ghost marks 

for two eight-inch T-hinges. The door is secured 

with a padlock in a modern zinc hasp on the 

exterior side of the doorway. The interior screen 

door is missing. The door opening is cased with a 

decoratively cut Victorian/early twentieth century 

board of the same design as the three windows of 

this room (Figs. 76, 78). The replacement wood 

threshold measures 17

/8” high by 71⁄2” wide.

The opening of the cased doorway to the rear wing 

measures 2’-9” wide by 6’-5” tall (Fig. 57). The 

floor level of the rear wing is 31⁄2” below the level of 

the flooring in the main block.

A five-panel door of a style popular in the latenineteenth/early-twentieth centuries is stored in 

this room (Fig. 77). It measures 2’-10” wide by 

6’-6” tall by 13/8” thick. It may be the door for 

the doorway in the demolished board wall that 

separated the two rooms of the main block. The 

thickness suggests it was intended for an interior 

rather than exterior doorway.

Windows

There are three windows in this room, one each 

on the north wall, west wall, and south wall. Each 

window opening measures 2’-4” wide by 3’-10” 

tall and holds a pair of sash in a six-light over sixlight arrangement. In the window on the south 

wall, both sash are salvaged and reused elements. 

On the west wall, the bottom sash is salvaged 

Figure 76. Turn-of-the-century casing of front door 

and windows of Room 101 though probably original 

to Room 102 also. Note miter-cut corners.

Figure 77. Stored turn-of-the-century five-panel 

door may have been used in doorway of board wall 

that previously separated Rooms 101 and 102.

Figure 78. Decorative trim board in Room 101 for 

window casing and apron. Front door casing is of the 

same trim.
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 55

and reused while the top is a modern sash of 

comparable design presumably installed as part of 

the 2002 repairs. On the north wall, both sash are 

salvaged and reused. All three window openings 

have the same decorative interior casing popular 

in the late-nineteenth to early-twentieth centuries 

applied to the jambs and lintel; the casing is also 

used for the apron at each window (Fig. 78).

Cornice

The beaded-board siding does not extend to 

ceiling height at any of the three walls, and 

ceiling boards have been removed. The east 

board partition wall is also missing. Thus, the 

most common types of physical evidence are not 

available for study. Indeed, no physical evidence 

of a cornice was found. However, the pre-repair 

photographs show distinct ghostmarks on the 

board walls and board ceiling suggesting a cornice 

extending about 1” on both walls and ceiling.

Ceiling

Pre-project photographs indicate that the room 

had a beaded-board ceiling, though no ceiling 

boards are now present.

Finishes 

The last paint layer on the door and window 

casings is a pale yellow. The paint color on the 

beaded-board wall is pale blue. The cased opening 

leading to the rear wing is painted white. The front 

door has a varnish finish. There is no finish applied 

to the replacement flooring.

Pre-project photographs show that the beadedboard ceiling was painted white in this room.

Heating & Cooling

No physical evidence remains of a combustion 

heating system shown on the 1979-80 sketch plans. 

Nor was physical evidence found of a mechanical 

heating or cooling system in this room. 

Electrical System

Though electrical wiring can be seen in pre-project 

photographs, no physical evidence was identified.

Plumbing

Though plumbing lines can be seen in pre-project 

photographs, no physical evidence was identified.

Security

The front door of the house is kept locked with 

access by park personnel only. The side door is 

secured. 

Fire Detection & Suppression

No fire detection or suppression systems are in 

place.

Room 102: Bedroom

The room measures 11’-0” deep by 9’-0” wide as 

defined by the extent of the remaining beaded wall 

boards in the adjacent room. This room is now 

the east portion of the one large open room of the 

main block. The north-south board partition wall 

that divided the main block into two rooms was 

removed during the 2002 project. 

Flooring

It appears that all flooring was replaced during the 

2002 project. The flooring runs east-west through 

the entire main block with no seam demarcating 

the rooms. The flooring is 7

/8”-thick tongue-andgroove boards of both 21⁄2” width and 31⁄4” width.

Baseboard

There are no baseboards on the three walls that 

remain.

Walls 

Tongue-and-groove beaded boards measuring 

7

/8” thick by 41⁄2” wide are on the south wall only, 

reinstalled during the 2002 project (Fig. 79). At the 

other walls the framing is exposed. According to 

Figure 79. Beaded-board sheathing of ceiling and 

walls was left unpainted in the bedroom (Room 102). 

Note additional casing trim boards and beadedboard sheathing stored atop ceiling joists.
56 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

pre-project photographs, the west partition wall 

was a one-board-thick wall constructed of the 

typical beaded boards found in the main block. 

The boards were positioned vertically. This board 

wall was dismantled in 2002 and not rebuilt. Ghost 

marks of window and door casings indicate that 

most boards likely originated on this wall, but it 

is not clear whether each board was returned to 

its specific location on the wall. The replacement 

nails typically were placed back into the original 

nail holes of the reinstalled boards, both wall 

boards and trim.

Doorways

Prior to the 2002 repairs, there was one doorway 

in this room, according to pre-project photographs 

and 1979-80 sketch plans. The doorway provided 

connection to the living room in the west portion 

of the main block; the partition wall and doorway 

were removed during the project and not rebuilt. 

A five-panel door that may have been installed 

in the doorway of the demolished board wall is 

discussed above in the section Room 101: Living 

Room.

Windows

There are three windows in this room, one each 

on the north wall, east wall, and south wall. Each 

window opening measures 2’-4” wide by 3’-10” 

tall and holds a pair of sash in a six-light over 

six-light arrangement. In the window on the east 

wall, both sash are salvaged and reused elements. 

On the south wall, the bottom sash is salvaged 

and reused while the top is a modern sash of 

comparable design, presumably installed as part 

of the 2002 repairs. On the north wall, both sash 

are replacements. All three window openings are 

missing the decorative interior casing seen in prerepair photographs and matching the casing in the 

living room.

Cornice

The beaded-board siding does not extend to the 

ceiling height of the south wall and ceiling boards 

have been removed. The west board partition wall 

is also missing. Thus, the most common types 

of physical evidence are not available for study. 

Indeed, no physical evidence of a cornice was 

found. However, the pre-project photographs 

show distinct ghost marks on the beaded-board 

clad walls and ceiling, suggesting a cornice 

extending about 1” on the walls and the ceiling.

Ceiling

No ceiling boards remain in this room though preproject photographs indicate that the room had a 

beaded-board ceiling.

Finishes 

No window casings or ceiling boards remain in 

this room. The beaded boards applied on the 

south wall have no evidence of an applied finish. 

