Cape Lookout National Seashore

Cape Lookout Lighthouse

Historic Structure Report

December 2008

for Cultural Resoources Division

Southeast Region, National Park Service

Joseph K. Oppermann - Architect, P.A.

Winston-Salem, NC 
Cultural Resources

Southeast Region

National Park Service

100 Alabama St. SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

(404) 507-5847

The historic structure report presented here exists in 

two formats. A traditional, printed version is available 

for study at the park, the Southeastern Regional 

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

repositories. For more widespread access, the historic 

structure report also exists in a web-based format 

through ParkNet, the website of the National Park 

Service. Please visit www.nps.gov for more 

information.

2009

Historic Structure Report

Cape Lookout Lighthouse

Cape Lookout National Seashore

LCS#: 000018

Cover image: Cape Lookout Light Station, 

2008 (Photograph by author)


CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

Executive Summary............................................................................................... 1 

Administrative Data........................................................................6 

PART I – DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY 

A.    HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT................................I.A.1

Introduction............................................................................................................1

America’s Lighthouse Program ............................................................................. 2

Sending Out a Light...............................................................................................5

Changing Communication Technology ................................................................. 9

Life of the Keeper ................................................................................................ 10

B.    CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE................................ I.B.1

Establishment of Cape Lookout Light Station....................................................... 1

Improvement Needed............................................................................................. 5

A New Light for Cape Lookout............................................................................. 6

William Henry Chase Whiting............................................................................... 7

Plans and Construction ..........................................................................................9

Reuse of 1812 Tower........................................................................................... 14

A Storm on the Land............................................................................................ 14

Reestablishing the Light ......................................................................................16 

A Daring Raid...................................................................................................... 16

Recovery of the Fresnel Lens ..............................................................................17

Post War Repairs.................................................................................................. 19

1873—A New Look............................................................................................. 19

Improving the Light ............................................................................................. 21 

Storm Door and Air Lock .................................................................................... 22

Becoming Part of the National Park Service ....................................................... 26
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Table of Contents 

Removal of the Fresnel Lens—Again.................................................................. 27

Shoring the Interior..............................................................................................27

Continuing Maintenance...................................................................................... 28

National Park Service Assumes Control.............................................................. 31

TIMELINE........................................................................................................... 33

BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................ 37 

C. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION ................................................................... I.C.1

General Description: ..............................................................................................1

Construction Characteristics ..................................................................................3

Structural Systems.................................................................... 3

Utility Systems........................................................................9

Exterior Features.....................................................................10

Interior Features - Typical Characteristics.......................................18

Interior Features – By Room............................................................................... .23 

Summary of Conditions ...................................................................................... .45

Limitation of Inherent Design Characteristics.................................................... .45

PART II – TREATMENT & USE 

B. ULTIMATE TREATMENT & USE............................................II.A.1 

Building Fabric: Significance ...............................................................................1 

Building Fabric: Condition ................................................................................... 2

Change in Use ...................................................................................................... .3

The Challenge ....................................................................................................... 3

Recommended Ultimate Treatment ...................................................................... 4

B. REQUIREMENTS FOR TREATMENT.......................................II.B.1 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Table of Contents 

C. ALTERNATIVES FOR TREATMENT........................................II.C.1 

 Alternative Treatment #1...............................................................1 

Alternative Treatment #2...............................................................2 

Alternative Treatment #3...............................................................3 

D. RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................II.D.1 

Actions to Achieve Recommended Ultimate Treatment............................1 

Recommended Limitations as per IBC & Stair Landing Capacity................3 

Other Recommended Actions..........................................................3 

APPENDICES 

A. Documentation Drawings 

B. Structural Assessment/Carrying Capacity Analysis 

C. Code Compliance and Recommendations 

D. Materials Analysis 

CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Executive Summary 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page 1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Explorers of the North American coast 

feared the southern tip of what is now 

known as the Core Banks off North 

Carolina. So hazardous to navigation was 

this area that early cartographers labeled it 

Promontorium tremendum (“horrible 

headland”). 

The Cape Lookout Shoals on these maps 

extend approximately ten miles in a 

southeasterly direction from the point of the 

cape. The shoals are generally sandy, 

shifting to some extent with the heavy gales 

and strong tidal currents that cross them. In 

the middle is located the infamous Cape 

Lookout Breakers, three-quarters of a mile 

long, with a depth as shallow as two feet. 

Navigation was made all more treacherous 

with the convergence of the strong currents 

and storms that rapidly form in this area. 

Because the land was so low along this 

section of the coast, an approaching ship 

could be dangerously close to shore without 

realizing it. Often, the recognition came too 

late. 

Despite the danger, it was not until 1804, 

that the United States Congress authorized 

the construction of a lighthouse “...on or 

near the pitch of Cape Lookout.” And it was 

until 1812 that the first Cape Lookout 

Lighthouse Station was completed. The 

station consisted of a tower and keeper 

dwelling. 

In 1851 problems among America’s 

lighthouses seemed endemic and a special 

board was appointed to prepare a general 

assessment. The board concluded that at a 

height of ninety-five feet above the level of 

the sea, the light of the 1812 Cape Lookout 

Light Station was too low and too dim for 

the task of this “very important light.” 

Therefore, in 1857, Congress appropriated 

$45,000 “for building and fitting out with 

first-order apparatus the lighthouse at Cape 

Lookout, North Carolina.” Adapting a stock 

plan then in use for a first-order lighthouse, 

First Lieutenant William Henry Chase 

Whiting, District 5 Engineer of the U.S. 

Lighthouse Board, assumed the task of 

overseeing construction which was 

completed in late 1859. At a respectable 

163 feet and outfitted with a French, firstorder Fresnel lens, the new lighthouse was a 

marked improvement. 

During the War Between the States, 

Confederates removed the valuable Fresnel 

lens and hid it away from the advancing 

Union forces. Then, when the lighthouse 

was secured by Union troops, a Confederate 

band in 1864 caused an interior explosion 

that destroyed sections of cast-iron stairs, 

temporarily disabling the facility. After the 

War, permanent repairs were completed, the 

Fresnel lens recovered and reinstalled, and 

the lighthouse was once again fully 

operational. 

Over time, small modifications were made 

and new equipment periodically installed. 

One of the most noticeably significant 

changes was the application of the blackand-white, diamond-pattern, paint scheme. 

First applied in 1873 to enhance visibility 

and recognition, it became a much-admired 

mark of distinction. 

The Fresnel lens which had revolutionized 

the transmission of light remained a 

mainstay. Improvement efforts concentrated 

on the source of light itself. Initially, sperm 

whale oil was used to fuel the lamps. By 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Executive Summary 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page 2 

late 1883, mineral oil was introduced and in 

1912 an incandescent oil vapor lamp was 

installed. When an occulting device was 

installed in 1914, giving the light two 

distinct eclipses, the modification greatly 

enhanced mariner identification of the 

lighthouse and dramatically improved 

navigational safety along the coast. Two 

decades later, the candlepower of the light 

was doubled with the introduction of 

electrical battery power in 1933; a radio 

signal was also added. 

As these operational improvements were 

implemented, there was, in general, little 

physical impact to the lighthouse itself. The 

most significant changes occurred in 1914 

with installation of the occulting device. To 

better isolate the new equipment, the 

Observation Deck was enlarged and an air 

lock constructed at the doorway from the 

deck to the tower. In addition, other air 

locks were constructed of wood at the 

Seventh Floor Service Room and Second 

Floor main entrance. More significant was 

the impact to the activities of the staff. With 

these technological advancements, many of 

the arduous tasks of the early workdays 

were reduced or eliminated and the types of 

needed staff skills changed accordingly. 

In 1939 the United States Lighthouse 

Service was discontinued. Its equipment 

and personnel were transferred to the United 

States Coast Guard. With the arrival of 

World War II, Cape Lookout, as with other 

lighthouses, was darkened to avoid 

illuminating the passing ships; the 

lighthouse instead became an observation 

platform for detecting enemy submarines. 

After the war, the Coast Guard continued to 

maintain the tower and modernize its 

operation. In 1950, new generators and 

batteries were installed, this time at the 

ground level room of the tower itself. 

Thereupon, the lighthouse became selfcontained and fully automated, no longer 

requiring the presence of an on-site keeper. 

The lighthouse continued to be powered in 

this manner until 1982, when electric cables 

were run from Harkers Island. 

In 1966, another branch of the United States 

government became involved with the Cape 

Lookout Lighthouse. Act of Congress (P.L. 

89-366) authorized the creation of Cape 

Lookout National Seashore. Then, on 

October 18, 1972, the station “consisting of 

the lighthouse, the keeper’s dwelling, a 

generator house, a coal and wood shed, and 

a small cement block oil house—all situated 

on a long narrow sandy island called Core 

Banks” was placed on the National Register 

of Historic Places. 

 When in 1976 Cape Lookout National 

Seashore was established with headquarters 

in Beaufort, the U.S. Coast Guard, 

nonetheless, retained control of the 

lighthouse site. In 1982, the Cape Lookout 

Coast Guard Station was decommissioned 

and its function merged with the station at 

Fort Macon. In 1984, the station’s property 

and buildings were transferred to the 

National Park Service. The Coast Guard 

continued to retain possession of the 

lighthouse itself. 

During the earliest days of this transitional 

phase of ownership, the first major 

modification to the Cape Lookout 

Lighthouse occurred since the 1914 

enlargement of the Observation Deck and 

installation of a series of air locks. It 

occurred in 1967, one hundred years after 

the return and reinstallation of the first-order 

Fresnel lens. The historic lens was removed. 

This time, it was removed in the quest for a 

brighter light. The Coast Guard replaced the 

historic lens with two powerful 24-inch 

aero-beacons, the lights now in place. The 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Executive Summary 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page 3 

historic lens was first placed on display at 

the entrance to the Mess Hall and Base 

Exchange of the 5th District Coast Guard 

Headquarters. Then in 1994, it was installed 

at the newly renovated Block Island 

Lighthouse off Rhode Island. There it 

remains, despite requests to have it returned 

to Cape Lookout. 

The second major change planned for the 

lighthouse since the 1914 alterations 

occurred in 1989. The railings of the 

Lantern Gallery and Observation Deck were 

replaced and the Gallery deck reinforced 

with steel angles and rods. Inside, the 

masonry tower was reinforced with steel 

bracing extending from below the Seventh 

Floor level up to the Lantern. For 

installation, a number of the original castiron steps were cut and sections of the 1914 

air locks and room walls removed. 

During the waning years of the last century 

and early years of the current one, a series of 

well-intentioned but unfortunate 

maintenance tasks also were implemented. 

In combination, they are proving to be of 

serious detriment to the building fabric and 

perhaps the occupants as well. The paint 

used for the exterior during this time is a 

plasto-elastic variety. While it is durable 

and appropriate for some materials, it is a 

non-vapor transfer coating which works 

contrary to the relatively low-fired, soft 

brick as found in this lighthouse which need 

a breathable coating. Working in concert 

with this misstep, are two other unfortunate 

repairs. One was the erosion-inducing water 

blasting of the tower, inside and out; the 

blasting clearly damaged the once-harder, 

protective outer surface of the brickwork 

and accelerated deterioration is occurring. 

The second repair actually may be a series 

of repairs. At least part of the repointing of 

the masonry was performed with a Portlandcement rich mortar. This mortar is both too 

hard for the bricks and lacks the needed 

vapor transfer characteristics. 

These three repairs in unison probably 

account in large part for the reports from 

1992 and 1995 that record heightened 

moisture problems inside the tower resulting 

in the presence of mold and rusting of the 

iron stairs. 

In June, 2003, the Coast Guard turned over 

control of the lighthouse to the National 

Park Service while retaining operational 

control of the light. On the day the 

lighthouse opened to the public, the crowds 

were unprecedented. More people ascended 

the tower’s stairs in a few days than had in 

the previous one hundred-plus years. In 

addition, the following year a Coast Guard 

survey of the public regarding the quality 

and usefulness of the light revealed a strong 

public appreciation for the lighthouse far 

beyond its initial purpose. Clearly, the 

lighthouse has become an important local 

attraction as well as a navigational aid. 

Concern for the safety of the public in their 

increased numbers visiting the lighthouse 

led to the suspension of public tours in 

February of 2008. The National Park 

Service Southeast Regional Office (NPSSERO) subsequently contracted with Joseph 

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

prepare this Historical Structure Report with 

a structural assessment/carrying-capacity 

analysis, a code compliance analysis with 

stair-loading recommendations, the testing 

of certain building materials and the 

preparation of a budget for repairs. On site 

investigations of the lighthouse took place 

during the summer and fall of 2008. Joseph 

K. Oppermann, FAIA and John C. Larson 

jointly conducted assessments of the age of 

the building components. Oppermann also 

prepared field measurements and conducted 

assessment of physical condition of 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Executive Summary 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page 4 

architectural elements. Mark Kasprzyk 

prepared digitized drawings. Larson also 

reviewed documentary source material, 

primarily those provided by the park, and 

prepared historical summaries. Hartrampf, 

Inc., led by Bob Bass, P.E., and assisted by 

Stacey Gerhardt, EIT, prepared the 

“Structural Assessment/Carrying Capacity 

Analysis” (Appendix B of this report). 

Oppermann prepared the “Code Compliance 

and Stair Loading Recommendations” 

(Appendix C) in consultation with Todd 

Neitzel of NPS-SER. Dorothy Krotzer of 

Building Conservation Associates took 

samples, conducted analyses of selected 

building materials and prepared the 

“Material Analysis” (Appendix D). 

Oppermann with Bass prepared the “Class C 

Construction Cost Estimate” (Appendix E). 

Russell J. Wilson, park superintendant, 

made available all aspects of the park 

operation and its personnel. Karen Dugan 

compiled the park documents and collected 

additional references. Mike McGee 

arranged travel between the park’s offices 

and the lighthouse and shared his 

considerable knowledge of the park’s recent 

construction history. Frances Hayden, 

registrar of the North Carolina Maritime 

Museum, generously gave of her time to 

locate salvaged Cape Lookout Lighthouse 

material in the museum’s collection and to 

arrange for material sampling. Tommy 

Jones, NPS-SERO architectural historian, 

provided guidance in all aspects of the 

preparation of this report. 

The investigations and analyses concluded 

that a large percentage of the original 1859 

building fabric and the 1867 repairs remain 

intact. And the 1873 exterior paint scheme 

gave the tower its distinctive black-andwhite diamond pattern which it retains 

today. Further, the later modifications 

dating through most of the twentieth century 

tended to be limited in scope; most have had 

minor impact on the character of the 

lighthouse. The 1914 enlargement of the 

Observation Deck and addition of air locks 

were the most significant. 

The 1989 addition of steel reinforcement 

both inside and outside the top of the tower 

was a significant change in character, 

however. One that stabilized but did not 

correct a long-developing weakness. The 

investigations identified the deteriorating 

iron tension ring imbedded at the top of the 

masonry and associated ironwork of the 

lantern as the unalleviated sources of the 

masonry jacking. 

The investigations also identified recent 

maintenance efforts, including the uses of 

water blasting for masonry cleaning, 

Portland-cement rich mortars for repointing 

and elasto-plastic paints for replacement 

coatings, as serious threats to the well being 

of the lighthouse. 

Also a concern, the one that prompted this 

study, is the safety of the visiting public who 

are arriving in large numbers. While the 

resultant loading of the early building 

material is potentially well in excess of the 

original design intent, when the lighthouse 

was to be daily occupied by just one or two 

persons, modern building codes are also a 

factor in determining acceptable loading 

capacities. The International Building Code, 

which addresses the safety of the public and 

governs the use of this building, sets tight 

parameters for occupancy for buildings of 

this design. Some modifications to the 

building, ones that are in keeping with the 

historic designs, can be made to enhance 

public safety and improve the durability and 

performance of building elements, such as 

the iron stairs; Appendix B describes these 

modifications. However, the IBC is the 

greater limiting factor and administrative 

policies best address the code constraints. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Executive Summary 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page 5 

Fortunately, the policies implemented by the 

park for its annual Climb SOP are a 

successful model for such administrative 

actions and therefore have been incorporated 

into the report’s recommendations. 

The General Management Plan for the Cape 

Lookout National Seashore was prepared 

prior to the acquisition of the Cape Lookout 

Lighthouse. Therefore, the lighthouse is not 

addressed in the plan. Nonetheless, the 

National Park Service Cultural Resources 

Management Guideline (DO – 28) requires 

planning for the protection of cultural 

resources on park property. 

In addition, Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) mandates 

that federal agencies, including the National 

Park Service, take into account the effects of 

their actions on properties listed or eligible 

for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places and give the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation a 

reasonable opportunity to comment. 

The Park Service has the challenge of 

balancing its responsibility to protect 

important cultural resources with its 

responsibility to educate the public. While 

there are many ways to address education 

short of actual visitation, there is no question 

that a trip to South Core Banks and a visit to 

the lighthouse is a most impressive 

experience. However, access to the site and 

throughout the building can be problematic 

for some visitors. It is arduous; some should 

not attempt it at all. 

The park, in cooperation with a friends’ 

group, has established a goal of conducting 

public tours of the lighthouse including 

access onto the Observation Deck. This 

report concludes that such public visitation 

is an admirable goal and one that is doable, 

both in terms of performance capabilities of 

the building materials and code 

requirements protecting the safety of the 

public. However, minor physical 

modifications, coupled with administrative 

policies to limit the number of visitors, will 

be necessary. This report also identifies 

other needs that must be addressed very 

soon in order to provide for the long term 

preservation and public use of this important 

landmark. 

Accordingly, the Recommended Ultimate 

Treatment includes the preservation of the 

exterior and interior, the restoration of key 

exterior features to their c. 1976 appearance 

(reversing several minor yet highly visibile 

modifications), and the rehabilitation of 

certain features to more safely accommodate 

public visitation. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Administrative Data 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page 6 

ADMINISTRATIVE DATA 

Locational Data 

Building Name: Cape Lookout Lighthouse 

Building Address: 131 Charles Street 

 Harkers Island, NC 28531 

Location: Cape Lookout National Seashore 

County: Carteret County 

State: North Carolina 

Related Studies

Primary 

Cape Lookout Lighthouse Letter Book Index 1805-1900. Copy on file in Cape Lookout National Seashore archives. 

“Cape Lookout Light House, First Order, From Lieut. W.H.C. Whiting, 5th Dist” ca. May 1857. [623/60937] and 

“U.S. Light House Board, Cape Lookout Light House, Drawn under the direction of Lieut. Wm. H.C. Whiting, 

Corps Engr by Benj. Goodness” Same as above with additional annotation 1888 and checkering detail. 

[623/60937A]. 

“Cape Lookout L. House N.C., Temporary repairs wooden in Indian yellow, Drawn by G. Castor Smith Actg. Engr. 

4th L. H. Dist., From measurements by Jere. P. Smith” dated 28 July 1864. [623/60936A] 

“Cape Lookout Light Station, N.C. Storm Door & Parapet Floor. Bureau of Lighthouses, Washington, D.C. Sept.10, 

1913.” [623/60915] with “ Cape Lookout Light Station, N.C. New Air Lock & Repairs, Bureau of Lighthouses, 

Washington, DC, Sept 10, 1913.” [623/60916] and “Reinforcing Rods in Parapet Floor, Cape Lookout Lt. Stn., 

Office of the Lighthouse Inspector Fifth District, Baltimore, MD,” Jan. 16, 1914. [623/60918] 

Secondary 

Report of the Officers Constituting The Light-House Board convened under instructions from the Secretary of the 

Treasury to Inquire into the condition of the lighthouse establishment of the United States under the Act of March 3, 

1851. Washington: A. Boyd Hamilton, 1852. 

Duffus, Kevin P. The Lost Light, The Mystery of the Missing Cape Hatteras Fresnel Lens. Raleigh, NC: Looking 

Glass Publications, 2003. 

Putman, George R. Lighthouses and Lightships of the United States. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. 1917. Online 

pdf available at http://www.books.google.com. 

Real Property Information 

Acquisition Date: 1976: Cape Lookout National Seashore established; U.S. Coast Guard 

retained control of lighthouse site. 

 1984: property and buildings transferred to National Park Service; Coast 

Guard retained possession of lighthouse. 

 June 14, 2003: transferred to Department of Interior. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Administrative Data 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page 7 

Numbering Information 

LCS #: 000018 

Structure #: HS-100-A 

FMSS # (Location #): 97012 

Size Information 

Total Floor Area: approximately 650 s.f. 

First Floor Area: approximately 115 s.f. 

 

Roof Area: 9,700 s.f. 

Circumference: 87'-11 1⁄2" l.f. at ground level 

Number of Stories: Eight stories 

Number of Rooms: Ground floor and six landings 

Number of Bathrooms: No bathrooms 

Cultural Resource Data 

National Register Status: Listed: “the lighthouse, the keeper’s dwelling, a generator house, a 

coal and wood shed, and a small cement block oil house—all 

situated on a long narrow sandy island called Core Banks” 

National Register Date: Listed October 18, 1972 

Period of Significance: 1858-

 

Proposed Treatment Preservation of the exterior and interior, the restoration of key 

exterior features to their c. 1976 appearance, and the rehabilitation 

of certain features to more safely accommodate public visitation. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Administrative Data 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page 8 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC PART I.A Historical Background And Context 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.A.1 

The Lighthouse 

...some miles away, 

the lighthouse lifts its massive masonry, 

A pillar of fire by night, of cloud by day. 

Steadfast, serene, immovable, the same, 

Year after year, through all the silent night 

Burns on forevermore that quenchless flame, 

Shines on that inextinguishable light! 

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow 

(c. 1848) 

Introduction 

A wealth of literature—poetic, technical and 

historic—has been generated about the 

lighthouses in America. Scholars such as F. 

Ross Holland and Robert and Cheryl 

Roberts have dedicated lifetimes to the study 

and dissemination of information on this 

topic. As a distinctive architectural form, 

the lighthouse’s function shifted in the 

twentieth century from a place of work to 

one of recreation. Improved transportation 

made lighthouses more accessible. That 

brought increasing awareness of their 

historical significance and widespread 

appreciation of their architecture. The 

history of America’s lighthouses records 

their decline as a navigational aid and a 

corresponding rise in their perception as a 

romantic icon of our nautical past. With 

their images imprinted on T-shirts and 

coffee mugs and their small model replicas 

used as everything from bookends to yard 

ornaments, lighthouses have been embraced 

Figure A-1 Photograph of Cape Lookout Lighthouse, 

ca. 1910, courtesy of John Willis. 

in popular culture as a source of local 

identity and pride that the original builders 

could hardly have imagined. The story of 

the 1859 Cape Lookout Lighthouse mirrors 

this development and is not dissimilar in its 

history from most other lighthouses along 

the coastlines of the United States. 

The 1915 definition of a lighthouse by the 

U.S. Bureau of Lighthouses is “a light 

station where a resident keeper(s) is 

employed.”1

 The primary elements were a 

light tower and keeper’s quarters but 

typically there were other support buildings. 

Cape Lookout Lighthouse included an oil 

house, privy, storage sheds, coal and 

 

1

 Ray Jones, The Lighthouse Encyclopedia, the 

Definitive Resource (Guilford, CT: The Globe Pequot 

Press, 2004), 105. 

A. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC PART I.A Historical Background And Context 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.A.2 

woodshed, boathouse, cistern and summer 

kitchen. As an omen of things to come, a 

radio shack and battery house was later 

added.2 All of these buildings performed an 

essential role in the day-to-day operations. 

One of the most important pieces of 

equipment in lighthouse operation was a 

boat. Powered by oars, or a perhaps a small 

sail, these vessels allowed the keepers to 

access the mainland or supply vessels or 

assist in rescues. However, as long as light 

remained the principal method of 

communicating warnings out to sea, the 

tower was the principal place of work and 

the reason for a station’s existence. 

Activities of the tower dictated the daily 

lives of those who occupied the station. 

Although viewed as a solitary existence, 

lighthouse management by the Federal 

government, particularly under the Light 

House Board established in 1852, as well 

changing technology continually affected 

the viability of lighthouses and the daily 

activities of the lighthouse keepers.

America’s Lighthouse Program 

Although lighthouses trace back to the 

ancient construction by the Pharos in 

Alexandria, Egypt, their development has 

always had a direct correlation to the 

nautical endeavors of a particular place and 

time. With the decline of travel and 

navigation after the fall of Rome in AD 476 

the use of lighthouses also declined. The 

fifteenth-century saw renewed sailing skills 

 

2

 “Plat of Cape Lookout Light Station N.C. Showing 

proposed location of new Keeper’s Dwelling &c. 

Dimensions received from Mr. John W. Lewis Supt. 

Of Construction, July 31, 1906.” Copy on file in 

archives of Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

Harker’s Island, NC. 

and a new age of lighthouse construction. 

The Little Brewster Island Lighthouse, 

constructed in 1716 at the entrance of 

Boston Harbor, was the first to be built in 

America. During the colonial period, the 

individual colonies assumed responsibility 

for the construction and maintenance of the 

lighthouses on their shores. Often these 

towers were paid for by the merchants and 

businessmen at each individual location and 

supported by levying a duty on each ton of 

shipping that entered the harbor. There were 

no standards for their priority, placement, 

construction or operation. 

The adoption of the Constitution created a 

Federal government empowered to address 

this kind of national concern. Aids to 

navigation were a high priority. On August 

7, 1789, President Washington signed into 

law the ninth act passed by the newly 

formed Congress. The law provided that 

“the necessary support, maintenance and 

repairs of all lighthouses, beacons, buoys 

and public piers erected, placed, or sunk 

before the passing of this act, at the entrance 

of, or within any bay, inlet, harbor, or port 

of the United States, for rendering the 

navigation thereof easy and safe, shall be 

defrayed out of the treasury of the United 

States.”3 The administrative responsibility 

was placed under Secretary of Treasury, 

Alexander Hamilton. During this period, 

most of the state-owned lighthouses were 

transferred to the Treasury. 

 

3

 Truman R. Strobridge, Chronology of Aids to 

Navigation and the United States Lighthouse Service 

1716-1939. at http://www.uscg.mil/history/ 

articles/h_USLHSchron.asp (19 July 2008); Act of 

Congress (1 Stat. L., 53). 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC PART I.A Historical Background And Context 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.A.3 

Figure A-2 Plat of Cape Lookout Light Station N.C., 1906.. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC PART I.A Historical Background And Context 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.A.4 

 For example, the lighthouse first started by 

the State of North Carolina, at Bald Head 

near the mouth of the Cape Fear River, was 

completed by the United States in 1796. 

Initially, Alexander Hamilton assumed 

personal responsibility for this activity, but 

in 1813, the administration of lighthouse 

matters was delegated to the Commissioner 

of Revenue within the Treasury Department. 

In 1820, it was placed under the authority of 

the Fifth Auditor of the Treasury. At that 

time there were approximately seventy 

lighthouses in operation under the 

Department of the Treasury. For the next 

thirty-two years, one man, Stephen J. 

Pleasonton, would establish a program of 

conservative frugality that limited the 

quality of the towers and the effectiveness of 

the lights they contained. Pleasonton was 

particularly steadfast in his resistance to 

acquiring the expensive French Fresnel 

lenses. He opted instead to continue to use 

the inadequate lamp and reflector system 

developed by Winslow Lewis. As early as 

1812, Congress authorized the Secretary of 

the Treasury to purchase Lewis’s patent for 

a “reflecting and magnifying lantern and to 

contract with the said Winslow Lewis for 

fitting up and keeping in repair, any or all of 

the lighthouses in the United States or 

territories thereof, upon the improved plan 

of the reflecting and magnifying lanterns.”4

 

Pleasonton’s administration was brought to 

an end in part by public outcry after the 

wreck of the Saint John on Minots Ledge off 

the coast of Massachusetts in October in 

1849 and the subsequent collapse of the 

 

4

 Ibid. Act of Congress (2 Stat. L., 691). 

Minots Light in 1851. Shortly thereafter, 

Congress appointed a nine-member 

commission to investigate the condition and 

effectiveness of America’s lighthouses. As 

a result of their report, Congress created the 

Lighthouse Board and gave it authority over 

all America’s navigational aids. The Board 

was composed of two officers of the Navy, 

two officers of the Engineer Corps, and two 

civilians of high scientific attainments who 

served at the pleasure of the President, with 

an officer of the Navy and of the Engineers 

as secretaries. It was empowered under the 

Secretary of the Treasury to administer 

lighthouses and other aids to navigation. The 

Secretary of the Treasury was president of 

the Board, but the Board was authorized to 

elect their own chairman and to divide the 

coast of the United States into twelve 

lighthouse districts. Each district was 

assigned an army or navy officer as 

lighthouse inspector. Cape Lookout was in 

District 5. 

In 1910, the Lighthouse Board was 

disbanded and the U.S. Bureau of 

Lighthouses, more commonly known by its 

operational arm, the U.S. Lighthouse 

Service, was created. George Putnam was 

appointed the first Commissioner of 

Lighthouses, a position he held for the next 

twenty-five years. At its height just before 

World War I, the U.S. Lighthouse Service 

operated about 1,200 lighthouses and 54 

lightships with the total of 11,713 

navigational aids.5

 

5

 Samuel Willard Crompton and Michael J. Rhein, 

The Ultimate Book of Lighthouses (San Diego: 

Thunder Bay Press, 2003), 26. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC PART I.A Historical Background And Context 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.A.5 

Figure A-2 Logo of USLHS. 

By order of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, 

in 1939 the U.S. Coast Guard was assigned 

responsibility for all the functions of the 

Bureau and all personnel, equipment and 

property was placed under its 

administration. Since that time the U.S. 

Coast Guard has been the operational 

stewards of America’s lighthouses. Only 

recently have the National Park Service and 

other non-profits taken possession of these 

buildings as the Coast Guard began 

systematically to declare them surplus. 

Sending Out a Light 

The first beacons were nothing more than a 

lantern or a bonfire built on a hilltop. Early 

eighteenth-century light towers relied on 

multiple candles and simple oil lamps to 

produce enough light to be seen at a 

distance, hence the quantity of light was 

measured in candlepower. From this modest 

start, two principal areas of inquiry 

developed to improve the quality of the light 

in the towers. One was the fuel; the other 

was the fixture or lamp. 

In the later part of the eighteenth-century 

American lighthouses were using spider 

lamps, which had a number of wicks 

protruding from a common fuel reservoir. 

To obtain adequate light, multiple lamps 

were needed. Depending on the number of 

wicks per lamp, sometimes as many as thirty 

lamps were used. These wicks demanded 

constant attention, smoked and consumed a 

large quantity of fuel.6

Figure A-3 Augustin Fresnel, 1788-1827. 

The first major improvement in light 

production was development by the 

Frenchman Francois-Pierre Ami Argand in 

the mid-eighteenth century. Seeking to 

capture the light that diffuses horizontally 

and vertically at 360 degrees from the 

center, Argand designed a set of lamps and 

parabolic reflectors to capture and redirect 

that light horizontally. He also redesigned 

the wick for the oil lamps. Argand’s wicks 

 

6

 Francis Ross Holland, America’s Lighthouse: An 

Illustrated History (New York: Dover Press, 1988), 

21-23. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC PART I.A Historical Background And Context 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.A.6 

were hollow, which allowed air to pass 

evenly on both sides of the flames, creating 

a brighter and near smokeless light. France 

and England quickly adopted this method of 

illumination. It was not until 1812 that the 

unemployed sea captain, Winslow Lewis, 

persuaded the U.S. government to adopt his 

lamp system, no doubt copied from the 

Argand lamps he had seen in Europe. By 

about 1816, the Lewis lamp had been 

installed in all of America’s lighthouses. 

Figure A-5 Example of Argand reflector lamp (top) 

and 1st Order Fresnel wick (bottom). 

For the next forty years, Fifth Auditor 

Stephen Pleasonton remained committed to 

this technology, and Lewis held a virtual 

monopoly on lighthouse lamps and lighting.7 

Although the Argand lamp burned cleaner 

and transmitted more light, it still required 

multiple fixtures to achieve an adequate 

light level. The quest for better illumination 

continued in Europe along a different line of 

investigation. 

Figure 0-4 The use of Fresnel lenses to reflect and 

refract light to a horizontal plane. 

In 1822, the French physicist, Augustin 

Fresnel developed a complex lens, which 

could concentrate light into a powerful 

beam. It consisted of hundreds of handpolished prisms which, when assembled, 

took on the appearance of a large beehive. 

Scotsman Alan Stevenson acquainted 

himself with the Fresnel lens in 1830 and 

launched its use in the British Isles. He also 

made some modifications to Fresnel’s 

original design, including the addition of 

upper and lower prisms that significantly 

increased the efficiencies of the lens.8

 Later 

bull’s-eye convex lenses, like a magnifying 

glass, were added to the center of the lens, 

making the beam even more powerful. 

 

7

Crompton and Rhein, 15-16. 