There is no finish applied to the replacement 

flooring.

Pre-project photographs show that the beadedboard ceiling in this room was unpainted and 

without other applied finish.

Heating & Cooling

No physical evidence was found of a mechanical 

or combustion type heating system in this room, 

nor was physical evidence found of a mechanical 

cooling system.

Electrical System

Though electrical wiring can be seen in pre-project 

photographs, no physical evidence was identified.

Plumbing

Though plumbing lines can be seen in pre-project 

photographs, no physical evidence was identified.

Security

The house is kept locked. 

Fire Detection & Suppression

No fire detection or suppression systems are in 

place.

Room 103: Kitchen/Dining Room

The room measures 14’-8” deep by 8’-4” wide, 

which are the interior dimensions of the entire 

rear wing. It is currently an empty room without 

built-in cabinets or accommodations for kitchen 

appliances or furnishings. Constructed as a 

separate building, it was attached to the main block 

sometime after Tom and Lucy Gilgo moved after 

the 1933 hurricane.

Flooring

It appears that all flooring was replaced during 

the 2002 project. The flooring runs north-south 
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 57

through the rear wing. The flooring is 5/4” thick 

with widths ranging from 101⁄4” to 101⁄2”.

Baseboard

There are no baseboards.

Walls 

At the north, east, and west walls, the wall framing 

is discussed in Structural Systems above.

On the south wall, west of the central doorway, the 

structural system is exposed. Four plank boards 

of the main block’s board-and-batten exterior 

siding are visible just beyond the framing. Above 

the doorway are six more boards, and two boards 

are visible east of the doorway (Fig. 80). The plank 

boards measure 1” by a variety of widths including 

63⁄4”, 67

/8”, and 75/8”. 

East of the doorway are two types of beaded board 

applied vertically. Both types measure 3/8” thick 

by 23/8” wide. One type has a 3/16”-wide edge bead 

and center bead while the other has only 3/16”-wide 

center bead (Fig. 80).

Doorways

There are two doorways in this room (Fig. 82). 

The cased doorway to Room 101 is discussed in 

part in Structural Systems – Shared Wall Framing: 

Intersection of Main Block and Wing and in Room 

101: Living Room – Doorways. When the house was 

moved to this site, this was an exterior doorway, as 

indicated by the weatherboard cap atop the door 

Figure 80. Rear wing interior looking south.

Figure 81. Rear wing interior looking north.

Figure 82. Southeast oblique of rear wing interior.

Figure 83. Northwest oblique of rear wing interior.
58 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

casing (Fig. 84 & 85). This casing, like that of the 

front doorway, is comprised of unadorned plank 

board casing with a lintel cut. The weatherboard 

has a beveled top surface.

The doorway on the east wall leading to the 

exterior is discussed in part in Exterior Features 

– Doorways. The wood sash door with one large 

glass light and three horizontal wood panels 

probably dates to the second quarter of the 

twentieth century (Fig. 86). It measures 2’-5” 

wide by 6’-6” tall. Because the door is secured in 

a closed position, the door thickness could not 

be confirmed. The door hardware includes two 

31⁄2” butt hinges, a 21⁄4” by 7” beveled plate with no 

doorknobs, and a 11⁄2” barrel bolt on the interior 

face of the door stile.

Windows

There are three windows in this room, one on the 

east wall and two on the west wall. Each window 

opening measures 2’-4” wide by 3’-10” tall and 

holds a pair of sash in a six-light over six-light 

arrangement. In the window on the east wall, both 

sash are salvaged/reused elements. On the west 

wall, all four sash are modern, constructed in a 

Figure 84. Close-up view, Room 103, of south wall 

framing notched around doorway weather cap.

Figure 85. Close-up view, Room 103, of south wall 

framing notched around doorway swivel latch.

Figure 86. Secured three-panel sash door in side 

entrance doorway of Room 103.
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 59

comparable design, presumably installed as part 

of the 2002 project. None of the three window 

openings has interior casing. 

Cornice

The beaded boards on the south wall have a 

distinct ghost mark extending down about two 

inches from the top edge where ceiling boards 

connected. The pre-project photographs show the 

same ghost mark on the wall boards but the 2002 

camera angle does not allow a clear view of the 

ceiling. 

Ceiling

Pre-project photographs indicate that the room 

had a beaded-board ceiling running north-south, 

though no ceiling boards are now present.

Finishes 

The last paint layer on the covered casing of the 

doorway connecting with Room 101 is blue. The 

color of the finish on the face of the adjacent 

exterior wall boards is white, as is the interior face 

of the door in the east doorway. The beaded-board 

wall covering on the south wall has no finish, nor 

does the replacement flooring.

Pre-project photographs show that the beadedboard ceiling, like the beaded-board wall covering, 

did not have an applied finish.

Heating & Cooling

No physical evidence was found of a mechanical 

or combustion type heating system in this room, 

nor was physical evidence found of a mechanical 

cooling system. 

Electrical System

Though electrical wiring can be seen in pre-project 

photographs, no physical evidence was identified.

Plumbing

Though plumbing lines can be seen in pre-project 

photographs, no physical evidence was identified.

Security

The house is kept locked. 

Fire Detection & Suppression

No fire detection or suppression systems are in 

place.

Figure 87. Mowed yard around the Tom and Lucy 

Gilgo House surrounded by tall grasses, low shrubs, 

and an occasional wind-bent tree.

Figure 88. View from the yard across the marsh and 

Doctor’s Creek to the Methodist Church and other 

buildings on the east bank.

Figure 89. View of Henry Pigott’s house from Tom 

and Lucy Gilgo’s house.
60 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

Character-Defining Features

Distinctive Characteristics of the Site

• Level grade.

• Mowed grass-covered lawn immediately 

surrounding the house.

• Tall grasses and low shrubs surrounding 

the grassy site with interspersed clumps of 

wind-bent trees (Fig. 87).

• Dirt road adjacent to the house.

• Absence of yard developments.

• Long vistas of significant village features 

including the Church, the Henry Pigott 

House, and Doctor’s Creek (Fig. 88-89).

• Long vistas of the Tom and Lucy Gilgo 

House from other parts of Portsmouth 

Village (Fig. 89).

Distinctive Characteristics of the 

Building Exterior

• Wooden open stair to front porch (Fig. 53).

• Open front porch with unadorned square 

posts supporting a shingled shed roof.

• T-plan configuration.

• Low wood foundation posts in separate, 

irregular-grid patterns for the main block 

and rear wing.