8

 Ray Jones, The Lighthouse Encyclopedia: The 

Definitive Reference (Guilford, CT: The Globe 

Pequot Press, 2004), 14. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC PART I.A Historical Background And Context 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.A.7 

These lenses could also rotate on a pedestal, 

creating a flash when the center of the bull'seye on the lens lined up with the ship out at 

sea viewing the light. Different spacing of 

the multiple bull's-eyes on each lens resulted 

in different intervals between their flashes, 

thus creating a unique pattern for each 

lighthouse, and helping navigators to 

identify their location along a coastline. 

Different colored lenses, as well as different 

colored light sources, were also used as a 

way to distinguish lighthouses from one 

another. 

Although very complex and expensive, the 

Fresnel lens became the universal standard 

for over a hundred years. One of the major 

advantages to the lens was its ability to 

reduce the amount of fuel required to 

produce a good light. Instead of multiple 

lamps with reflectors, burning a great deal of 

oil, a single lamp could be used. This single 

lamp would use a multi-concentric-wick 

design combining up to five wicks to 

produce a single flame.9

The results of this new technology were 

impressive. Tests showed that an open 

flame would lose approximately 97 percent 

of its brightness over a very short distance. 

A flame with an Argand or Lewis reflector 

lamp would still lose 83 percent. The 

Fresnel lens could capture all but 17 percent 

of the light and, when placed at a 150 foot 

high focal plane, could achieve a distance of 

approximately 20 miles.10 This height 

became critical particularly along the 

southern coast where there were few hills or 

 

9

 http://www.longislandlighthouses.com /fresnel.htm. 

10 http://www.michiganlights.com/fresnel.htm. 

cliffs to give the towers the required 

elevation. 

In 1840 Captain Matthew Perry delivered 

the first pair of Fresnel lenses to the United 

States, which were placed in the twin towers 

at Navesink, Highlands, N. J. Although the 

improved quality of the light brought much 

acclaim, it would take another ten years and 

the replacement of Fifth Auditor Pleasanton 

by the Lighthouse Board in 1852 before the 

United States fully embraced this new 

technology. 

Cape Lookout would be part of a new 

generation of tall brick towers that were 

constructed in the 1850s along the Atlantic 

coast, with the tallest, Cape Hatteras, 

capping out at 193 feet. All of these were 

furnished with new, powerful first-order 

Fresnel lens, and by 1861, nearly all 

American lighthouses had been upgraded 

with a Fresnel lens.11

It is understandable that the fiscally 

conservative Pleasonton was reluctant to 

acquire Fresnel lenses. They were 

expensive and could command as much as 

the equivalent of one million dollars in 

today’s money. The Fresnel lenses were 

classified by orders, which were based on 

their sizes. The first-order was the largest at 

six feet in diameter and twelve feet tall. The 

smallest or sixth-order was one foot in 

diameter and one foot, five inches tall.12

 

11 Crompton and Rhein, 16. 

12 Ibid., 87-89; also http://www.michiganlights.com/ 

fresnel.htm. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC PART I.A Historical Background And Context 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.A.8 

Figure A-5 Watch Room with Fresnel lens installed 

in lantern 

Most of the lenses were produced in France 

by such firms as Henry-Lepaute, the 

manufacturer of the Cape Hatteras firstorder light, and Lemonier, Sauter & Co., 

maker of the Cape Lookout light. In 1851, 

the English firm of Chance Brothers Co. 

began extremely successful production of 

the lens in Birmingham. Macbeth-Evans 

was the only American manufacturer of 

Fresnel lenses, and they limited their 

operation to supplying only fourth-, fifthand sixth-order lenses. 

This quantum leap in lamp technology 

would remain state-of-the art for more than 

a hundred years, but by mid-nineteenth 

century attention was returning to the issue 

of fuel. Sperm whale oil had been the 

standard fuel for years regardless of the 

lamp type. By 1855, however, the price of 

sperm oil had jumped to $2.25 per gallon 

from its 1841 price of $.55. The Lighthouse 

Board searched for alternatives. Attempts 

were made to follow the French example 

and use rapeseed or colza oil, but a 

consistent supply from American farmers 

proved elusive. In the late 1850s, Joseph 

Henry of the Lighthouse Board resumed his 

research on lard. After earlier attempts had 

failed, Henry now discovered that if the oil 

was heated to a high enough temperature, it 

did extremely well. Lard was cheap and 

plentiful, so Colza oil was assigned to the 

smaller lights, and lard, by 1867, was used 

in many of the larger lamps.13 Cape Lookout 

remained one of the exceptions and 

continued to use oil as its fuel. 14

In the 1870s, the Lighthouse Board again 

started looking for an alternative fuel. By 

1878, kerosene—popularly known at the 

time as mineral oil—began to be used, 

initially in the smaller lamps but eventually 

in all sizes. Cape Lookout converted to 

mineral oil in 1883.15 In 1902, the 

consumption of oil for a first-order light was 

calculated to be 2,283 gallons of oil per 

 

13 Holland, Illustrated History, 23. 

14 Cape Lookout Lighthouse Letter Books Index. July 

5, August 2, 1867; December 3, 1873. At this 

writing, the letter books for Cape Lookout remain 

missing; however, the Index provides valuable 

insight. Copy on file at Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, Harker’s Island, NC. 

15 Index., December 26, 1883. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC PART I.A Historical Background And Context 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.A.9 

year,16 all of which had to be transported in 

five-gallon cans from the oil house up the 

hundreds of stairs to the Watch Room. 

The last technical upgrade prior to the 

installation of electricity was the invention 

of the Incandescent Oil Vapor (I.O.V.) light. 

Operating similar to a modern Coleman 

lantern, kerosene is vaporized against a hot 

wall, forced through small holes to a mantel 

where it burns in a fireball. This light 

fixture was first installed in France in 1898 

and America in 1904. Refinements in this 

technology continued. A new typ e of oilvapor lamp was developed during 1911, 

which was believed to be “an improvement 

on existing lamps of this character, as it 

gives a greater candlepower per unit of oil 

used and practically does away with the 

carbonization of the oil, which has been a 

defect of previous types of oil-vapor 

lamps.”17 The following year an I.O.V. was 

installed in Cape Lookout. Because this 

location required a more powerful light, a 

lamp with three burners and a cluster of 

three mantles was installed.18

Changing Communication Technology 

By the turn of the century, however, another 

technological revolution was in the making– 

electricity. Initially it changed how the light 

was created in the lighthouses, but more 

significantly it opened the door to other 

methods of communications that would 

 

16 Instructions to Light-Keepers (Washington: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, 1902), 14. 

17 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Lighthouses 

to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor for the 

Fiscal Year Ended June 1911 (Washington: U. S. 

Government Printing Office, 1911), 15. 

18 Putnam, 188. 

eventually eliminate the need for manned 

light towers. 

As early as 1892, electric incandescent 

lamps were installed in the United States 

Lightship No. 51 stationed on Cornfield 

Point. In 1898, the Navesink lighthouse that 

had been the location for the first Fresnel 

lens was also the first to have an electric 

arch lamp installed and supported by its own 

generating plant. Perhaps more importantly, 

it was from this Navesink location that the 

first wireless message was sent and received 

between the S.S. Ponce and the lighthouse. 

In 1901, radio communication was 

experimentally established on the Nantucket 

lightship.19 At the start of the twentiethcentury, it was increasingly apparent that a 

new age of electronic communication was 

dawning. 

Generators were introduced where power 

lines were not available, and in the 1920s 

and 30s the Lighthouse Bureau converted 

most of the lighthouses to electricity. Cape 

Lookout was electrified August 15, 1933, 

with four 250-watt lamps and also received 

a radio beacon. The new light bulbs simply 

replaced the I.O.V. lamps and left the 

Fresnel lenses in place. 

In the early 1950s, the Carlisle and Finch 

Co. of Cincinnati, Ohio, introduced a new 

airport beacon known as the DCB series. 

Using a parabolic reflector housed in a solid 

cast-aluminum, watertight drum, the fixture 

was low maintenance. It emitted a very 

narrow beam and, when rotated, created a 

flash pattern. Cape Lookout received its two 

DCB-24 aero-beacons ca. 1976. By the 

 

19 Strobridge, n.p.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC PART I.A Historical Background And Context 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.A.10 

1990s, this lighting system had replaced 

most first-order Fresnel lens in lighthouse 

lanterns.20 

Life of the Keeper 

Like any piece of equipment, a lighthouse 

needed an operator—and more often than 

not, two or three—to keep things running 

smoothly. In September, just before the 

1859 Cape Lookout Lighthouse was to be 

brought on-line, John R. Royal was 

reappointed keeper.21 He was first 

appointed the keeper at the 1812 Cape 

Lookout Station in January 1834 and since 

that date, he had managed the light in the 

smaller tower by himself. The size of the 

new tower and the complexity of the firstorder Fresnel lens, plus higher performance 

expectations by the Lighthouse Board were 

more than one man could handle. On 

September 27, two assistants were 

appointed, A. P. Guthrie and Silas Blount.22 

If quality control had been a shortcoming of 

the Fifth Auditor Pleasonton’s 

administration, the new Lighthouse Board 

quickly put into place a program of 

regulations and inspections aimed toward 

establishing uniformity and accountability. 

Regulations were codified in the 1852 

publication Instructions to Light-Keepers. 

Each keeper and all assistants received a 

copy and were held strictly accountable for 

following its procedures. This manual 

would be revised and updated until 

lighthouse operation was absorbed into the 

U.S. Coast Guard. If adhered to, it 

 

20Crompton and Rhein, 79-80. 

21 Index., September 9, 1859. 

22 Index., September 25, 1859. 

prescribed a strict daily regime of cleaning 

the lamp, lens, and lantern glass and lantern 

room. Dress code required wearing a 

uniform, but to protect the lens and lamp, a 

special cloth apron was worn to keep 

buttons and buckles from scratching the 

glass. Daily logs and recurring reports 

accounted for the activities of the keeper and 

his assistants. The District Engineer or 

Lighthouse Inspector verified these reports 

with regular site inspections. The business 

of maintaining the light was foremost, but 

there were numerous other tasks required to 

maintain the station in good order. 

The keeper’s logs for Cape Lookout have 

not been located, but the activities and 

responsibilities described by Lloyd Vernon 

Gaskill, keeper of Bodie Island Lighthouse 

just to the north, seem typical. 

(1) As keeper in charge of this station, I 

am responsible for the for the [sic] 

proper execution of the duties whether 

performed by myself or Asst. I light lamp 

in tower every othe [sic] evening and 

raise curtains so light will be visible to 

passing ships. Asst. Keeper performs the 

same duty the following evening. I watch 

the light intervals until sunrise when I 

extinguish light and refill tanks with 

kerosene so it will be ready for lighting in 

the evening. Also I clean lens and watch 

room before coming down to dwelling. I 

am on duty about twelve hours in this 

instance. (2) I have one Asst. and I 

superintend and assist in painting, 

cleaning paint on outhouses and 

dwellings, clean iron work by chipping 

ruse [sic] from same when needed. Also 

keep grass cut on lawn, make minor 

repairs to sta. such as replaceing [sic] 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC PART I.A Historical Background And Context 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.A.11 

lantern glass when broken, repairing 

doors, replaceing [sic] hinges when 

broken, painting motor boat and skiff, 

keep engine repaired so it can be used at 

any time for getting supplies and mail 

from nearest store and post Office seven 

miles across the sound. I put in about five 

hours per day at this work. (3) In 

addition to the above duties I must make 

a weekly inspection of Sta. Including 

assistant’s quarters and record made of 

conditions of Sta. log. Make monthly 

report of condition of Sta. to district Supt. 

at Baltimore. Take annual inventory and 

list all articles worn out have them 

surveyed and condemed [sic] when Supt 

visits sta. on inspection. Also I 

superintend and assist in the painting of 

tower outside, steps inside, and 

whitewash once every five years. I attend 

to all correspondence from sta. with supt. 

relative to general repairs to station. I 

average about two hours per day on this 

work.23

There were other duties that Keeper Royal is 

known to have performed at Cape Lookout. 

He watched for and reported on all wrecks 

in his vicinity. If he could lend any 

assistance to the wreck, he was instructed to 

do so. One of his more macabre jobs was 

burying a body that washed ashore.24 By 

1902, the keepers were also acting as 

conservation wardens charged with the task 

of preventing trees from being cut on 

Federal lands and assuring compliance with 

state game laws. More specifically, 

 

23 Bodie Island Lighthouse Historic Structure Report, 

13. http://www.nps.gov/history/ 

history/online_books/ caha/caha_bodie_hsr.pdf 

24 Index., March 17, 1856. 

regarding birds, “It is most desirable that not 

only the game animals of the country but 

that song birds and birds of all kinds should 

be protected and encouraged to occupy their 

abodes in their natural habitats and the Light 

House Board directs that all persons in the 

service not only exercise this spirit of 

protection but encourage others to do 

likewise.”25

Prior to the Civil War, the annual salary for 

a keeper at Cape Lookout was $400, while 

an assistant would earn $300. After 1869, 

assistants consistently earned $400 while 

keepers earned from $700 to $760.26 The 

big benefit was free room and board. The 

diet can be gleaned from the following table: 

Table of annual allowances per man 

for light-stations and fog-signals stations 

Pork..................................200 pounds 

Beef ..................................100 pounds 

Flour .................................. 2 barrels 

Rice ................................... 50 pounds 

Brown Sugar ..................... 50 pounds 

Coffee (green grain).......... 24 pounds 

Beans or pease [sic].......... 10 gallons 

Vinegar............................... 4 gallons 

Potatoes................................2 barrels 

Whether it was the isolation, the salary, the 

demands of the job or the rigor of the 

inspections, personnel turnover was reported 

frequently. At Cape Lookout the station had 

been fully manned with a keeper and two 

assistants for just over a year when the Civil 

War resulted in its abandonment. The new 

 

25 Instruction to Light-Keepers 1902 edition. 8, 12. 

26 Lighthouse Keepers of Cape Lookout Lighthouse 

1845-1912, National Archives Microfilm Publication 

Micro Copy 1373 Roll 3. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC PART I.A Historical Background And Context 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.A.12 

keeper appointed in 1863, Gayer Chadwick, 

would resign the following year.27 Perhaps 

in desperation to locate qualified keepers, 

John R. Royal was rehired only to be 

removed along with his two assistants in 

what appears to be a house cleaning on May 

21, 1869. An episode in which the light was 

extinguished in January 1875 may have 

ultimately resulted in the August 19, 1876 

dismissal of M.W. Mason and his two 

assistants. Mason held the keeper job during 

the painting of the “checker” pattern on the 

lighthouse. Keeper M.J. Davis, who 

followed Mason, would be removed as was 

his successor W. F. Hatsel. Denard Rumley, 

who followed Hatsel, died in 1893 while on 

duty. 28 Tenure of just two years was 

certainly not uncommon. 

The U.S. Coast Guard assumed control of 

the lighthouse just a couple of years before 

World War II. Slow to respond to the 

German submarine threat, America’s 

Atlantic coast was not darkened until June 

of 1942. After the war, the lights shown 

more brightly than ever; they were 

automated and enhanced with control and 

backup systems. The direction of 

navigational aids, however, was apparent. 

By 1948, LORAN had been extensively 

deployed along the Outer Banks. 

“LORAN, which means LOng Range Aid to 

Navigation, is a modern electronic means by 

which ship and aircraft navigators can 

determine their positions accurately and 

quickly, day or night, and under practically 

any condition of weather and sea. It was 

created to meet the emergency conditions of 

 

27 Index., May 20, 1864. 

28 Index., March 9, 1893. 

World War II and during that period was 

used exclusively by military forces. Since 

then, LORAN receiving equipment has been 

available to commercial, as well as military 

ships and aircraft. 

Navigators receive LORAN radio signals 

from stations like the one at Cape Hatteras, 

which can transmit signals over an area 750 

miles by day and 1,400 miles by night. 

Signals from two or three stations are 

matched for accurate position plotting. 

Since the war, LORAN has made 

tremendous growth. Presently under final 

evaluation is a modified system that will 

provide a more precise method of position 

fixing with greater range. 

The world-wide LORAN system contains 

some 70 stations, of which 60 are operated 

by the United States Coast Guard.”29

Although not installed in Cape Lookout 

Lighthouse, LORAN was but one in a series 

of electronic communication breakthroughs 

that spelled the end of the lighthouse as the 

primary navigational aid. Today, satellites 

have ushered in Global Positioning Systems 

that are affordable and accessible to all 

means of transportation. 

After the war, the U.S. Coast Guard 

increasingly declared the light towers 

surplus. Although still a landmark to local 

fishermen and recreational boaters, their 

original function had been relinquished to 

newer technologies. Fortunately, 

lighthouses have remained in the landscape. 

With the shift of population to coastal 

 

29 United States Coast Guard News Release No. 60-2-

26(jbb), June 3, 1960. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC PART I.A Historical Background And Context 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.A.13 

resorts, the lighthouse has become more 

visible than ever and is now viewed from 

land as often as from sea. Lighthouse 

advocates of today are not the ship owners 

and sea captains but rather the local 

merchants and residents who draw comfort 

from its constant presence and the 

distinction it gives to their community. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.1 

B. Chronology of Development and Use 

Establishment of Cape Lookout Light 

Station 

Denoted on early maps as Promontorium 

tremendum (“horrible headland”), the 

southern tip of the Core Banks was well 

documented as a hazard to navigation by 

early explorers of the North American coast. 

The Cape Lookout Shoals on these maps 

extends approximately ten miles in a 

southeasterly direction from the point of the 

cape. The shoals are generally sandy, 

shifting to some extent with the heavy gales 

and strong tidal currents that cross them. In 

the middle is located the infamous Cape 

Lookout Breakers, three-quarters of a mile 

long, with a depth as shallow as two feet. 

Navigation was made all more treacherous 

with the convergence of the strong currents 

and storms that rapidly form in this area. 

Because the land was so low along this 

section of the coast, a ship could be 

dangerously close to shore without realizing 

it. It was not until 1804, however, that the 

United States Congress authorized the 

construction of a lighthouse “...on or near 

the pitch of Cape Lookout.” On February 

18, 1805, a four-acre tract was transferred 

from Joseph Fulford and Elijah Pigott to the 

United States. The project slowed, however, 

when J.S. Moore submitted the only bid, and 

by May it was apparent that construction 

would not begin that year.1

 

1 Index.. April 1, May 7, May 28, 1805. 

Figure B-1 1856 map of Cape Lookout Shoals
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.2 

On November 30, 1810, after a five-year 

delay, the Treasury Department again put 

the project out to bid, soliciting contractors 

through the local newspapers along the east 

coast. This call for proposals gave an 

insightful look at the construction details 

and performance expectations of the first 

Cape Lookout Lighthouse. 

Treasury Department 

November 30, 1810 

Proposals will be received at the office of the Secretary of the Treasury until the 1st day of February next 

for building a Light House, on or near the pitch of Cape Look Out in North Carolina, of the following 

materials, dimensions & description. 

 The Light House to be of wood, The form octagonal, The foundation of Stone, to be sunk as far 

as necessary below the surface of the earth, the lowest tier of which, to consist of large flat stones, to be 

thence carried up two feet above the surface of the earth. It is to be commenced of the diameter of fifty 

five feet where the wall is to be three feet thick, The foundation wall to be capped with hewn stone of at 

least eight inches wide sloped to turn off the water; The octagon pyramid of wood is to be of good oak or 

white pine timber the sticks or pieces of which, are to be of a size duly proportioned to the building, and 

to be sufficiently braced in all its parts to the acceptance of the person who may be appointed to 

superintend the building on the part of the United States. The pyramid is be fifty four feet diameter at the 

commencement: its height is to be 93 feet from the top of the stone work to the floor of the lantern, at 

which place it is to be 14 feet in diameter. The frame to be covered with good inch seasoned white pine 

boards featheredged, over which is to be laid a good roof of cedar or white pine (without sap) shingles, 

and the outside to be painted with three coats of good paint the last of which to be stripes alternately 

white and brown. 

 In the centre of the building there is to be built a brick well for the stairs to run up. The 

foundation upon which the well is to rest to be commenced of the same depth, as the foundation wall of 

the frame, and to be twenty feet in diameter, carried up in solid masonry, either of hard brick or stone, 

from the foundation to the surface of the earth. Upon this foundation the well is be commenced of 

nineteen feet diameter. The walls to be two bricks in thickness, and carried up from the foundation to the 

top of the building or floor of the lantern, where the diameter is be twelve feet. Within this well stone 

stairs are to run from the floor to the lantern, not less than one hundred and thirty in number one end 

going six inches at least into the wall and the other end being a nine inch newell forming a pillar in the 

centre of the well a quarter-landing to be at each revolution. The whole work to be well bound and good 

lime mortar used throughout and the bricks to be all sound and good. For the better security and 

support of the well, there is to be erected around it from the foundation to the top, a substantial frame 

which is to join the well and is to be connected with the outer frame by timber fixed at each revolution of 

the stairs, and at other proper distances, in such way as to render the whole perfectly strong & secure & 

united so as to appear as one frame. The timber to be of the same quality as the outer frame to which it is 

to be united. The top of the well to be arched (reserving a place for a trap door, which is to be fitted to 

serve as an entrance to the lantern) on which are to be a sufficient number of substantial iron sleepers 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.3 

bedded therein and sloping from the centre, which are to be covered first with sheet iron, over which is to 

be laid a course of sheathing paper well soaked in and paid over with tar, and then with sheet copper 

over the iron, the whole to be rivetted together, so as that the floor of the lantern thus prepared shall be 

perfectly tight and strong, and as durable at least as upon the ordinary mode of laying the copper on 

wood. The trap door to be covered with sheet copper. There are to be two windows in the well at each 

revolution of the stairs on opposite sides, and also the same number of windows in the Light House 

opposite and to suit those of the well, each to have eight panes of 10 by 12 glass in strong frames, with 

shutters & proper fastenings. 

 The entrance to the well to be by a substantial brick arch, carried up through the Light House 

at the commencement of the well, of sufficient size and height to pass with convenience from the entrance 

to the well. The floor of the arch-way to be brick & the Light House floor to be paved with brick. The 

entrance to the arch to be well secured by a substantial pannelled door with iron hinges, lock and latch 

complete. On the opposite side there is to be another pannelled door for an entrance into the Light 

House, hung with hinges, lock & latch complete. The Light House to have a cornice covered with good 

sheet copper. A complete iron lantern in the octagon form to rest on the floor prepared for it, with a 

complete set of lamps, to be suspended by good and sufficient iron chains so hung that the lamps may be 

raised or lowered at pleasure, and also a sufficient number of air-pipes: the eight corner pieces or 

stanchions of the lantern to be well secured to the parts of the pyramid, and to be three inches square. 

The lantern to be secured by eight iron braces of two inches diameter, passing through the platform near 

the eaves, and turned towards the head so as to reach at the eaves, the corner posts of the lantern, to 

which the braces are to be secured. The lantern to be ten feet in diameter. It is also to be nine feet high 

from the floor to the bottom of the dome or roof, and to have a dome or roof of five feet in height and 

covered with sheet copper. The rafters of the lantern, which are to be of iron, are to be framed into an 

iron hoop, over which is to be a copper funnel through which the smoke may pass into a copper ventilator 

in the form of a ball sufficient to contain sixty gallons, and large enough to secure the funnel against rain. 

This ventilator to be turned by a large vane, so that the hole for venting the smoke may be always 

leeward. The spaces between the posts at the angles to be occupied by the sashes which are to be made 

of iron struck solid, and of sufficient strength so as not to work with the wind, each sash to be glazed with 

strong glass 14 by 12 inches, of the first quality, and one of the sashes to be hung on hinges for a 

convenient door by which to go out on the platform, which is to be surrounded by iron ballustrades three 

feet high, each rail or rod to be three quarters of an inch square inserted in the braces between the eight 

posts. The lantern to be painted with three coats and to be surrounded with a netting of iron wire, to 

preserve it from the flight of birds. The building to be furnished with two complete electrical conductors 

or rods with points: also, a close stove is to be furnished and placed in the lantern. 

 An Oil-vault is to be built of brick, twenty feet by twelve in the clear, arched over, plaistered 

within and covered without with a cement of earth and sand, and over it a roof covered with shingles. 

The vault to be furnished with nine strong cedar cisterns, with covers, capable of containing 200 gallons 

of oil each, these cisterns to be sunk in clay properly tempered with sand, which is to be well rammed 

round, and to be lined with sheet lead carefully soldered to prevent leakage; the entrance to the vault to 

be secured by a sufficient door hung with hinges & a strong lock and painted. 

 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.4 

Figure B-2 1810 Request for Proposals, Archives of Cape Lookout National Seashore 

.

In March 1811, the contract for construction 

was awarded to Benjamin Beal, Jr., Duncan 

Thanter and James Stephenson of Boston. 

The Cape Lookout Light Station, comprised 

of a tower and keeper dwelling, was 

completed in 1812 at a cost of $20,678.54.2

 

 

2

http://www.uscg.mil/history/weblighthouses/LHNC.

asp ( July 19, 2008). 

All indications are that the design of a 

masonry stair tower within wooden exterior 

shell was followed.3 In May of 1830 an 

additional eleven acres were purchased from 

Elijah Pigott and wife for $75 to protect the 

 

3

F. Ross Holland, A Survey History of Cape Lookout 

National Seashore, (Washington: National Park 

Service, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 1968), 25. 

Also a frame dwelling house, 24 feet square, having one story of eight feet, & a half-story of four feet, 

divided into three rooms of 12 by 14 feet of 12 by 10 feet and 16 by 12 feet, leaving at one end of the 

last, 8 by 12 feet for a passage, stairs & closet. There is to be a chimney near the middle of the house 

with a fire-place to each room. Also an oven & iron or stone mantletrees. The walls of the house to be 

boarded with good inch pine boards, featheredged, on which is to be laid a good coat of cedar or pine 

(without sap) shingles. There are to be three chambers. The roof to be rectangular, the boards of 

which to be jointed & halved & well seasoned and covered with like good shingles as the walls. A 

sufficient number of windows well glazed, with shutters & the proper fastenings: also doors hung on 

iron hinges with thumb-latches, and the outside doors to have good locks. The inside walls & ceilings 

to be lathed & plaistered with two coats of good lime mortar, and all the floors to be doubled above & 

below, and nailed through. The wood work to be painted inside & out with two coats, the roof as well 

as the walls. To the Dwelling-House is to be annexed a frame Kitchen, placed at the distance of not 

less than six feet, with a covered way between. The Kitchen to be 16 by 14 feet, of one story by eight 

feet, to have one pannel-door & one window, & a chimney with one fire place. A well to be sunk & 

stoned or bricked, at a convenient distance from the house, to be furnished with a curb & the necessary 

apparatus for drawing water. 

 The builder is to find & pay for all the materials, labor, workmanship, provisions, and other 

objects of cost, charge or expense, & to execute the above described work and every part thereof in a 

good & workmanlike manner, within the time and for a sum to be agreed upon. Bond & Security for 

the faithful performance of the Contract will be required, convenient payments or advances will be 

made. 

 Persons disposed to contract will be pleased to transmit written proposals (which must also 

specify the shortest time within which they will undertake to complete the works) to either of the 

undermentioned Collectors of Customs, on or before the 15th day of February next, who will 

immediately thereafter transmit them to the Treasury Department, from whence notice will be given of 

the accepted offer, viz: 

Henry Dearborn Esquire of Boston 

David Gelston Esquire of New York 

Brian Hellen Esquire of Beaufort, North Carolina
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.5 

Figure B-3 Tract purchased in 1830. Archives of 

Cape Lookout National Seashore 

lighthouse from sand encroachment.4 A plat 

made of the tract at that time provides the 

only known visual representation of the 

1812 lighthouse. 

The 1847 edition of The American Coast 

Pilot stated, 

Cape Lookout Lighthouse is painted 

red and white stripes horizontally and 

can be seen 16 or 18 miles and 

represents a ship under sail. It 

contains a fixed light, elevated 100 feet 

above the level of the sea. The house 

is surrounded by a small growth of 

trees, from which a bold sand beach 

extends in a S.E. direction, about 3 

miles, in the centre of which are small 

hillocks of sand. This light, although 

seen clearly all night, until near the 

approach of day, cannot then be 

discerned owning, it is thought, to a 

 

4

 Carteret Co. Deed Book V, 103. 

mist that rises between the vessel and 

the lamps It is judged imprudent to 

approach the shoals of Lookout in the 

night nearer than 7 fathoms on the 

east, or 10 fathoms on the west side.5

Improvement Needed 

In 1851, a special board was appointed to 

make a general assessment of the lighthouse 

problems that seemed endemic on 

America’s coast. The study resulted in an 

elaborate report of 760 pages and prompted 

the law creating the Lighthouse Board on 

October 9, 1852. Regarding the 1812 Cape 

Lookout Lighthouse, the 1851 assessment 

noted, 

This is at present a fixed light, fitted 

with thirteen lamps and twenty-one inch 

reflectors, and elevated ninety-five feet 

above the level of the sea. 

In consideration of the manner in which 

navigators have to follow this low coast, 

this light becomes, necessarily, one of 

the most important sea-coast lights, and 

requires to be elevated and improved to 

that extent. The shoals off this cape are 

of such character as to render it a very 

important light.6

 

5

 Edmund M. Blunt , The American Coast Pilot; 

Containing Directions for the Principal Harbors, 

Capes and Headlands. (New York: Edmund & 

George W. Blunt. 1847) 230; also 

http://www.google.com/search?q=The+American+C

oast+Pilot+1842&safe=vss&vss=1 (July 13, 2008). 

6 Report of the Officers Constituting The Light-House 

Board convened under instructions from the 

Secretary of the Treasury to Inquire into the 

condition of the lighthouse establishment of the 

United States under the Act of March 3, 1851. 

Washington: A. Boyd Hamilton, 1852. 138. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.6 

Lieutenant Thornton A. Jenkins, U.S.N. and 

Assistant to the 1851 U.S. Coast Survey, 

listed Cape Lookout as one of nine lights 

that “require to be improved, and there 

should be no unnecessary delay in 

accomplishing it.” He made further 

suggestions that forecast the eventual 

appearance of Cape Lookout. He stated that 

each of these proposed towers 

...should have an elevation of one 

hundred and fifty feet above the level of 

the sea; that they should be fitted up in 

the best manner with first order lens 

apparatus, to insure a brilliancy and 

range adequate to the wants of 

commerce. These lights are not 

sufficiently well distinguished but a 

general plan for all the sea coast lights 

will best accomplish that object. 

Red, black and white, singly and in 

combination, will afford all the 

necessary distinctions for towers... A 

regard to the background must be had in 

all cases. Red and black show well on 

the water; white upon dark back ground, 

the sky, forest, &c., while the sun shines, 

and the observer is in the position to 

have the benefit of the reflection; hence 

there may be combinations by broad 

horizontal and perpendicular lines, to 

form all the distinctions which 

navigators may require.7

Lt. H. J. Harstene, of the U. S. Navy and 

commanding the U.S mail steamer Illinois,

filed his complaint with the board and 

articulated the hazard and frustration in his 

letter to Lt. Jenkins on July 18, 1851, when 

he wrote, “The lights on Hatteras, Lookout, 

 

7

 Ibid., 322-323. 

Canaveral and Cape Florida, if not 

improved, had better be dispensed with, as 

the navigator is apt to run ashore looking for 

them.”8

Although a whole new lighthouse was 

required at Cape Lookout, a quicker upgrade 

was urgently needed. In November 1856, an 

initiative was made regarding “reflectors 

and lamps to be fitted to a chandelier and 

sent to Supt. of Lights Beaufort NC.” On 

January 17, 1857, a shipment of “reflector 

apparatus with extra lamps and wicks” was 

shipped to Wilmington, N.C. From 

Wilmington, on February 14, the 

“illuminating apparatus” was forwarded to 

Beaufort to be installed at Cape Lookout 

Lighthouse.9

 This improvement, however, 

was simply a holding action for plans were 

already being formulated to replace the 1812 

tower with a first-order light. 

A New Light for Cape Lookout 

On March 3, 1857, Congress appropriated 

$45,000 “for rebuilding and fitting out with 

first-order apparatus the lighthouse at Cape 

Lookout, North Carolina.”10 The task of 

overseeing this project fell to thirty-three 

year old First Lieutenant William Henry 

Chase Whiting who had taken on the job as 

District 5 Engineer for the U.S. Lighthouse 

Board just the year before. 

William Henry Chase Whiting 

Whiting was an extraordinary man by any 

measure. Born in Biloxi, Mississippi, 

 

8

 Ibid., 212. 

9 Index, November 26, 1856, January 17 and 

February 14, 1857. 