• Wooden board-and-batten siding of the 

front and back elevations of the main block 

and sides of the rear wing.

• Tapered weatherboard siding of the three 

gable-end walls and shingles on the upper 

west gable-end walls.

• Early broad-plank siding at the base of the 

east and west gable-end walls of the main 

block.

• Six-over-six light, wooden, double-sash 

windows.

• Plank board casing of doors and windows, 

lintel cut.

• Corner boards made of a single full-length 

plank board.

• Sash side door with horizontal panels and 

large glass light.

• Two-board cornice on the gable-end walls.

• One-board cornice on the front and back 

walls of the main block and side walls of the 

rear wing.

Figure 90. View of the Tom and Lucy Gilgo House (L) and Henry Pigott House from the bridge over Doctor’s 

Creek. 
PART I.C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

National Park Service 61

• Shingled gable roofs.

• Tapered rafter tails.

• Diagonal hurricane braces anchored into the 

ground along the house perimeter (Fig. 91).

• Wooden board cistern in northwest corner.

Distinctive Characteristics of the 

Building Interior

• Tongue-and-groove wood flooring of 

randomly alternating 21⁄2” and 31⁄4” widths 

running east-west in the main block.

• Wide (101⁄4” to 101⁄2”) plank board flooring 

running north-south in the rear wing.

• Tongue-and-groove, beaded-board siding, 

measuring 7

/8” thick by 41⁄2” wide, laid 

horizontally, applied to the walls of the main 

block (Fig. 92).

• Tongue-and-groove, beaded-board siding, 

measuring 3

/8” thick by 23/8” wide, with one 

bead (3

/16”) and two beads (3/16”), installed 

vertically, applied to the walls of the rear 

wing.

• Physical evidence, including paint remnants 

and edges, of board partition wall between 

Rooms 101 and 102.

• Physical evidence of window casings in 

Room 102, including paint edges and nail 

patterns.

• Finishes and lack of finishes on interior 

elements.

• Decorative board casing and apron of the 

windows of the west section (Room 101) of 

the main block.

• Decorative board casing of the doors of the 

west section (Room 101) of the main block 

(Fig. 92).

• Decorative casing of the doorway entrance 

to the main block from the rear wing.

• Wide plank boards of the early siding of the 

main block, as viewed behind the south wall 

framing of the rear wing.

Figure 91. Diagonal ground braces/hurricane braces.

Figure 92. Beaded-board siding and decorative 

casing of doors and windows.
62 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

Summary of Physical Conditions & 

Other Concerns:

The repairs and replacements conducted by 

NPS in 2002 were extensive. As a result, sound 

structural systems and a protective exterior 

envelope were reestablished. 

In the years since the project was completed, 

only a few new concerns have developed. The 

concerns are as follows.

Highest Priority: Immediate Threat to 

Life/Safety of Occupants Or Immediate 

and Serious Threat to Building

• A broken joist and deck boards at the front 

porch. The condition is a potential hazard to 

the public and staff (Fig. 93).

• The tilted entry steps to the side door. 

Though the door is fixed in a closed 

position, persons unfamiliar with the 

building might try to enter. The steps are a 

potential trip hazard.

High Priority: High Potential for 

Becoming a Threat

• The exterior wood siding and trim is largely 

without a protective finish. Only the doors 

and window sash have been painted or 

varnished. Though an unpainted house may 

be the familiar image, paint is more than 

an aesthetic effect. It serves the important 

purpose of a shelter coat (Fig. 94).

• A number of the early boards were 

reinstalled. They are important features 

and generally are still useful for sheltering 

rain, though they are weathered. Some are 

checking. The caulking that accompanies 

repainting would improve the capacity for 

sheltering and increase the life of the board.

Medium Priority: Delayed Threat

• The cistern is an important site feature. It is 

in poor condition. The bottom boards have 

come free from the base and the side boards 

are loose (Fig. 95).

Figure 93. Broken joist and deck board at front 

porch. 

Figure 94. Most exterior wood elements are 

unpainted. 

Figure 95. Deteriorated wooden cistern in need of 

repair.
National Park Service 63

PART II.A ULTIMATE TREATMENT AND USE

II.A Ultimate Treatment 

and Use

Situated on the west bank of Doctor’s Creek, 

the Tom and Lucy Gilgo House is part of a 

group of historic structures that provide iconic 

images of Portsmouth Village. Anchored by the 

Methodist church at the center of the village, 

this concentration of residences, outbuildings, 

community buildings, and cemeteries provides 

visitors a sense of the village in the early twentieth 

century when it was still a thriving community. 

Any treatment and use of the Gilgo House should 

be predicated on preserving its place in that 

ensemble of buildings.

The house contributes to the character of 

Portsmouth. It is historically significant for its 

role in the evolution of the community and for 

its association with the Gilgo family, one of the 

earliest to settle in the community.

It is architecturally significant as an example 

of a building that began near the Coast Guard 

Station (former Life-Saving Station) as simple 

stock housing for Coast Guard surfmen, and 

subsequently was moved into the village and 

adapted as a single family residence. It was later 

expanded and further modified for use as a 

seasonal vacation home.

Originally rectangular in plan, the house consisted 

of two rooms: a small living room and smaller 

bedroom. It was constructed in the mid-1920s 

for enlisted personnel who performed rescue 

operations. Soon thereafter and before 1928, it was 

acquired by Tom and Lucy Gilgo. As a newlywed 

couple, they had returned to Portsmouth in late 

1925 and moved into the crowded home of Tom’s 

parents and two other families. Both Tom and Lucy 

worked at the Coast Guard Station and perhaps 

through associations there arranged to purchase 

the house and move it to its current location. 

Tom, a fisherman, and Lucy, who supplemented 

her income by making clothes for others, raised 

their young children in this small house. After the 

devastating hurricane of 1933, they moved inland 

to Oriental, a mainland community with a more 

robust economy.

The vacated house was sold to Jesse and Gladys 

Bookhardt, a couple not from Portsmouth but who 

had spent summers in the village. They added a 

kitchen wing and used the enlarged residence as a 

vacation house until 1969 when the family sold it to 

the State of North Carolina for eventual transfer to 

NPS.

The park’s 1982-83 General Management Plan 

and its Long-Range Interpretive Plan provide little 

guidance in the treatment and use of this house 

other than to preserve it to maintain the historic 

character of the community.