10http://www.uscg.mil/history/weblighthouses/LHNC

.asp. (July 13, 2008). 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.7 

March 22, 1824 of Northern parentage, he 

would follow his father Levi, who was a 

career artillery officer, into an illustrious 

military career. Whiting graduated as 

valedictorian from Boston English High

School at age fourteen and then graduated 

second in his class at Georgetown College at 

age sixteen. He entered the U.S. Military 

Academy in 1841 and graduated at the head 

of his class on July 1845 with a commission 

as a Second Lieutenant, Corps of Engineers.

His grade average was highest of any 

previous student at the academy. Initially he 

worked on military installations at 

Pensacola, Florida, and then on frontier forts 

in Texas. Promoted to First Lieutenant in 

1853, he was assigned to San Francisco to 

serve on the board of engineers for Pacific 

coastal defenses. In 1856, he returned east 

to spend the next five years working on the 

rivers, canals and harbors of North Carolina, 

South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. It was 

during this period that he was responsible 

for the construction of the Cape Lookout 

Lighthouse. He married Kate Walker 

(daughter of Major John G. Walker) in 

1857, and in 1858, he was promoted to 

Captain, Corps of Engineer. On February 

20, 1861, weeks before the outbreak of 

hostilities at Fort Sumter, Whiting resigned 

his commission and offered his services to 

the State of Georgia which appointed him 

Major, a rank that would transfer over to the 

Confederate Army. 

His first months were spent with General 

G.T. Beauregard preparing the defenses of 

Charleston Harbor. Soon afterwards he was 

assigned to North Carolina and placed in 

charge of coastal defense. He returned to 

Virginia as Chief Engineer of the Army of 

the Shenandoah and received a field 

promotion to Brigadier General after the 

First Battle of Bull Run. In November 1862, 

he returned to North Carolina and was 

assigned to the district of Cape Fear to 

protect the port of Wilmington. 

Wounded and captured January 15, 1865, in 

the battle defending Ft. Fisher, Whiting was 

imprisoned at Fort Columbus, Governors 

Island, New York where he died March 10, 

1865, at age forty. Whiting was buried in 

New York City. His widow Kate, however, 

had his body exhumed in 1900 and moved to 

Oakdale Cemetery, Wilmington.11

 

Figure B-4 Maj. Gen. William Henry Chase Whiting, 

C.S.A. The Engineer of Cape Lookout Lighthouse. 

 

11http://www.ageod.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3

140 (July 12, 2008); http://www.members.aol.com/ 

jweaver303/nc/whiting.htm ; http://www.history. 

com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=2132. 

Also see C.B. Denson, Memoir of Major General 

William Henry Chase White (Raleigh: Edwards “& 

Broughton Printers & Binders, 1895) 10-85.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.8 

Figure B-5 1857 Whiting’s Illustration of Cape Lookout Lighthouse. Archives Cape Lookout National Seashore.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.9 

Plans and Construction 

In the spring of 1857, Whiting was living in 

his beloved Wilmington and was deeply 

involved with the Cape Lookout Lighthouse 

project, particularly its budget management. 

By May 27, he had completed and 

forwarded “tracings of section and 

elevations of 1st order L.H.Tower.”12 Two 

very similar, single sheet, drawings survive 

fitting this description. Both portrayed a 

“stock plan” for a first-order lighthouse 

similar to that forecasted by Lt. Jenkins in 

the 1851 report. Both carry modified title 

blocks indicating that this was to be the 

Cape Lookout Lighthouse and both carry Lt. 

Whiting’s name. Although drawn from a 

“standardized plan” only the tower 

component would be constructed at Cape 

Lookout. The drawings show a double wall 

masonry tower capped with a first-order 

lantern creating a 150-foot-high focal plane. 

There are a total of eight floors plus the 

lantern floor. The primary entry into the 

tower was on the second floor with storage 

on the first or ground floor. At the base of 

the tower was located a two-story appendage 

that provided ground-level entry to the 

building, oil storage and stairs leading to a 

second-floor workroom and the portal into 

the tower itself. This part of the plan was 

never constructed. 

Even at a respectable 163 feet, the new Cape 

Lookout Lighthouse was on the lower end of 

the new, tall conical-patterned masonry 

towers being then constructed by U.S. 

Lighthouse Board. Although the first to be 

built in North Carolina, on this model this 

lighthouse was the seventh of ten in 

 

12 Index, May 27, 1857. 

construction sequence to be brought on line 

prior to the Civil War. An additional six 

were constructed between 1870 and 1887.13

In June, Lt. Whiting provided estimated 

costs of the materials needed to construct the 

lighthouse.14 The most critical item to 

procure was the first-order Fresnel lens. 

Beginning in August of 1857 and continuing 

well into October there was correspondence 

from the firm of Lemonnier, Sauter and 

Company of Paris regarding the shipping, a 

bill of lading and invoice for a first-order 

lens.15 The indication is that the Fresnel 

lens was in New York by the fall of 1857, 

and there it apparently stayed. The next 

reference to the “Illuminating apparatus for 

Cape Lookout Light Station” occurred 

January 6, 1859, which recorded an 

“inability to ship and no Lt. Ships bound for 

Beaufort.”16 

After approval of the funds in March, the 

remainder of 1857 was probably spent 

 

13. http://www.uscg.mil/history/weblighthouses/ 

LHev olution.asp (July 15, 2008). In chronological 

order of construction: 1. Abescon, NJ, 1857 (169 

feet); 2. Barnegat Light, NJ, 1857 (172 feet); 3. Fire 

Island, NY, 1858 (168 feet); 4. Dry Tortugas, 

Loggerhead Key Light, FL, 1858 (157 feet); 5. Cape 

Romain, SC, 1858 (161 feet); 6. Cape May, NJ, 1859 

(175 feet); 7. Cape Lookout, NC, 1859 (163 feet); 8. 

Hunting Island Light, SC, 1859 (destroyed); 9. 

Pensacola, FL, 1859 (171 feet); 10. Jupiter Inlet 

Light, FL, 1860 (125 feet but on hill giving focal 

plane of 150 feet) 11. Hatteras, NC, 1870 (207 feet); 

12. Bodie Island NC, 1872 (170 feet); 13. St. 

Augustine, FL, 1873 (165 feet); 14. Currituck Beach 

Light, NC, 1875 (162 feet); 15. Morris Island 

Charleston, SC, 1876 (161 feet); 16. Ponce De Leon 

mosquito Inlet Light 

1887, (175 feet). 

14 Index, June 6, 1857. 

15 Ibid., August 27, September, October12 1857. 

16 Ibid., January 6, 1859. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.10 

Figure B-6 Notice to Mariners No. 43, Archives 

Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

refining the building and site plans for the 

tower and procuring the necessary building 

materials, including a steam engine and the 

reuse of some “misfitting lantern glass from 

Cape Romain” Lighthouse in South 

Carolina.17 By April of 1858, construction 

was clearly underway in earnest with 

borings being made to determine the need 

for pilings. Construction must have 

proceeded steadily throughout the summer 

with the internal circular cast-iron stair 

rising in eight-foot segments concurrent 

with the construction of the masonry walls. 

Sequentially, the cast-iron center post would 

be erected first and as the brick courses were 

 

17 Ibid., November 12, 1857. 

laid, the narrow end of each step would be 

hung on a cast peg protruding from this 

central column. The wide end was laid into 

the masonry itself. At the landings, the 

small ends of three pie-shaped cast-iron 

plates were sandwiched between column 

sections, while the wide end rested in the 

masonry. Support of these plates was 

supplemented with a cast-iron “I” beam 

positioned near the post. The three iron 

plates provided 180-degree coverage at each 

landing but were supplemented with single 

stair tread placed on the same plane. 

By the end of November, the “lantern 

intended for (Cape Lookout L.H. was) 

received in good order as per Bill of 

lading.”18 In the spring of 1859, the tower 

would be ready for the installation of the 

Fresnel lens; whenever it could be shipped 

from New York. 

By August 1859, the project was closing 

down as Captain Whiting requested 

permission to sell the steam engine used in 

the construction. In early September, J.R. 

Royal was reappointed as keeper and by 

mid-month Whiting reported the completion 

of the tower.19 The official announcement 

was made in the form of a Notice to 

Mariners (No.43.) issued September 19, 

1859, announcing that the new light would 

be operational on November 1. 

The new lighthouse of 1859 varied slightly 

in detail from the stock plan submitted by 

Lt. Whiting in 1857. Most apparent was the 

absence of the attached oil house at the base 

of the tower. Nineteenth-century 

 

18 Ibid., November 12, 1857, April 28, November 29, 

1858. 

19 Ibid., September 9, 17, 27, 1859. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.11 

Figure B-7 First-order lantern. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.12 

Figure B-8 Plate 1, 1893 Cape Lookout Light Station, NC. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.13 

photographs indicate that wooden stairs 

approached the opening from the side rather 

than straight on and the portal was protected 

with a solid, wooden plank, storm door. The 

distinctive hollow or double wall 

construction remains an assumption based 

on the original drawings. To date, no 

confirmation or recording of this 

construction detail has been made. Likewise, 

the detailing of the foundation is not 

documented. The tower appears to rest on a 

brick platform that creates a 35-inch 

walkway around its base. This brick 

coursing corbels outward into the ground, 

but this construction detail is not illustrated 

in the 1857 drawings and has not been fully 

revealed archaeologically. 

The presence of large granite and sandstone 

lintels at the two doorways and ten windows 

contrasted in color and texture with the 

brick. The Notice to Mariners stated that the 

color of the tower was red. It is not clear if 

at this point the tower is a brick color, has 

red paint or perhaps a red lime wash that 

was often applied as the final step in brick 

construction. In conformance with Jenkins’s 

suggestions of 1851, red would have been 

one of the preferred colors for a tower. 

Most certainly, the lantern was painted 

black, probably for conservation as well as 

visibility. To date there is no indication that 

the original intent was to paint the tower 

black and white. 

What appears more certain is that the center 

cast-iron post supporting the iron stair treads 

and the wedge-shaped, flat iron sheets for 

the landings as illustrated in the drawings 

were an essential part of the original 

construction phase of the building. Reports 

of painting the iron steps in 1862 and 

needing 61 replacement steps after the 

Confederate raid of 1864 validate this 

supposition. The cast-iron ship’s ladder 

stairs leading from the Store Room and the 

Watch Room conform to the drawings and 

appear to be original as well. Photographs 

from the late nineteenth-century indicate 

that the iron rails at the watch room gallery 

were simplified to two rails without the 

balusters shown in the elevation drawing. 

The specially designed lantern gives a 

consistency and uniformity in the 

appearance to all the towers designed to 

accommodate the first-order lens. From the 

start, the Cape Lookout tower was designed 

to accept a first-order Fresnel lens, and one 

was ordered especially for this location. 

Although the complete letter book has not 

been located, the index strongly indicates 

that other lighting apparatus was sent and 

installed in the 1812 tower early in 1857. 

The Fresnel lens did not arrive from France 

until the fall of that year and appears to have 

been held in New York prior to its 

installation in 1859. Logistically, this 

sequence makes more sense than installing 

the complicated first-order lens in the 1812 

tower, whose lantern was probably not 

designed to accommodate something that 

large; then having to dismantle and reinstall 

it in the 1859 tower, with the added 

complication of insuring that an adequate 

light was on this location at all times. 

Reuse of 1812 Tower 

Although the Notice to Mariners stated that 

part of the old tower was now the keeper’s 

dwelling, the completion of this conversion 

may not have occurred until the spring of 

1860. Correspondence from Whiting dated 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.14 

April 25 “reports alteration of old Tower to 

serve for Keeper’s quarters, suggest that 

upper part of old Tower be taken down.” 

Removal of the lantern was probable, for the 

following month Whiting requested 

“instructions in regard to disposal of old 

illuminating apparatus removed from [Cape 

Lookout].” 20 With the addition of the first 

assistant keeper in September and a second 

assistant keeper in January of 1860, housing 

was certainly at a premium. 

It is uncertain just how long the old tower 

survived. Interestingly, although its 

function changed, its painting scheme did 

not. It was referenced as the “old tower 

painted, white and red horizontal stripes” in 

the January 1869 List of Light Houses, 

Lighted Beacons and Floating Lights of the 

Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Coast of the 

United States.21 It seems to have 

disappeared in the 1870s. Perhaps with the 

construction of the new Keepers House in 

1873, it was no longer needed for housing, 

assuming the original keeper’s house was 

still in use to accommodate the assistant 

keepers. There is no reference to the 1812 

tower in a survey of the light station made in 

1893.22

 

20 Ibid., April 25 , May 5, 1860. 

21 List of Light Houses, Lighted Beacons and 

Floating Lights of the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific 

Coasts of the United States. Prepared by the 

Secretaries under a Regulation of the Light House 

Board, corrected to January 1, 1869. (Washington: 

1869), 33. 

22 “Cape Lookout Light Station, N.C. Reservation 

Surveyed 1893 by H. Bamber” (CALO Coll.) 

Document 623/60927 is annotated in 1906 with the 

approximate location of the 1812 lighthouse and cites 

an engineer’s letter of June 22, 1858 as placing the 

old tower 50 yards east of the current tower. 

A Storm on the Land 

The Cape Lookout Lighthouse station had 

little time to settle comfortably into its 

annual routine. The State of North Carolina 

officially seceded from the Union on May 

20, 1861, but Governor John W. Ellis had 

not waited. The week after the surrender of 

Fort Sumter on April 14, North Carolina 

State troops seized Fort Macon, and Ellis 

Figure B-9 Photo May 17, 1893, of Cape Lookout 

Lighthouse Station. 

sent out the order to “Extinguish all harbor 

and other lights.”23 The following week he 

assigned Major William H. C. Whiting to 

serve as inspector general to take charge of 

the defenses of the state. Whiting, who had 

been so instrumental in the construction of 

the Cape Lookout Lighthouse, had cast his 

lot with the southern cause and had been 

sent by Jefferson Davis to a place he knew 

well, the coast of North Carolina. Governor 

Ellis’s instructions to Whiting were clear: 

“Exercise the powers necessary to the public 

defense. Extinguish lights. Seize vessels 

belonging to the enemy and do whatever 

 

23 Kevin P. Duffus, The Lost Light, The Mystery of 

the Missing Cape Hatteras Fresnel Lens, (Raleigh: 

Looking Glass Productions, 2003), 10. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.15 

may seem necessary,” On April 27, 

Governor Ellis reported to Jefferson Davis: 

“All lights have been extinguished on the 

coast.”24 That same day Lincoln extended 

the blockade to include North Carolina. In 

less than two years after its completion, war 

had come to the Cape Lookout Lighthouse. 

Upon joining the Confederate States of 

America, authority over North Carolina’s 

lighthouses was placed under the Secretary 

of the Treasury, Christopher G. Memminger 

who in turn appointed Navy Commander 

Ebenezer Farrand as Chief of the 

Confederate Light House Bureau. On June 

7, Farrand ordered that all lights be removed 

from the coast and taken to a place to be 

safely stored until the end of hostilities.25

Josiah F. Bell was the Collector of Customs 

and Superintendent of Lights for the 

Beaufort District, which included the Cape 

Lookout Lighthouse. The responsibility, 

however, of actually removing and packing 

the complex first-order Fresnel lens 

structure fell to John R. Royal and his Asst. 

Keeper Elijah Willis, who was probably 

helped by machinist Asia Waters.26 

Superintendent Bell contracted with a local 

Beaufort warehouse to store the lighthouse 

lens and he also paid for blankets to wrap up 

the precious lens and for lighters to transport 

it from Cape Lookout to Beaufort. By June 

21, the first-order Fresnel lens had been 

carefully removed and safely stored in 

Beaufort out of harm’s way. Bell 

 

24 Ibid., 10-12. 

25 Ibid., 30. 

26 Duffus, 32; also Lighthouse Keepers of Cape 

Lookout Lighthouse 1845-1912, National Archives 

Microfilm Publication Micro Copy 1373 Roll 3. 

summarized his response to Farrand’s 

directive stating, “I have in my charge all 

the lenses and lighting apparatus Complete, 

of the two lighthouses.”27 

Secretary Farrand’s fears were soon 

confirmed when Union forces first 

recaptured Hatteras on August 29, 1861; 

then with the capture of Ft. Macon on April 

25, 1862, Union forces consolidated control 

of the Outer Banks. They were soon in 

Beaufort seeking out the Cape Lookout 

Fresnel lens. The lens, however, was no 

longer in Beaufort but rather on a circuitous 

journey leading through Williamston, 

Weldon and finally ending in Raleigh on 

July 22, 1862.28 There it would remain 

hidden until General Sherman’s troops 

occupied the city on April 13, 1865. 