Recognizing that the original use of an historic 

structure is often the most efficient adaptive 

use, and can generate greater appreciation for 

its history, NPS began in the 1970s a successful 

leasing program. The long-term agreements, 

generally twenty years, required leaseholders to 

maintain and improve the buildings following 

the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards for 

Rehabilitation” and other conditions, including 

a requirement for a compost toilet if a flush toilet 

were not installed.74 The program was popular 

with the public and a subject of frequent inquiry 

during preparation of this report.

The leasing program at Portsmouth Village, like 

that at Cape Lookout Village, came to a close as 

74. Ellen Fulcher Cloud interview, April 26, 2014 

Homecoming.
64 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

the initial lease period ended. A plan for reuse 

was developed for the historic buildings at Cape 

Lookout Village after an unsuccessful challenge to 

the NPS decision not to renew. No similar plan has 

been developed for Portsmouth. 

Reestablishment of the leasing program at 

Portsmouth seems unlikely in the immediate 

future. Maintaining potable water supplies has 

historically been a challenge. New, more stringent 

interpretations of code requirements for sanitary 

facilities is a more recent challenge. Indeed, the 

installation and maintenance of sanitary facilities 

during the initial phase of the leasing program was 

a recurring issue due to the shallow water table.7576 

As noted in the park’s Long Range Interpretive 

Plan, “development of adequate sanitary facilities 

is not only challenging in the district but is also 

further complicated by sea level rise....”77 With a 

rising and increasingly saline water table, wells may 

no longer be practical. 

75. Cape Lookout National Seashore, Foundation 

Document, 2012, p. 29.

76. Henry Pigott House HSR 

77. Cape Lookout National Seashore, Long-Range 

Interpretive Plan, pp. 38-39.

If a lease program is reinstated, The Gilgo 

House would not be a candidate for immediate 

occupancy. Though recently repaired and rebuilt 

on the exterior, the interior was left somewhat 

unfinished as two undivided rooms, one per 

building section. Residential use or occupancy 

of any type would require extensive retrofitting, 

and other Portsmouth buildings could 

more readily be used as residences if leasing 

opportunities become available.

Certainly the unfinished interior is not an 

unsurmountable obstacle, but it may deter 

potential leases. On the other hand, it could be 

seen as an advantage by those welcoming more 

flexibility in retrofitting.

Given these circumstances, the 

Recommended Ultimate Treatment is 

Preservation of the exterior of the house in 

acknowledgement of the house as a major 

feature in the district’s cultural landscape, 

and Preservation of the interior in its current 

unfinished state, ready for Rehabilitation for 

occupancy as a residence, if the opportunity 

presents itself.

Figure 96. Tom and Lucy Gilgo House viewed from west.
National Park Service 65

PART II.A ULTIMATE TREATMENT AND USE

This approach would have the following 

advantages: 

• promotes the preservation of a 

contributing property of the National 

Register historic district;

• is consistent with the park’s General 

Management Plan by contributing to the 

historic character of the community;

• enhances the public’s understanding of 

the house from its origin as a Life Saving 

Service/Coast Guard surfman’s house, 

through its evolution as a private family 

residence, to its use as a seasonal residence;

• enhances the public’s understanding of its 

first three phases of use and appearance 

(surfman’s house, private family residence, 

and seasonal vacation house) because of 

the physical separation of the parts of the 

building;

• leaves open the option of adapting the 

interior for a needed use;

• limits financial needs to maintenance costs.

This approach would have the following 

disadvantages:

• does not allow the opportunity to 

experience the interior spaces;

• does not include the presentation of the 

full range of evolutionary phases of its 

residential form and use by failing to exhibit 

the bathroom addition.
66 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 
PART II.B REQUIREMENTS FOR TREATMENT

National Park Service 89

II.B Requirements for 

Treatment

Treatment and use of all historic properties 

maintained by the National Park Service 

are guided by a number of Federal laws and 

regulations, as well as by NPS policy, directives, 

and functional requirements. In addition to 

protecting cultural resources, these requirements 

address issues of life safety, fire protection, energy 

conservation, abatement of hazardous materials, 

and handicapped accessibility.

Some of these requirements may contradict 

or be at cross purposes with another if they 

are rigidly interpreted. Any treatment must be 

carefully considered with a goal of maximizing the 

preservation of historic features and materials.

National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as 

amended (NHPA) mandates Federal protection 

of significant cultural resources, including 

buildings, landscapes, and archeological sites. 

In implementing the act, a number of laws and 

authorities have been established that are binding 

on the NPS.

Section 106

A routine step in the park’s planning process for 

the treatment of cultural resources is compliance 

with Section 106 of NHPA. This requires that, 

prior to any undertaking involving National 

Register or National Register-eligible historic 

properties, Federal agencies “take into account the 

effect” of the undertaking on the property and give 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation “a 

reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to 

such undertaking.”

To satisfy the requirements of Section 106, 

regulations have been published (36 CFR Part 

800, “Protection of Historic Properties”) that 

require, among other things, consultation with 

local governments, State Historic Preservation 

Officers, and Indian tribal representatives. They 

also establish criteria under which the Advisory 

Council may comment, but as a practical matter, 

the vast majority of Federal undertakings do not 

involve review by the Advisory Council. The 

purpose of Section 106 review is to ensure that all 

interested parties have a voice in the preservation 

of our nation’s cultural heritage, and that historic 

properties are protected.

To expedite the review process, a programmatic 

agreement (PMOA) has been developed among 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the 

National Council of State Historic Preservation 

Officers,and the NPS to allow for a streamlined 

Section 106 review process. With certain 

conditions, routine repairs and maintenance that 

do not alter the appearance of the historic structure 

or involve widespread or total replacement of 

historic features or materials are reviewed by 

cultural resource specialists within the NPS. 

The Secretary’s Standards

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties are the Secretary’s 

best advice to everyone on how to protect a 

wide range of historic properties. They provide 

a philosophy to underpin historic preservation 

that is widely understood and almost universally 

accepted in the United States. They are intended 

to be applied to a wide variety of resource types, 

including buildings, sites, structures, objects, 

and districts. The Standards, revised in 1992, are 

codified at 36 CFR Part 68.

The Standards describe four broad approaches to 

the treatment and use of historic properties. These 

are, in hierarchical order:

• Preservation, which places a high premium 

on the retention of all historic fabric through 

conservation, maintenance and repair. It 

reflects a building’s continuum over time, 
68 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

through successive occupancies, and the 

respectful changes and alterations that are 

made.

• Rehabilitation, which emphasizes the 

retention and repair of historic materials, 

but provides more latitude for replacement 

because it is assumed the property is 

more deteriorated prior to work. (Both 

Preservation and Rehabilitation standards 

focus attention on the preservation of those 

materials, features, finishes, spaces, and 

spatial relationships that, together, give a 

property its historic character.)

• Restoration, which focuses on the retention 

of materials from the most significant time 

in a property’s history, while permitting the 

removal of materials from other periods.

• Reconstruction, which establishes limited 

opportunities to recreate a non-surviving 

site, landscape, building, structure, or object 

in all new materials.

Regardless of treatment approach, the Standards 

put a high priority on preservation of existing 

historic materials and features and not just the 

architectural form and style. The Standards also 

require that any alterations, additions, or other 

modifications be reversible, i.e., be designed and 

constructed in such a way that they can be removed 

or reversed in the future without the loss of 

existing historic materials, features, or character.

Americans With Disabilities Act of 

1990

The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) 

establishes comprehensive civil rights protection 

for disabled Americans, both in employment 

and in their right to free, unaided access to 

public buildings. While people with restricted 

mobility have most frequently benefited from 

ADA, protection also extends to those with other 

disabilities, including those with impaired vision or 

hearing.

Requirements for full compliance with ADA 

regulations are extensive and easiest to apply to 

new construction. Full compliance for historic 

buildings is more difficult and sometimes would 

require significant alterations to the historic 

character of the property. Where that is the 

case, ADA authorizes a process for arriving at 

alternatives to full compliance that can preserve 

historic character while maximizing a disabled 

visitor’s access to the historic building.

International Building Code

As a matter of policy, the NPS is guided by the 

International Building Code, which includes this 

statement regarding code compliance in historic 

buildings:

3406.1 Historic Buildings. The provisions 

of this code related to the construction, 

repair, alteration, addition, restoration 

and movement of structures, and change 

of occupancy shall not be mandatory for 

historic buildings where such buildings 

are judged by the building official to not 

constitute a distinct life safety hazard 

[emphasis added].

Threats to public health and safety should always 

be eliminated, but because this applies to historic 

buildings, alternatives to full code compliance are 

always sought where compliance would needlessly 

compromise the integrity of historic buildings.

NFPA Code 914

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 

has promulgated codes for historic buildings, 

most notably NFPA 909, “Code for the Protection 

of Cultural Resources Properties - Museums, 

Libraries, and Places of Worship,” and NFPA 914, 

“Code for Fire Protection of Historic Structures.” 

As a matter of policy, NPS recommends installation 

of fire-suppression systems in every historic 

building.

NPS Management Policies

The NPS General Management Policies (2006) 

guide overall management of historic properties, 

especially Chapter 5 “Cultural Resource 

Management.” Based upon the authority of 

some nineteen Acts of Congress and many more 

Executive orders and regulations, these policies 

require planning to ensure that management 

processes for making decisions and setting 
PART II.B REQUIREMENTS FOR TREATMENT

National Park Service 69

priorities integrate information about cultural 

resources, and provide for consultation and 

collaboration with outside entities. These policies 

also support good stewardship to ensure that 

cultural resources are preserved and protected, 

receive appropriate treatments (including 

maintenance), and are made available for public 

understanding and enjoyment.

Section 5.3.5, “Treatment of Cultural 

Resources”

This section of the management policies 

provides specific directives, including a directive 

that “the preservation of cultural resources 

in their existing states will always receive first 

consideration.” 

The section also states that “treatments entailing 

greater intervention will not proceed without 

the consideration of interpretive alternatives.... 

Pending treatment decisions reached through the 

planning process, all resources will be protected 

and preserved in their existing states. Except for 

emergencies that threaten irreparable loss without 

immediate action, no treatment project will be 

undertaken unless supported by an approved 

planning document appropriate to the proposed 

action.”78 The present HSR is that approved 

planning document.

78. NPS General Management Policies (2006), p. 50.

Park Planning

The 1982 General Management Plan (GMP) 

divided the park into management zones, with 

a 250-acre “historic zone” identified around 

Portsmouth where preservation and adaptive use 

of the historic structures was envisioned. Beyond 

that, the GMP recommended restoration of

Portsmouth “to the turn-of-the-century period, 

but without the replacement of now-missing 

buildings” and removal of “later buildings of nonhistoric character.” Those recommendations were 

based on a narrow understanding of the history 

and significance of Portsmouth that has since 

been broadened by additional research and the 

numerous studies that have been completed since 

the turn of the present century. We concur with 

the recommendations of the recently completed 

cultural landscape report, which suggests the 

period of significance be extended to 1971, when 

the island’s last year-round residents decamped 

for the mainland.

The GMP envisioned the interiors of some 

buildings being used for interpretation and 

others “adapted for contemporary administrative 

functions.”79 Subsequent park planning 

documents, including the park’s 2011 Long Range 

Interpretive Plan, provide no additional guidance 

applicable to the treatment and use of the Tom 

and Lucy Gilgo House beyond maintaining its 

presence in the village. 

79. NPS, Cape Lookout National Seashore General 

Management Plan, 1982, p. 43.
70 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 
PART II.C ALTERNATIVES FOR TREATMENT

National Park Service 71

II.C Alternatives for Treatment 

and Use

In accordance with NPS policy, another alternative 

for treatment and use has been considered in 

addition to the Ultimate Treatment and Use 

described above. While perhaps not recommended 

under present circumstances, this alternative 

nevertheless fulfills the basic park mandate to 

preserve the historic resources of Portsmouth.

Alternative Treatment: 

Restoration to ca. 1930

An alternative to continued preservation is the 

restoration of the house to its appearance during 

the occupancy of Tom and Lucy Gilgo. The house 

at that time essentially retained its form when 

a surfman’s house. Lucy Gilgo’s recollections 

provide information on its appearance and 

use. Surviving building fabric corroborates 

those descriptions and provides more specific 

information making exterior and interior 

restorations a credible exercise.

Such an approach would contribute to the 

public’s understanding of a surfman’s house, the 

Portsmouth practice of recycling building parts 

and even whole buildings, everyday life in the 

community and the nature of its built environment 

in the early twentieth century.

This approach would require removal of the rear 

kitchen addition, reconstruction of a rear porch, 

rebuilding of the dividing wall on the interior of the 

house, application of some salvaged and some new 

beaded boards and trim on the interior walls and 

ceilings, and reconstruction of the brick chimney.

This approach would have the following 

advantages: 

• promotes the preservation of a contributing 

property in the National Register historic 

district;

• is consistent with the park’s General 

Management Plan by contributing to the 

historic character of the community;

• enhances the public’s understanding of a 

Coast Guard surfman’s house;

• enhances the public’s understanding 

of early-twentieth-century Portsmouth 

community life and the nature of its built 

environment;

• allows for the opportunity to experience the 

interior spaces.