Reestablishing the Light 

Although Keeper Willis was retained until 

the end of 1861 to protect the lighthouse, 

seemingly little maintenance was done prior 

to the Union forces retaking possession. In 

May 1862, Brig. Gen. Parke would report 

that the lantern was in bad condition.29

Although it was now under Union control, 

but without its light and without a keeper, 

the Cape Lookout Lighthouse remained out 

of service. By early December, however, 

the Light House Board made plans to send 

an illuminating apparatus for temporary use 

at Cape Lookout until the original lens could 

be recovered.30 By mid-February a lens was 

 

27 Ibid., 33. 

28 Ibid., 100-103. 

29 Index, 22 May 1862. 

30 Ibid., 2, 9, 15, 18 December 1862. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.16 

shipped and installed.31 On February 24, 

1863, the lighthouse with a third-order 

Fresnel lens was lit; G. Chadwick was 

appointed keeper and the routine of 

lighthouse operations and maintenance 

resumed.32 On March 5, 1863, District 

Engineer, Jeremy Smith reported on the 

necessity of painting the iron steps and the 

installation of a lightning conductor. It is 

possible that the “fish” shape weathervane, 

visible in later photographs, was installed at 

this point if it was not part of the original 

installation. More paint was requested in 

September.33 In January 1864, 241⁄2 yards of 

Holland Linen and cording was provided to 

the keeper to make curtains for the lantern. 

Cape Lookout Lighthouse was back in full 

operation even if its light shone less 

brightly. 

A Daring Raid 

On Sunday night, April 3, 1864, a 

Confederate raid under the command of L.C. 

Harland attempted to destroy the 1859 Cape 

Lookout Lighthouse, as well as the old 1812

tower. They were partially successful, but 

Confederate reports of the complete 

destruction of both were overstated. Two 

kegs of powder were ignited at the base of 

the 1859 stair, which shattered the glass, 

destroyed the entry-level floor and first 

landing, along with approximately 61 of the 

cast-iron steps. The New York Times

reported on April 9 that the light would 

probably be out for a week. The damage to 

the third-order Fresnel lens must have been 

 

31 Ibid., 18 February 1863. 

32 Duffus, 115, footnote 114; also Index, 26 February 

1863. 

33 Index, 5 March, 11 September 1863. 

minor for by April 18 the Times reported 

that “the light now burns as usual.”34 

It was not until June 27, however, that all 

the temporary repairs were completed.35 A 

report filed July 28 included a drawing that 

illustrated the extent of these repairs and 

provided an inventory of the “Iron work 

required to renew the stairway destroyed by 

the rebels April 3rd 1864.” The damage to 

the iron stairs had been substantial. The 

entry-level floor plates were destroyed and 

required the construction of a temporary 

wooden floor. A wooden stair, in the form of 

a ship’s ladder, rose in three sections to 

small landings approximately twelve feet 

apart. At the third landing, it extended up an 

additional four steps to engage the 

remaining iron stairs. In all, the request was 

made for 61 replacement iron steps, 6 lower 

floor plates and 3 landing plates.36

Although the Union Commanders reported 

the attack as unsuccessful, the Times noted, 

“The attempt was exceedingly audacious, as 

the locality is far within our lines.” It was 

an embarrassment and Rear Admiral S. P. 

Lee, Commander of the North Atlantic 

Blockading Squadron, sent a request six 

days later to Major General Butler, U. S. 

Army “that a sufficient force be assigned to 

guard this important lighthouse to prevent 

any repetition of such attempts.”37 It was an 

 

34 New York Times, April 9, 18, 1864. 

35 Index, June 27, 1864. 

36 “Cape Lookout L. House N.C., Temporary repairs 

wooden in Indian yellow, Drawn by G. Castor Smith, 

Actg. Engr. 4th L.H. Dist. From measurements etc by 

Jere P. Smith;” also see Index, July 28, 1864. 

37 Official Records of the Union and Confederate 

Navies in the War of the Rebellion. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.17 

 

Series I – Volume 9: North Atlantic Blockading 

Squadron, May 5, 1863- May 5, 1864. (Washington: 

Government Printing Office, 1899), 956. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.18 

event not soon forgotten. Over a year later, 

in June 1865, a full month after the capture 

of Jefferson Davis and the end of the 

Confederacy, correspondence was generated 

“reporting the whereabouts of leader of Raid 

against [the Cape Lookout Light Station]”38

Recovery of the Fresnel Lens 

As early as May 1862, Brigadier General 

Parke had reported the removal of the Cape 

Lookout lens to Raleigh; getting to it would 

take three more years.39 With General 

Sherman’s capture of Raleigh on April 13, 

1865, came the recovery of the Fresnel lens. 

Lt. George Round, who was assigned to 

establish a signal post on the Capital’s 

Montgomery Meigs wrote, “I learned that 

some broken prisms or portions of lenses 

have been seen in possession of boys in the 

streets,”40 On November 17, 1865, the Light 

House Board decided to return the damaged 

lens to Paris for repairs. The Cape Lookout 

lens was among the first to be sent to France 

on November 28, generating the following 

memorandum from the Board Chairman, 

Adm. William B. Shubrick, to Lemonnier, 

Sauter and Company indicating the 

condition of the lens: 

Gentlemen: I have to request that 

you will make as soon as convenient 

the following described parts of 

illuminating apparatus. Upon 

completions of the work, it should be 

securely packed, marked “Lighthouse 

Apparatus,” and shipped to the 

 

38 Index, June 13, 1865. 

39 Ibid., May 22 1862. 

40 Ibid., 142. 

Collector of Customs, New York City, 

United States, who will pay your bill. 

1. First-order, fixed 270 degrees – 

Cape Lookout, Lens to be retrofitted 

with sound prisms in place of the 17, 

which are badly chipped. Astragals, 

horizontal rings, Crown for lens, 

Socket, pedestal Table, lockers, 

balustrade & Wagner Lamps.41

In mid-August 1866, the ship Gettysburgh 

returned the perfectly restored lens to Staten 

Island. 

Post War Repairs 

Repairing the lens was only part of the 

challenge in returning the Cape Lookout 

Light to top operational condition. An 

assessment of the conditions at the 

lighthouse in early 1866 resulted in the 

recommendation to place a lightship off the 

point of the shoals. The light from the thirdorder lens was simply insufficient.42 Acting 

Engineer Jere P. Smith’s report with G. 

Castor Smith’s drawing of 28 July 1864 had 

provided an illustration and inventory of the 

repairs required. It was not until November 

1866 that funds for the iron stairs were 

appropriated. That same month, 5th District 

Engineer, W. J. Newman filed his 

requisition for an “Illumination apparatus – 

1st order.”43 

Repairs were probably made the first part of 

1867 for by 18 March, Newman recorded 

that “Cape Lookout LH NC reported ready 

to receive 1st order lens.” On March 19, 

 

41 Ibid., 153. 

42 Index, March 27, April 11, 1866. 

43 Ibid., November 19, 30, 1866. 

Figure B-9 1864 Drawing of damage and repairs by G. Castor Smith, Archives Cape Lookout National Seashore.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.19 

1867, Light House Board Chairman William 

B. Shubrick directed: 

You will please forward as soon as 

possible to W.J. Newman, Esq., 

Acting L.H. Engineer, Baltimore 

Maryland, the first-order apparatus 

marked L.H.B./L.S. 215-242, recently 

repaired in France and now in 

storage at the Staten Island Depot, 

sending with it all the necessary 

accessories and supplies of an 

apparatus of that class, except oil and 

oil butts. The apparatus is intended 

for use at Cape Lookout to replace 

the third-order lens now there.44

The original lens was probably reinstalled 

by the end of May and by August the thirdorder was returned to the Lighthouse 

Board.45 

In 1869, with a keeper and assistant keeper 

on station, repairs were made to the 

dwelling, and the lantern was given two 

fresh coats of paint. The Cape Lookout 

Lighthouse Station was reported to be in 

good order.46 

1873—A New Look 

1873 was a significant year for the Cape 

Lookout Lighthouse Station. A major 

expansion occurred that year with the 

construction of the Keeper’s Dwelling. It 

seems certain that the original keeper’s 

dwelling, which had been extensively 

repaired in 1869, still remained. It is at about 

 

44 Duffus, 155. 

45 Index, May 21, August 29, 1867. 

46 Report of the Light-House Board, 1869. complied 

by Beckman, E.J. 2006. (CALO Coll.). 

this time that the modified 1812 tower 

disappeared from the records. As part of the 

1873 upgrade, an oil room was constructed, 

a bell line was run from the house to the 

tower’s lantern, and a stove was placed in 

the Watch Room.47 It was in the spring of 

that year, however, that the most dramatic 

visual change occurred. The directive from 

the Lighthouse Board was clear: 

Cape Hatteras tower will be painted in 

spiral bands, alternatively black and 

white. Cape Lookout tower will be 

checkered, the checkers being alternately 

black and white. Body’s [sic] Island 

tower is now painted black and white 

horizontal bands.48 

As early as February a sketch had been 

prepared showing a painting scheme that 

would differentiate the Cape Lookout during 

daylight hours from its sister Outer Banks 

lighthouses.49 By mid-April, 5th District 

Engineer Major P.C. Hains “transmits copy 

of Notice to Mariners of painting [and] 

requests advertisement.”50 

The use of diagonal checkers rather than 

horizontal gives the tower its unique 

appearance among all North American 

lighthouses. Because the tower is the 

frustum of a cone, with the diameter 

considerably smaller at the top, the 

geometry of checkers would be challenging, 

 

47 Index, January 29, February 5, 1873. 

48 Herbert W. Stanford III, Cape Lookout Lighthouse 

and Its Environs: Guide for Cape Lookout 

Lighthouse Volunteer Keepers, (Washington: 

National Park Service, Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, 2008), Chapter 2, 6. 

49 Index,. February 17, 24, 1873. 

50 Ibid., April 15, 1873. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.20 

applied in any direction. The horizontal 

squares would have to be trapezoidal, that is, 

slightly larger at the bottom than top. Cape 

Henry Lighthouse, Virginia, would execute 

a horizontal checker pattern in 1881 and 

continue northward the black and white 

patterns used on the lighthouses of the North 

Carolina Outer Banks. 

The diagonal pattern of Cape Lookout 

allows for diminishing square size with the 

rise in elevation. The corners are not right 

angles so the squares become diamond 

shaped. Even so, these diamonds lack 

symmetry as the top two sides are shorter 

than the lower two sides. Unlike the spirals 

of Hatteras or the bands of Bodie, this 

diagonal pattern had the advantage of 

creating distinct sides. This appears to have 

been the intent and was used to advantage 

by marking the North and South elevations 

with the black fields dominant and the East 

and West elevations with the white fields 

dominant.51 Whether this day marking was 

intended to assist in directional 

identification is unknown, but this 

distinctive detail gave a level of complexity 

and sophistication in marking not seen 

elsewhere. The identity of the actual 

craftsman who executed this pattern for the 

first time on the building is not certain, but 

Maj. P.C. Hains was the 5th District 

Engineer and Manaen W. Mason was the 

keeper on station at the time. 

For the next couple of decades, the station 

seems to have settled into an operational 

routine. There was an incident in 1875 when 

the light was temporarily extinguished that 

 

51 Ibid., April 17, 1873. 

Figure B-10 Comparison of 1881 Cape Henry, 

Virginia, and 1859 Cape Lookout, North Carolina 

may have led to the removal of the Keeper 

Mason and his two assistants the following 

year.52 The tower was painted at least 

once.53 Major efforts seemed to be made to 

extend the warning zone by placing a 

lightship on the shoals or making the light 

 

52 Ibid., January 7, 17, 1874; August 19, 1876. 

53 Ibid., July 10, 1885. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.21 

Figure B-12 Image of Occulting Device, Archives Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

more powerful.54 

The nineteenth-century ended with one of 

the most destructive storms to hit Cape 

Lookout. Telegraph and telephone service, 

installed just a year earlier assisted in 

communication. Although the lighthouse 

station weathered the storm, the San Ciriaco

or “Great hurricane” of August 17-18, 1899, 

destroyed Shackleford Banks and drove 

 

54 Ibid., March 11, 1892; July 15, 1893; December 8, 

1897. 

much of the population permanently across 

the sound. 

Improving the Light 

The use of the Fresnel lens revolutionized 

the transmission of light from the tower. 

This device, which so effectively 

concentrated and directed the light, 

remained in service even while efforts were 

continually being made to improve the light 

source itself. Initially sperm whale oil was 

used to fuel the lamps in Cape Lookout’s 

first-order lens. By late 1883, mineral oil 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.22 

was introduced as a fuel.55 The problem of 

brightness remained. The United States 

Coast Pilot reported in 1895 that the light 

was visible at slightly over eighteen nautical 

miles, but because of the expansive shoals 

the “Cape Lookout Light will not be sighted 

unless on a very clear night.”56 In 1912, an 

incandescent oil vapor lamp was installed in 

the lighthouse.57 In order to create a more 

powerful light, three burners with a clusterof 

three mantles were used.58 None of these 

changes in fuel or wicks, however, radically 

altered the physical structure of the 

lighthouse lantern itself. 

Since it was first established in 1812, Cape 

Lookout had been a fixed, white light 

station, meaning the light did not flash. 

Although a flashing light might not be 

visible at a greater distance than a fixed 

light, it did establish a signature pattern 

which differentiated the lighthouse light 

from other shore lights and assisted in 

location identification. 

In 1913, plans were made to install an 

occulting device at Cape Lookout. When 

completed in February 1914, the light had 

two eclipses, each of ten seconds.59 The 

mechanism was weight driven using the 

 

55 Ibid., December 26, 1883. 

56 United States Coast Pilot: Atlantic Coast. Part VII, 

From Chesapeake Bay Entrance to Key West 

(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1895), 12, 

34.

57 Stanford, 1-7. 

58 George R. Putnam. Lighthouse and Lightships of 

the United States (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 

1917), 187-188; also 

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=UNM3AA

AAMAAJ 

59 Putnam, 98. 

hollow center of the cast-iron stair column 

as a chase for the weights. It was geared 

much like a clock except it turned a shield 

assemblage that was located between the 

light source and the lens. In order to 

accommodate the drive chain, a hole was cut 

in the Watch Room deck and two cast-iron 

steps were cut to allow the chain to pass 

through. In this mechanism, the shields were 

aluminum, probably highly polished to 

enhance the light’s intensity.60 

The alteration was a documented success. 

“The importance of a distinguishing 

characteristic is well illustrated in this case. 

In the two and one fourth years before the 

change, five wrecks were reported, in which 

the cause was stated to be the mistaking of 

the Cape Lookout Light for some other light. 

For the same interval since, there has been 

no report of a wreck from this cause.”61

Storm Door and Air Lock 

In 1913-1914, probably in an effort to 

isolate and protect the incandescent oil 

vapor lamp and the new occulting 

mechanism, major renovations were made in 

the Service Room and the Watch Room 

gallery to create air locks. The 1859 gallery 

with its railing was totally replaced and 

enlarged from 21⁄2 feet to 4 feet resulting in a 

noticeable overhang. The new deck was 

created by filling the four-inch deep cast 

metal pans with concrete re-enforced with 

 

60 E.J. Edwards and H. H. Magdsick, “Light 

Projection: Its Application.” in Illuminating 

Engineering Practice, Lectures on Illuminating 

Engineering Delivered at the University of 

Pennsylvania, September 20-28, 1916 (New York: 

McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1917), 243; also 

http://books.google.com 

61 Putnam, 98. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.23 

Figure B-13 Drawing of Air Lock.

five runs of half-inch diameter bars. On this 

concrete, new 11⁄2-inch pipe rails with 2-inch 

pipe posts replaced the wrought iron railing. 

A goal of this enlargement appears to have 

been to provide enough space to construct a 

protective enclosure in front of the exterior 

doorway into the Watch Room. This 5 feet 

by 3 feet 43⁄4-inch room was made of metal 

plates bolted and riveted together. For light 

and ventilation there was a single four-light 

window sash hinged on the top to open. 

Unfortunately, it appears that the new pipe 

railing would keep this window from 

opening fully. With a solid metal door on 

just one end, the enclosure effectively 

blocked circumnavigation of the gallery. It 

did, however, provide a tightly sealed space 

to protect the wooden door from wind and 

water. 62

In the Service Room, below the Watch 

Room, an existing partition was reworked 

with the joints being made air tight with 

oakum or putty. A small airlock was 

constructed in the Watch Room, though it 

barely fit into the space at the foot of the 

 

62 “Cape Lookout Light Station, N.C. Storm Door & 

Parapet Floor, Bureau of Lighthouses, Washington, 

DC, Sept. 10, 1913.” (CALO Coll.) 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.24 

stair, to block the updraft in the tower.63 

These two alterations created a much more 

tightly controlled environment in the Watch 

Room and Lantern. 