This approach would have the following 

disadvantages:

• removes the early kitchen addition which 

serves the valuable role of showing the 

later evolution of the house, and is an early 

structure itself;

• requires time-consuming and potentially 

costly additional research including ground 

archaeology, document searches, the 

comparative method, building archaeology, 

and paint and material analyses to properly 

carry out the restoration;

Figure 97. Ed and Kate Styron House, Southwest 

oblique of front elevation.
72 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

• relies on a level of speculation;

• returns to a building type (surfman’s house) 

that is already represented in the community 

by the Ed and Kate Styron House;

• proposed removal of the kitchen wing, 

which is also a significant historic feature, 

may be an “adverse effect” under Section 106; 

• may cause concern in the local community 

by removing a part of the cultural landscape 

(kitchen wing) long associated with that 

residence.

• Incurs additional costs of construction.
National Park Service 73

PART II.D RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TREATMENT AND USE

II.D Recommendations for 

Treatment and Use

The following recommendations are intended to 

achieve the Ultimate Treatment and Use described 

above for the Tom and Lucy Gilgo House: 

Preservation of the exterior in acknowledgement of 

the house as a major feature in the district’s cultural 

landscape, and Preservation of the interior in its 

current unfinished state, ready for Rehabilitation for 

occupancy as a residence, if the opportunity presents 

itself.

The suggestions below are compatible with a 

variety of uses and are intended to incorporate 

routine maintenance, repairs and, if necessary, 

replacement in-kind, as well as routine inspections 

to minimize damage to historic fabric.

HSR recommendations are not intended to provide 

the specific guidance that architectural/engineering 

plans and specifications or other specialized 

professional documents would provide. However, 

A/E plans and specifications or other professional 

documents may not be needed for many of the 

recommended actions. Some of the in-kind repairs 

and maintenance tasks can be performed by skilled 

craftsmen, if properly guided by cultural resource 

specialists. 

It should be noted that the house was extensively 

rebuilt by NPS crews in 2002. Salvaged portions 

of virtually every type of building element were 

reinstalled in the repairs. New materials to match 

the removed elements were used to complete the 

protective exterior envelope, and large portions of 

the interior surfaces were left incomplete. Some 

salvaged interior material is stored within the 

house.

Portsmouth Village - General

Barrier islands, such as Portsmouth, will be 

especially vulnerable to the effects of climate 

change and sea-level rise, which may negatively 

affect cultural resources on these islands.

General Recommendations for Portsmouth Village

• Consult with Janet Cakir PhD, NPS 

SER Climate Change, Socioeconomics, 

and Adaptation Coordinator to guide 

management policies.

• Use results from the climate change study 

“Identify Cultural Resources Sites Affected 

by Sea-Level Rise at Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore” to guide management policies. This 

study is also applicable to Portsmouth Island.

• Prepare or update a Topographic Survey for 

the site.

• Prepare a Log of Flood Occurrences. Record 

at a minimum the dates of occurrences and 

approximate extent and severity (e.g. depth at 

specific locations). Correlate recordings with 

Topographic Survey. Maintain data so that 

they can be correlated with conditions such 

as tide, moon phase, etc.

• Evaluate site for flood avoidance potential 

including the introduction of dams and/or 

swales to divert or direct flooding waters.

Figure 98. Tom and Lucy Gilgo House, viewed from 

the east.
74 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

• Evaluate each building, structure, and 

significant site feature for flood avoidance 

potential and/or enhancement potential for 

better withstanding the projected threatening 

events.

• Identify critical services (fresh water supply, 

waste disposal, energy sources, etc.), evaluate 

options, and develop a contingency plan for 

each. 

• Strive to maintain for all buildings a sound 

structural system and a weather-tight exterior 

envelope, especially the roof.

• Use maintenance activities as opportunities 

to enhance the resistive capacities of the 

buildings and structures whenever feasible.

• Prepare minimum level of record 

documentation (overall view photographs 

and text descriptions) for all undocumented 

cultural resources in the community 

that are at risk; prepare more extensive 

documentation (including scaled record 

drawings with descriptions) for the more 

significant resources at risk.

The House Site

Portsmouth’s coastal climate with its regularly 

strong winds, high humidity levels and high 

salt content of the air, is especially damaging to 

many construction materials, especially ferrousbased metals. Left unprotected, such materials 

deteriorate quickly. 

,oor drainage is also characteristic of Portsmouth, 

created in part by the natural process of decay 

of vegetation and generation of new humus. The 

process eventually creates a bowl-like depression 

beneath buildings that traps water and keeps the 

area damp for extended periods of time. This not 

only exacerbates deterioration of wood posts, but 

also creates conditions conducive to termites.

This situation does not currently exist at the Gilgo 

House site, due in large part to the extensive 

replacement and repairs to the foundation piers 

in 2002. However, given the prevalence of this 

condition in Portsmouth, it would be wise to watch 

for signs of its development.

Recommendations for House Site

• Keep lawn grasses mowed and regularly 

remove volunteer plants and shrubs close to 

the house.

• Observe drainage patterns of the site 

during periods of significant rainfall 

and flooding; determine the feasibility 

of creating shallow swales to promote 

drainage away from the building.

• Monitor conditions beneath the house; be 

prepared to add fill to depressions should 

they begin to form.

• Conduct rigorous inspections for termite 

infestation and treat accordingly.

• Secure clearance from an archaeologist 

before commencing work that might 

require ground disturbance.

Structural Systems

The one-story house, T-shape in plan, is set on 

low wood posts and has conventional stick-frame 

wall and roof construction.

Foundation Posts

The great majority of foundation posts were 

replaced in 2002.

Posts will need to be replaced eventually, and 

should be replaced in-kind.

Recommendations for Foundation Posts

• Keep vegetation closely trimmed near 

foundation posts.

• Investigate condition of foundation posts 

on a regular basis.

• Replace foundation posts in-kind as they 

fail.

• Install termite shields wherever possible.

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.

Floor, Wall & Roof Framing

The floor, wall and roof framing of the original 

house and the kitchen addition were largely 

replaced in 2002 and remain in good condition. 

The wall and roof framing systems are largely 

exposed on the interior.

Recommendations for Floor, Wall and Roof 

Framing

• Conduct regular inspections for the 

presence of wood-damaging plants and 

insects; treat accordingly.
National Park Service 75

PART II.D RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TREATMENT AND USE

• Conduct routine inspections, some 

preferably during rainstorms, to inspect for 

evidence of water intrusion and instances 

of damage. 

• Periodically review for evidence of 

deflection across planes of framing, 

framing members out of square or plumb, 

or heightened vibration in framing 

members. 

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs. 

Exterior Features

The house is finished with materials typical of 

the early twentieth century. Much of it is in-kind 

replacements made in 2002. 

Doors and Entrances

There are two exterior doorways, each with a 

door in place and without screen door. 

Recommendations for Doors

• Ensure all hardware remains operable. 

Apply lubricant on a regular basis.

• Reconstruct step to ground at side stairs.

• Repaint exterior surfaces and maintain 

sound paint finish at all exposed 

surfaces.

• Monitor condition and operation on a 

regular basis.

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.

Windows

Sash, many early if not original, are in place in 

all window openings and are in generally sound 

condition. The exterior finish and glazing are 

failing on most.

Recommendations for Windows

• Ensure all sash are in working order, reglaze 

and repaint exterior surfaces.

• Monitor condition and operation on a 

regular basis.

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.

Figure 99. View from east bank of Doctor’s Creek looking northwest. Tom and Lucy Gilgo House left of center.
76 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

Roofing

The 2002 cedar shingle roofing appears to be 

in good condition with no apparent leaks. No 

shingles appear to be missing or loose. As with 

most Portsmouth structures, no gutters are present.

Recommendations for Roofing

• Routinely inspect for missing, damaged or 

loose shingles; repair or replace as needed.

• Routinely inspect for roof leaks, especially at 

valleys and roof ridges. On some occasions 

inspect during rainstorms.

Siding and Trim

Salvaged remnants of three siding materials from 

multiple installation periods were reinstalled in 

2002, including board- and-batten, weatherboard, 

and wood shingle. New weatherboards and boardand-batten siding were also installed.

Salvaged trim pieces of various types were also 

reinstalled, supplemented by matching new pieces.

The new elements are in good condition in general. 

Salvaged elements are generally sound. None 

appear to have a protective finish.

Recommendations for Siding and Trim

• Apply a clear, sheenless wood preservative. 

Monitor and reapply on a regular basis or as 

needed.

• Monitor regularly for open joints, displaced 

or loose elements, or other evidence of 

movement; renail loose pieces.

• Monitor checking, splitting, and instances 

of rot, and plan remedial actions 

accordingly. 

• Avoid use of ferrous-based fasteners in all 

construction and repairs.

Front Porch

The porch was also rebuilt in 2002. A porch joist 

has failed, and attached deck boards have partially 

collapsed.

Recommendations for Front Porch

• Replace in-kind the failed porch deck joist, 

reusing deck board if sound.

• Regularly inspect for signs of deterioration 

or distress and for evidence of harmful 

insects and plants and treat accordingly.

• Apply a clear, sheenless wood preservative. 

Monitor and reapply on a regular basis or as 

needed.

Interior Features

During the major repair campaign of 2002, as 

noted previously, salvaged building material was 

reinstalled on the new framing. New cladding was 

not installed to supplement what was missing, 

except for flooring. Therefore, there are gaps in the 

finish materials; framing is exposed in every room, 

and the beaded-board dividing wall of the original 

house was not reinstalled. Some salvaged elements 

that were not reinstalled are stored in the house, 

including perhaps the door and beaded boards for 

that dividing wall. These recommendations thus 

apply to the unfinished interior as a whole.

Recommendations for the Interior

• Confirm with NPS personnel involved with 

the 2002 campaign that the door now stored 

loosely in the house is indeed the door of 

the unreconstructed dividing wall. Label 

accordingly with a permanent marking 

material in an inconspicuous location. 

Place out of harm’s way on top of the ceiling 

joists with other stored salvaged building 

elements.

• Confirm with NPS personnel involved 

with the 2002 campaign that the beaded 

boards now stored on ceiling joists of the 

original house are indeed boards from 

the unreconstructed dividing wall. Label 

accordingly with a permanent marking 

material in an inconspicuous location. 

Return to storage location atop the ceiling 

joists of the original house.

• Remove any loose debris.

• Keep rooms broom-swept of dirt and other 

materials to facilitate inspections.

• Conduct paint and finish analyses to 

document the sequence and types of paints 

and finishes used on salvaged interior 

surfaces, with special emphases on the 

Coast Guard surfman and Gilgo (earlytwentieth century Portsmouth) periods, of 

which little is known. 

• Also conduct paint and finish analyses to 

document the sequence and types of paints 

and finishes used on salvaged features, 

now interior but formerly exterior surfaces 

(rear entrance now enclosed and partially 

covered by the kitchen wing) with special 

emphases on the Coast Guard surfman and 

Gilgo (early-twentieth-century Portsmouth) 

periods, of which little is known. 
National Park Service 77

PART II.D RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TREATMENT AND USE

Remedial Actions of Priority

Highest Priority

Remedial actions of highest priority are those that 

address immediate threats to life and safety of 

persons, closely followed by immediate and serious 

threats to the building.

• Replace in-kind broken joist at front porch. 

Repair associated deck boards as needed.

• Repair in-kind damaged steps of the side 

entrance.

High Priority

Remedial actions of high priority are those that 

address conditions that have a high potential of 

serious threat to persons or the building.

• Evaluate option to fill gaps in checking of 

exterior boards and trim that are interpreted 

as weathered and without finish.

• Apply a clear, sheenless wood preservative 

to the unfinished exterior wood elements. 

Regularly reapply or on an as-needed basis.

• Reglaze and repaint window sash. 

• Repaint exterior doors.

Medium Priority

Remedial actions of medium priority are those that 

address conditions that have a medium potential of 

serious threat to persons or the building.

• Renail loose boards of the box cistern. 

Replace in-kind unsalvageable elements. 

Apply wood preservative as on the house.
78 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 
BIBLIOGRAPHY

National Park Service 79

Bibliography

Atwell, Amy Elizabeth. “Portsmouth Village,” unpublished ms., 1991. 

Bemisderfer, Tim and Rene Cote. “Portsmouth Village Storm Damage Assessment Report,” November 27, 

2012.

Burke, Kenneth E. “The History of Portsmouth, North Carolina, From Its Founding in 1753 to Its 

Evacuation in the Face of Federal Forces in 1861.” Unpublished undergraduate thesis, 

University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia, 1958. Revised 1974, 1976.

Cape Lookout National Seashore. Master Plan, Cape Lookout National Seashore. Harkers Island NC: Cape 

Lookout National Seashore, 1971.

Cape Lookout National Seashore. Final Environmental Impact Statement on General Management Plan / 

Development Concept Plan, December 1982.