In 1933, the 1907 summer kitchen building 

was converted into the radio shack and 

battery house for use. A radio tower was 

constructed in front of the building and a 

single wire antenna was run to the Watch 

Room gallery. Two conduits with no. 8 

Park cable were run from the engine and 

battery house out to the tower bringing 

electric lighting to the lighthouse. The 

October Lighthouse Service Bulletin

reported that: 

The installation of a radiobeacon 

and electric lighting equipment at 

Cape Lookout light Station was 

completed on August 15. The outfit 

consists of 2 gasoline engines direct 

connected to 5 kw generators, 2 

sets of 200-ampere lead-acid 

storage batteries and two 200-watt 

transmitters with the necessary 

operating devices. 

The 75-millimeter incandescent oil 

vapor lamp in the tower has been 

replaced with four 250-watt T-14 

lamps, increasing the candlepower 

from 77,000 to 160,000. The 

antenna is suspended between the 

light tower, about 150 feet high, 

and an 80-foot steel tower adjacent 

to the radio building, the distance 

between the two being 

approximately 210 feet. 

 

63 “Cape Lookout Light Station, N.C., New Air Lock 

& Repairs, Bureau of Lighthouses, Washington, DC, 

Sept. 10, 1913.” (CALO Coll.) 

The entire radio beacon equipment including 

the storage batteries was that removed from 

Lightship No. 72, and the new equipment 

purchased consisted only of generator sets, 

wire, cables and conduit.64

With the installation of new electric light 

mechanism came a new flash pattern. 

Figure B-14 Attachment location for radio antenna. 

Working on a 15 second cycle, the light was 

on for 2 seconds, eclipsed for 2 seconds, on 

Working on a 15 second cycle, the light was 

on for 2 seconds, eclipsed for 2 seconds, on 

again for 2 seconds and eclipsed for 9 

seconds.65

Although the candlepower more than 

doubled, navigators were no longer reliant 

solely on spotting the light. Cape Lookout 

Light Station now broadcast a radio signal 

 

64 Lighthouse Service Bulletin Vol. IV No. 46. 

October 1933. Transcribed by Cheryl Roberts in 

email to Karen Duggan, Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, 4 June 2006. 

65 Lighthouse List South Atlantic Coast of the United 

States 1937, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Lighthouse Service. 1937, 22. Also, U.S Coast 

Guard Light List, Volume I, Atlantic Coast, 1973, 23. 

(CALO Coll.) 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.25 

Figure B-15 Plan of 1950 electrical service installed in first floor. Archives Cape Lookout National Seashore.

group of dash-dot-dash-dot for 60 seconds 

followed by a period of silence for 120 

seconds.66 This was the first of a series of 

electronic signals and devices, cumulating in 

the satellite Goble Positioning System 

 

66 United States East Coast North Carolina Cape 

Lookout to New River. Map by Department of 

Commerce, Office of Coast Survey/National Ocean 

Services. 1932; also 

http://historicalcharts.noaa.gov/tiled_jpgs_done/zoom

ifyURLDrivenWebPage.htm?zoomifyImagePath=12

34_12-1932. (16 July 2008). 

(GPS) that significantly reduced the reliance 

on a light. 

The following month, on September 15, a 

hurricane struck the cape and opened Barden 

Inlet to the west of the lighthouse. The inlet 

has been sustained over subsequent years by 

dredging. Although it is a boon to boaters 

and local fishing, it has created a new threat 

to the lighthouse as erosion on the inlet side 

moves the shoreline toward the station. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.26 

The United States Lighthouse Service was 

discontinued in 1939. Its equipment and 

personnel were transferred to the United 

States Coast Guard. With the arrival of 

World War II, Cape Lookout witnessed the 

tragic loss of shipping to the German 

operation called Paukenschlag (drum roll). 

With little defense in place and the shoreline 

still illuminated, German submarines 

wreaked so much havoc during the first half 

of 1942 that the Atlantic coast became 

known as “Torpedo Junction.” 

In mid-March the Cape Lookout Light was 

still continuing its bright sweep, silhouetting 

the ships and making them vulnerable to 

attack. By June, however, the coast had 

been darkened.67 The lighthouses continued 

to serve as observation points to look for 

submarines and saboteurs. After the war, 

Cape Lookout continued its upgrade of radio 

signaling devices with the erection of new 

towers near the lighthouse.68 Electronic 

broadcast was the way of the future. 

The Coast Guard continued to maintain the 

tower and modernize its operation. In 1950, 

the Coast Guard retrofitted the ground level 

of the tower into an electrical room. Inside 

were placed two 2RVl Kohler generators, 

wall-mounted control panels and a rack to 

hold the batteries. The cable connections 

the old engine and battery house were 

disconnected.69 At this point the lighthouse 

became self-contained and fully automated, 

 

67 Homer H. Hickman, Torpedo Junction (Annapolis: 

Naval Institute Press, 1989) 84, 290. 

68 Cape Lookout LT. STA.N.C. Alterations to Radio 

Installation, January 26, 1949. (CALO Coll.) 

69 “Cape Lookout Lt. Sta. Arrgt. of Equipment in 

Base of Light Tower” May 1950. (CALO Coll.) 

no longer requiring the presence of an onsite keeper. The light would continue to be 

powered in this manner until 1982, when 

electric cables were run from Harker’s 

Island. 

During the 1950s and early 1960s the U.S. 

Coast Guard had less and less use for the 

station’s buildings. Several structures were 

demolished and the 1907 Keepers House 

was moved. One development plan in1962 

proposed the relocation of the Life Boat 

Station to the lighthouse site and called for 

the demolition of everything on the site 

except for the tower.70

A New National Park

In 1966, another branch of the U.S. 

government began its involvement with the 

Cape Lookout Light Station. Act of 

Congress P.L. 89-366 authorized the 

creation of Cape Lookout National 

Seashore. On October 18, 1972, the station 

“consisting of the lighthouse, the keeper’s 

dwelling, a generator house, a coal and 

wood shed, and a small cement block oil 

house—all situated on a long narrow sandy 

island called Core Banks” was placed on the 

National Register of Historic Places.71 In 

1976, Cape Lookout National Seashore was 

established with headquarters in Beaufort. 

The U.S. Coast Guard, however, retained 

control of the lighthouse site. In 1982, the 

Cape Lookout Coast Guard Station was 

 

70 “Cape Lookout L.B.S. Relocation of Station 

Preliminary, U.S. Coast Guard Fifth District, 

Portsmouth VA. Civil Engineering, July 27, 1962” 

(CALO Coll.) 

71 National Register of Historic Places Nomination: 

Cape Lookout Light House, NC. (Raleigh, NC: 

North Carolina Division of Archives and History, 

Department of Cultural Resources, 1972). 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.27 

decommissioned and its function merged 

with the station at Fort Macon. In 1984, the 

station’s property and buildings were 

transferred to the National Park Service. 

The Coast Guard continued to retain 

possession of the lighthouse itself. 

Removal of the Fresnel Lens—Again 

During the earliest phase of this gradual 

shift in ownership, around 197672 or 

approximately one hundred and ten years 

after the first-order Fresnel lens had been 

reinstalled in the Cape Lookout Lighthouse, 

it was removed in the quest to get a brighter 

light. This time the U.S. Coast Guard chose 

to replace the historic lens with two 

powerful 24-inch aero-beacons generating 

800,000-candle power each. These rotated 

and created a flash pattern of every 15 

seconds, which continues to be the pattern. 

The Lemmonier-Sauter lens was relocated to 

5th District Coast Guard Headquarters and 

used as a monument decorating the entrance 

to the Mess Hall and Base Exchange. Then 

in 1994, it was moved again and installed in 

the newly relocated and renovated Block 

Island Southeast Lighthouse off the coast of 

Rhode Island. There it remains today, 

notwithstanding various efforts to have it 

returned to Cape Lookout.73

Shoring the Interior 

The most significant alteration made to the 

upper part of the tower since the 1914 

 

72 The exact date remains undocumented; Duffus 

gives a date of 1967 (190) which maybe a number 

reversal. Dated photograph (slide #1030) in the 

CALO archives document the change as occurring 

prior to October 1977, the National Register 

nomination indicates the lens in place in 1972. 

73 Duffus, 190. 

gallery enlargement or the removal of the 

Fresnel lens ca. 1976 occurred in 1989. By 

1988, it was clear that above the eighth 

floor both the ironwork and the masonry 

had seriously deteriorated. The eighteen 

inch thick masonry between the eighth and 

lantern floors had developed severe vertical 

and horizontal cracks, some of which were 

over one inch wide. Six vertical cracks 

completely penetrated the wall and ran the 

full height. One horizontal crack ran the 

full circumference and portions of the wall 

had shifted. It was feared that the structure 

would collapse in the event of a 130 mph 

hurricane. One option studied was to 

encase the wall in steel but ultimately, in 

order to address concerns over the 

structural stability of the lantern, watch and 

service levels, the Coast Guard embarked 

on a major shoring and stabilization 

project. The work also included the 

replacement of the railings on both the 

Lantern Room and Watch Room galleries. 

The new posts for the upper gallery 

extended through the original iron floor 

plate of the Lantern gallery, through some 

new horizontal framing then anchored in 

the floor of the Watch Room gallery. On 

the interior, a series of metal diagonal cross 

bracing and horizontal framing lace the 

walls of the upper part of the tower. This 

resulted in the cutting of several of the 

original cast-iron steps and removal of part 

of the service-level partition wall.74

 

74 Lighthouse Stabilization, Cape Lookout 

Lighthouse, Cape Lookout, North Carolina. U.S 

Coast Guard Shore Maintenance Detachment, 

Cleveland, Ohio. 1988. 7 Sheets: 1. Lighthouse 

Details, 2. Section and Rail Details, 3. Frame Section, 

4. Frame Details, 5. Frame Details, 6. Latern [sic] 

Frame Details, 7. Reference Drawing. Cape Lookout 

National Seashore Archives. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.28 

Figure B-16. 1989 section of shoring of Gallery. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.29 

Although acknowledged not to be 

aesthetically pleasing, it was believed to 

provide better protection against failure and 

cost less that the steel encasement option. 

Seven years later on September 5, 1996 it 

would be tested with Hurricane Fran. 

Continuing Maintenance 

A general inspection of the building was 

made in December 1992. The inspector 

noted that the building had been “recently 

painted (summer 1992)” and that “windows 

replaced summer 1992.”75 He noted the 

structural shoring but also called attention 

to a moisture problem resulting in mold on 

the walls and rusting of the stairs. Clearing 

the ventilation ball and vents of bird and 

insect nests to improve air flow was the 

only recommendation. The inspector noted 

that the electronics package was on the 

second level and the generator on the lower 

level and that “Each of these levels are now 

separated with a false floor installed, 

whereas previously access to the entire 

structure was from the generator area.”76 

Currently one of the pie-shaped metal 

plates has been slid aside and replaced with 

a steel plate, indicating the possible 

location of a connection between the two 

levels. The inspector also noted that the 

wiring was old and frayed and the fuse 

disconnects in poor condition. Further, the 

condition of the room housing the aircooled generators was not ideal with poor 

 

75 Cape Lookout Light (LLNR 575) Station Structural 

Inspection Sheet, 17 December 1992. Copy placed 

with Cape Lookout National Seashore, Harker’s 

Island, NC. 

76 M.E. Clark, Trip Report Outer Banks, N.C.

December 1992. 5. Copy placed with Cape Lookout 

National Seashore, Harker’s Island, NC. 

ventilation and awkward 90-degree elbows 

in the exhaust piping. Little corrective 

action was taken, for these conditions were 

again recorded in an inspection conducted 

May 4, 1993. The May 15, 1995 inspection 

noted the excessively chalky condition of 

the paint and that the “Door at 3rd level 

leading out to the cat walk is corroded and 

hinges broken. This will be replaced and 

fixed by Group Eng. this summer.”77

In 1996, the Coast Guard commenced a 

major electrical upgrade in the tower. Work 

included the main electrical wiring, junction 

boxes, the emergency beacon system and a 

variety of controls and support devices. In 

the spring of that year, American Lighthouse 

Restoration Company completed the 

repainting of the exterior of the building. 

On 14 March 1997, U.S. Coast Guard Civil 

Engineering again inspected the lighthouse. 

They remarked that the exterior had been 

painted in the spring, the two windows 

blown out by Hurricane Fran had been 

boarded up and that an electrical upgrade 

was in process. Of concern was the 

deterioration of the interior masonry and the 

windows. The moisture had deteriorated 

mortar joints and loosened some of the 

steps. The moisture was again noted in the 

lantern room with rust and mold growth. It 

was anticipated by the Coast Guard in 1997 

that “This lighthouse will most likely 

continue to be needed through 2010. The 

lighthouse could possibly be either 

transferred to the National Park Service 

and/or be granted to a lighthouse 

 

77 Biennial Lighthouse Inspection report, Fifth 

District, Cape lookout light, LLNR 670, May 15, 

1995 by ENS Josh Peters. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.30 

Figure B-17 Plan view of 1989 shoring in tower. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.31 

preservation group; these options are not 

currently being pursued.”78

In anticipation of continuing to operate the 

lighthouse, the Coast Guard undertook what 

turned out to be their last major investment 

in the Cape Lookout Lighthouse in 1999. 

The ten wooden windows were replaced and 

new metal storm doors for the first- and 

second-floor entrances installed. At that 

same time, the interior walls were water 

blasted and approximately 1,075 square feet 

of masonry was repointed and repaired to 

include resecuring the stairs to the brick 

wall. Lightning protection was installed. 

Exterior painting was limited to around the 

window and door installations.79 In June of 

the following year the exterior was 

repainted. 

National Park Service Assumes Control 

The transfer of the Lighthouse to the 

National Park Service came sooner than was 

first anticipated in 1997. While retaining 

operational control of the upper levels, the 

Coast Guard turned the lighthouse over to 

the Park Service on June 14, 2003. 

In early 2004, the Coast Guard solicited 

public comment about the quality and 

usefulness of the light. The January issue of 

Lighthouse Digest stated, “Hopefully, these 

questions will not mean the light will be 

 

78 Untitled information sheet from Coast Guard 

archives in Cleveland with notation “Options 

classified as likely are reflected in long term plan. 

Information current as of 10/1/97.” 

79 Cape Lookout Light Repairs Cape Lookout NC 

Elevations and Details, March 3, 1999. Civil 

Engineering Unit Cleveland. (CALO Coll.) 

removed from the tower.”80 Chief Warrant 

Officer Chris Humphrey who was in charge 

of the survey found concern over the 

condition of the submerged cable. Under 

consideration was the possibility of a 

conversion to solar power. He reported they 

had received a few phone calls, “all from 

non-mariners that just like to sit at the 

waterfront and watch the light.” Clearly the 

Lighthouse had become an important local 

attraction as much as a navigational aid.81 

In October 2004, High Structure 

Maintenance, LLC (formerly American 

Lighthouse Restoration Company) repainted 

the lighthouse using Valspar paint donated 

by Lowes.82

The erosion on the inlet side of the island 

caused by Barden Inlet became increasingly 

threatening. In September 2003, only a few 

months after the National Park Service had 

taken over control of the lighthouse, 

Hurricane Isabel struck and eroded the 

protective dunes on the sound side and 

destroyed the coal shed. By 2006, the 

erosion required intervention if the site was 

to be preserved. In January, the Park Service 

announced a program to replenish the sound 

side beach with sand dredged from a shoal 

northeast of Shackleford Banks.83 The 

 

80 Timothy Harrison, Keepers Korner: “How Bright 

Is Cape Lookout?” Lighthouse Digest, January 2004.; 

also http://www.lighthousedepot.com/lite_ 

digest.asp?action=get_article&sk=1863 (12 July 

2008) 

81 Humphrey, Chris. “RE: Cape Lookout Light 

House” E-mail to author 10 July 2008. 

82 Horak, Nadeene. “RE: Cape Lookout Lighthouse” 

E-mail to author 7 July 2008. 

83http://www.nps.gov/calo/parknews/02_17_2006b.ht

m. (6 July 2008). 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.32 

station remains particularly vulnerable from 

sound-side erosion. 