Cape Lookout National Seashore, Foundation Document, October 2012.

Cape Lookout National Seashore, Long-Range Interpretive Plan, June 2011

Cape Lookout National Seashore, “Portsmouth Village, Historic Structures Management 

Recommendations,” August 1984.

Cape Lookout National Seashore. Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, 1984.

Carteret County Deed Books.

Cecelski, David. The Waterman’s Song: Slavery and Freedom in Maritime North Carolina. Chapel Hill: 

University of North Carolina Press, 2001.

Cloud, Ellen Fulcher. Portsmouth, The Way It Was. Print Shop, 1996.

Core Sound Waterfowl Museum and Heritage Center, http://coresound.com/our-communities/sea-level/. 

Cote, Rene. “Narrative Report on the Findings of Historic Structures Examination; Preliminary Test of 

Historic Structures Survey, Portsmouth Village,” 1984.

Davis, Pat Dula, and Kathleen Hill Hamilton, eds. The Heritage of Carteret County North Carolina, Vol. 1. 

Beaufort, NC: Carteret Historical Research Association, 1982.

Denver Service Center. General Management Plan/Development Concept Plan, Cape Lookout National 

Seashore. Finalized 1982, approved 1983.

Ehrenhard, John E. Cape Lookout National Seashore: Assessment of Archeological and Historical Resources. 

SEAC, NPS, 1976.
80 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 

Eubanks, Frances A., and Lynn S. Salsi. Portsmouth Island: Outer Banks Treasure. Columbia, SC: Montville 

Press, 2004.

Friends of Portsmouth Island newsletters and website, http://friendsofportsmouthisland.org/fopi/.

Herrin, Angeli. “Deserted Island Comes Alive for Wedding Celebration,” The [Raleigh] News and Observer, 

October 1, 1978. found in survey files, State Historic Preservation Office, Raleigh.

Holland, F. Ross. A Survey History of Cape Lookout National Seashore. Department of History, Office of 

Archeology and Historic Preservation, NPS, 1968.

Howard, Philip. “1911 Wedding on Portsmouth Island,” Ocracoke Newsletter, February 21, 2011, www.

villagecraftsmen.com/news022111.htm

Impact Assessment, Inc. Ethnohistorical Description of the Eight Villages adjoining Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore and Interpretive Themes of History and Heritage. Final Technical Report, Vol. 2. 

Atlanta: National Park Service Southeast Regional Office, November 2005.

Interviews by the authors, 2013 and 2014.

Jones, Tommy. George Dixon House Historic Structure Report. Atlanta: National Park Service Southeast 

Regional Office, 2004. 

_______ Wash Roberts House Historic Structure Report. Atlanta: National Park Service Southeast Regional 

Office, 2003. 

_______ Portsmouth Life-Saving Station Historic Structure Report. Atlanta: National Park Service Southeast 

Regional Office, 2006. 

_______ Ed Styron House Historic Structure Report. Atlanta: National Park Service Southeast Regional 

Office, 2004. 

Life-Saving Station Logs, excerpted by Tommy Jones, NPS.

Little, M. Ruth. A Comprehensive Architectural Survey of Carteret County; North Carolina’s Archipelago, 

2012. 

National Park Service. “List of Classified Structures Park/Region Report,” March 11, 1987. 

National Park Service, Office of Policy. “NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management,” June 11, 1998.

NPS files including drawings, maps, memos, images and administrative files.

NOAA, Storm Tide Frequency Analysis for the Coast of North Carolina, North of Cape Lookout, 1975, p. 6, 

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hdsc/Technical_memoranda/TM27.pdf

Olson, Sarah. Historic Resource Study, Portsmouth Village, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North 

Carolina. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

Denver Service Center, March 1982.

Olszewski, George J. “Historic Resource Study for History of Portsmouth Village,” typewritten draft for 

NPS, September 1970.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

National Park Service 81

Powell, William S. North Carolina through Four Centuries. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina 

Press, 1989.

_______ Dictionary of North Carolina Biography, Vol. 5. Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 1994.

Ruffin, Edmund. Agricultural, Geological, and Descriptive Sketches of Lower North Carolina, and the 

Similar Adjacent Lands. Raleigh: Printed at the Institution for the Deaf & Dumb & the 

Blind, 1861.

Salsi, Lynn, and Frances Eubanks. The Crystal Coast. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2000.

Salter, Ben B. Portsmouth Island: Short Stories & History. Portsmouth: Doris S. Willis, 1972.

Smith, Caroline. “Historic Portsmouth,” undated article in SHPO files.

Stick, David. The Outer Banks of North Carolina, 1584-1958. Chapel Hill: The University of North 

Carolina Press, 1958.

VanBeck, Sara L. Cape Lookout National Seashore, Archives and Records Management Review. 

NPS, 2000.

Whisnant, David E., and Anne Mitchell Whisnant. Cape Lookout National Seashore Historic Resource 

Study, prepared for the Organization of American Historians under Cooperative 

Agreement with the National Park Service, Draft, January 14, 2010.

White, James E. Portsmouth Island: A Walk in the Past. Trent Woods, NC: Mount Truxton Publishing 

Company, 2010.

_______, ed. School Mom of Portsmouth: Memories of Lucy Beacham Gilgo. Trent Woods, NC: Mount 

Truxton Publishing Company, 2011.

Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Portsmouth Village, Cultural Resources Report. Atlanta: National Park 

Service Southeast Regional Office, 2007. 

Selected Maps

A Compleat Map of North-Carolina from an actual Survey by Capt’n Collet, Governor of Fort Johnston. 

1770. Engraved by I. Bayly, London. 

Mouzon, Henry. An Accurate Map of North and South Carolina, 1775.

Thomas Coles and Jonathan Price, both civilian surveyors employed by the federal government. “A Chart 

of the Coast of North Carolina between Cape Hatteras and Cape Fear from a Survey taken 

in the Year 1806.” National Archives, Washington, D.C., Records of the Office of Chief of 

Engineers, RG 77, Map H22.

US Coast Survey. “Sketch of Ocracoke Inlet,” 1852. Chart 418, Record Group 23, Records of the Coast and 

Geodetic Survey, National Archives.
82 Tom & Lucy Gilgo House HSR 
National Park Service 1

Part I.A - Historical Background and Context

Appendix: Documentation 

Drawings

Sheet 1: Floor Plan

Sheet 2: North and South Elevations

Sheet 3: East Elevation

Sheet 4: West Elevation
2 Tom Gilgo House HSR - DRAFT