As the lighthouse approached its 

anniversary, 150 years of age began to take 

their toll. On June 14th and 15th 2003 the 

light house was opened to the public as part 

of the transfer ceremony. Since then, it has 

been opened for public viewing an average 

of four days a year. Unprecedented crowds 

have visited with more people ascending the 

tower in a matter of a few days than had 

done so in the hundred years before. Its 

popularity as a primary attraction and 

signature for Cape Lookout National 

Seashore was quickly proven but the impact 

and sustainability of this new intense use 

required examination. On February 28, 

2008, Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Superintendent Russel J. Wilson issued a 

press release that stated “tours of the Cape 

Lookout Lighthouse have been suspended 

for public safety reasons...an engineer’s 

inspection conducted this month revealed 

significant deterioration to the integrity of 

the tower’s circular stairway.” He went 

further to say that the program of work for 

the summer “ will include a comprehensive 

engineering evaluation and design work for 

the modifications that are necessary to the 

lighthouse to ensure public safety.” 84Thus, 

the Park Service commenced an allinclusive study as the first step to assure the 

long-term preservation of the historic Cape 

Lookout Lighthouse. 

 

84http://www.nps.gov/calo/parknews/02_22_2008.ht

m. (6 July 2008). 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.33 

TIMELINE 

1804 Mar. 26 Congress authorizes light station at Cape Lookout. 

1805 Feb. 18 Four acres purchased for light station. 

1812 First lighthouse constructed. 

1830 May 3 Elijah Pigott et. al. execute deed for eleven additional acres to expand 

station to fifteen acres. 

1851 Mar. 3 Congress commissions study of lighthouses. 

1852 U.S. Light House Board established. 

1857 Mar. 3 Funds approved to construct new lighthouse at Cape Lookout. 

1858 Apr. Foundation borings begin on second Cape Lookout Lighthouse. 

1859 Feb. Request made for a clock. 

 Nov. 1 Second Cape Lookout Lighthouse begins operation. 

1860 1812 Light House tower converted to keeper’s quarters. 

1861 Apr. Confederates seize lighthouse. 

 May 20 North Carolina joins Confederacy, puts out lighthouse lamps. 

 June First-order lens removed by Confederates and stored in Beaufort. 

1862 Apr. Union Army captures Ft. Macon, regains control of Outer Banks. 

1863 Feb. 24 Third-order Fresnel lens installed, and light relit. 

1864 Apr. 3 Cape Lookout Lighthouse damaged by Confederate raid. 

 June 27 Temporary repairs to steps, landings and glass completed. 

1865 Apr. 13 First-order Fresnel lens recovered in Raleigh. 

1866 Congress authorized $20,000 for the repair. 

1867 Civil War damage repaired. 

 May First-order Fresnel reinstalled, mariners notified of renovation. 

1869 Lantern painted with two coats, inside and out. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.34 

1873 New brick Keeper’s Quarters completed; possible date demolition of 

original lighthouse. 

1873 Apr. Frustum painted in black and white diagonal checker pattern, lantern 

remains black. 

 Bell line connects house and tower, stove added to Watch Room. 

1876 Mar. Signal Service begins occupying 1812 Keepers House to operate weather 

station and telegraph line. 

1883 Dec. 26 Mineral oil introduced as fuel. 

1885 Mar. Receive a shipment of Lard oil. 

 July Painting tower. 

1887 U.S. Life Saving Station established 11⁄2 miles SW of lighthouse. 

1888 Notice to Mariners ref: change in light characteristics. 

1898 May 18 Telephone installation at lighthouse station connecting to Beaufort 

telegraph station. 

1899 Aug. 17-19 San Ciriaco or “Great hurricane” destroys Shackleford Banks. 

1910 June 17 Bureau of Lighthouses (Dept. of Commerce) replaces Light House Board 

(Dept. of Treasury). 

1912 Incandescent Oil Vapor lamp installed in lighthouse. 

1914 Feb. Light changed from fixed to flashing. 

 Watch Room gallery ( also called Observation Deck) enlarged. Storm 

Room added to the gallery, partition wall rebuilt with air lock to the 

Service Room below Watch Room. 

1916 Construction begins on new Coast Guard Station. 

1917 June 12 Congress appropriated $300,000 to enable the U. S. Coast Guard to extend 

its telephone system to include all Coast Guard Stations not then 

connected, and to include the most important light stations that then had 

no means of rapid communications. 

1933 Aug. 15 Lighthouse electrified with four 250-wt lamps. 

 Radio beacon installed. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.35 

 Sept. 15-16 Barden Inlet opened by hurricane. 

1939 July 1 Light House Service incorporated into the U.S. Coast Guard. 

1942 June Light extinguished for duration of war. 

1949 Jan 26 120 foot radio tower added near lighthouse. 

1950 Generators placed in ground-level room. Lighthouse fully automated. 

1966 Mar. 10 Cape Lookout National Seashore was authorized by Public Law 89-366. 

1972 Oct. 18 Listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Weathervane still in place. 

ca. 1976 Fresnel lens removed, two DCB-24 aero-beacons installed with 15 

seconds between flashes. 

ca. 1980 Metal storm doors installed at 1st and 2nd levels. 

1982 Underwater electric cables run to the lighthouse from Harker’s Island. 

1988 Alternatives for stabilization of upper part of tower studied. 

1989 July Stabilization project places metal shoring in tower and restructures watchroom gallery. 

1992 Repainted during the summer. Pressure washing collapses well. 

1994 Cape Lookout first-order Fresnel lens installed at Block Island Southeast 

Lighthouse, RI. 

1995-96 Repainted at cost of $46,000 by American Lighthouse Restoration Co. 

Storm door and hatch at watch level replaced.

1996 Sept. 5 Hurricane Fran damaged windows. 

1996-97 Major electrical upgrade in the tower to include main electrical wiring, 

junction boxes, emergency beacon, and lighthouse power controls. 

1999 Windows replaced, metal entrance doors replaced, interior paint removed, 

selective painting; selective brick repair, and lightning protection 

accomplished. 

2000 June Repainted. 

2003 June 14 Lighthouse transferred from USCG to National Park Service. 

 Sept. Hurricane Isabel destroyed coal shed. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.36 

2004 Oct. Repainted by High Structure Maintenance LLC. 

2005 May 12 Engineering study of lighthouse by Stanford White Associates. 

 Sept. 15-16 Hurricane Ophelia. 

2006 Feb. Shoreline replenished on sound side to protect lighthouse. 

 Aug. 31 Tropical Storm Ernesto. 

2008 Feb. 23 Public tours of the lighthouse suspended for reasons of safety. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.37 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Bachman, Karen. The Insider’s Guide to the Outer 

Banks 25th edition. Guilford, CT: Globe Pequot 

Press, 2004. Web site: 

http://www.insiders.com/outerbanks/mainhistory3.htm#Heading6. (28 July 2008) 

Barnes, Jay. North Carolina’s Hurricane History. 

Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press, 1995. 

Bisher, Catherine W. Architect and Builders in 

North Carolina: A History of the Practice of 

Building. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press, 1990. 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore web site, 

http://www.nps.gov/caha (24 July 2005). 

Crompton, Samuel Willard and Michael J. Rbein. 

The Ultimate Book of Lighthouses. San Diego, 

CA: Thunder Bay Press, 2003. 

DeBlieu, Jan. Hatteras Journal. Winston-Salem, NC: 

John F. Blair Publisher, 1998. 

Denson, C.B. Memoir of Major General William 

Henry Chase Whiting. Raleigh, NC: Edwards & 

Broughton Printers and Binders, 1895. 

Duffus, Kevin P. The Lost Light, The Mystery of the 

Missing Cape Hatteras Fresnel Lens. Raleigh, 

NC: Looking Glass Publications, 2003. 

Edwards, E. J. and H. H. Magdsick. “Light 

Projection: Its Application.” In Illuminating 

Engineering Practice, Lectures on Illuminating 

Engineering Delivered at the University of 

Pennsylvania, September 20-28, 1916. New York: 

McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1917. 

Everhart, William C. The National Park Service. New 

York: Praeger Publishers, 1972. 

Hairr, John. Images of America, North Carolina 

Lighthouses and Lifesaving Stations. Charleston, 

SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2004. 

Holland, Francis Ross. A Survey History of Cape 

Lookout National Seashore. Washington: 

National Park Service, Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, 1968. 

__________. America’s Lighthouses: An Illustrated 

History. New York: Dover Press, 1988. 

Instructions to Light-Keepers, 1902 edition. 

Washington: Government Printing Office, 1902. 

Reprinted, Great Lakes Lighthouse Keepers 

Association, 1989. 

Jones, Tommy H. Historic Structure Report, Cape 

Lookout Life Saving Station. Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore, North Carolina. National 

Park Service, 2004. 

Jones, Ray. The Lighthouse Encyclopedia: The 

Definitive Reference. Guilford, CT: The Globe 

Pequot Press, 2004. 

Lighthouse Digest, 

http://www.lighthousedepot.com/lite_digest.asp 

(12 July 2008). 

List of Light Houses, Lighted Beacons and Floating 

Lights of the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Coasts of 

the United States. Prepared by the Secretaries 

under a Regulation of the Light House Board, 

corrected to January 1, 1869. Washington: 1869. 

Lighthouse Keepers of Cape Lookout Lighthouse 

1845-1912, National Archives Microfilm 

Publication Micro Copy 1373 Roll 3. 

Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac 

1861-1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & 

Company, Inc., 1971. 

Loonam, John. Cape Lookout Lighthouse. Bertie NC: 

Self Published, 2000. 

http://www.itpi.dpi.state.nc.us/caroclips/CapeLookou

tstory.htm (July 2008) 

McNaughton, Marimar. Outer Banks Architecture: 

An Anthology of Outposts, Lodges and Cottages. 

Winston-Salem, NC: John F. Blair Publisher, 

1998. 

National Register of Historic Places Nomination: 

Cape Lookout Light House, NC. Raleigh, NC: 

North Carolina Division of Archives and History, 

Department of Cultural Resources, 1972. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.38 

Pilkey, Orrin H., and Neal, William J. eds. The North 

Carolina Shore and Its Barrier Islands. Restless 

Ribbons of Sand. Durham, NC: Duke University 

Press, 1998. 

Powell, William S. The North Carolina Gazetteer: A 

Dictionary of Tar Heel Places. Chapel Hill, NC: 

UNC Press, 1968. 

Putnam, George R. Lighthouses and Lightships of 

the United States. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. 

1917. Available at http://www.books.google.com. 

Report of the Officers Constituting The Light-House 

Board convened under instructions from the 

Secretary of the Treasury to Inquire into the 

condition of the lighthouse establishment of the 

United States under the Act of March 3, 1851. 

Washington: A. Boyd Hamilton, 1852. 

Roberts, Bruce, and Ray Jones. Southern 

Lighthouses: Outer Banks to Cape Florida, 3rd 

ed., Guilford, CT: Globe Pequot Press, 2002. 

Stick, David. The Outer Banks of North Carolina 

1584-1958. Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 1958. 

__________. ed. An Outer Banks Reader. Chapel 

Hill, NC: UNC Press, 1998. 

__________. Graveyard of the Atlantic: Shipwrecks 

of the North Carolina Coast. Chapel Hill, NC: 

UNC Press, 1952. 

__________. North Carolina Lighthouses. Raleigh, 

NC: North Carolina Division of Archives and 

History, 1980. 

Strobridge, Truman R. Chronology of Aids to 

Navigation and the United States Lighthouse 

Service 1716-1939 

http://www.uscg.mil/history/articles/h_USLHSchr

on.asp (May 2008) 

U.S. Coast Guard web site 

http://www.uscg.mil/history/ (May 2008). 

United States Coast Pilot: Atlantic Coast. Part VII. 

From Chesapeake Bay Entrance to Key West. 

Washington: Government Printing Office, 1895. 

Available at http://www.books.google.com. 

Zepke, Terrance, Coastal North Carolina: Its 

Enchanting Islands Towns and Communities 

Sarasota, FL: Pineapple Press, Inc., 2004 

Material on file at archives of National Park Service, 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, Harker’s 

Island, NC. 

Manuscripts and Reports 

Beckman, E.J. ed. Report of the Light-House Board, 

1869, 2006. 

Bodie Island Lighthouse Historic Structure Report 

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cah

a/caha_bodie_hsr.pdf 

Cape Lookout Lighthouse Keeper’s Dwelling (1907) 

Historic Structure Report 

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online 

books/calo/calo cllkd hsr.pdf 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, Discussion of 

Alternatives. 1998. National Parks Service 

Southeast support Office Planning Division. 

Atlanta, GA. 

Cape Lookout Lighthouse Letter Book Index 1805-

1900. 

Erosion Study Cape Look Lighthouse Study. 1978. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Wilmington, N.C. 

Notice to Mariners (No. 43.) Treasury Department 

September 19, 1859. 

Request for Proposal to Construct Light House, 

Department of the Treasury, November 30, 1810. 

Transcribed by Karen Duggan. 

Drawings (Arranged Chronologically) 

 “First Order Lantern, U.S.L.H Establishment, plate 

No.20” no date. [623/60955]. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.39 

“Cape Lookout Light House, First Order, From 

Lieut. W.H.C. Whiting, 5th Dist” ca. May 1857. 

[623/60937] 

“U.S. Light House Board, Cape Lookout Light 

House, Drawn under the direction of Lieut. Wm. 

H.C. Whiting, Corps Engr by Benj. Goodness” 

Same as above with additional annotation 1888 

and checkering detail. [623/60937A]. 

“Cape Lookout L. House N.C., Temporary repairs 

wooden in Indian yellow, Drawn by G. Castor 

Smith Actg. Engr. 4th L. H. Dist., From 

measurements by Jere. P. Smith” dated 28 July 

1864. [623/60936A] 

“Cape Lookout Lt. Sta. N.C., Sectional outlines of 

Lantern & construction of Watch Room & 

Lantern Floors from Dimensions taken at the site 

by Mr. C. H. Vinson, March 28th 1912.” 

[623/60928] 

“Cape Lookout Light Station, N.C. Storm Door & 

Parapet Floor. Bureau of Lighthouses, 

Washington, D.C. Sept.10, 1913.” [623/60915] 

“Cape Lookout Light Station, N.C. New Air Lock & 

Repairs, Bureau of Lighthouses, Washington, DC, 

Sept 10, 1913.” [623/60916] 

“Reinforcing Rods in Parapet Floor, Cape Lookout 

Lt. Stn., Office of the Lighthouse Inspector Fifth 

District, Baltimore, MD,” Jan. 16, 1914. 

[623/60918] 

 “Cape Lookout Light Station, N.C., Assembly of 

Motor, Bureau of Lighthouses, Washington, D.C., 

Sept 10, 1913.” Listed as 1 of 7 sheets 

2 of 7 – Motor Details 

3 of 7 – Motor Details 

4 of 7 – Motor Base, Chain Guides, etc 

5 of 7 – Motor Case 

6 of 7 – Occulting Apparatus Details 

7 of 7 – Occulting Apparatus Details 

[623/60924] 

“Cape Lookout Light Station, N.C., Assembly of 

Occulting Mechanism. Bureau of Lighthouses, 

Washington, D.C., Dec. 1913.” [623/60932] 

“Cape Lookout Lt. Sta. N.C., Alterations to Radio 

Installation, Civil Engineering, C.G. Drawing No. 

ND-953.” Jan. 26, 1949. [623/60909A]. 

“Cape Lookout Lt. Sta., Arrgt. Of Equipment in Base 

of Lighthouse, 5th District Civil Engineering, 

USCG Chief of Division, C.G. Drawing No. ND1299, May 1950.” [623/60901]. 

“Lighthouse Stabilization, Cape Lookout Lighthouse, 

Cape Lookout, North Carolina. U.S. Coast Guard 

Shore Maintenance Detachment, Cleveland, 

Ohio. 1988.” 7 Sheets: 1. Lighthouse Details; 2. 

Section and Rail Details; 3. Frame Section; 4. 

Frame Details; 5. Frame Details; 6. Latern [sic] 

Frame Details; 7. Reference Drawing. 

“Lighthouse Stabilization, Cape Lookout Lighthouse, 

Cape Lookout, North Carolina. U.S. Coast Guard 

Shore Maintenance Detachment, Cleveland, 

Ohio. 1988. Owen Miscellaneous Metals Inc, 

Cayce S.C., 1989.” Similar to above, arranged 

as sheets E-1-5 corresponding to sheets 3, 2, 6, 4, 

5. Annotated and supplemented. 

Maps and Surveys 

Deed and Property Survey February 17th, 1830, 

Samuel Leffers. Original found in National 

Archives College Park, MD. Carteret County 

Deed Book V, 103. 

“Cape Lookout, Light Station, N.C., Building 

Surveyed 1893 by H. Bamber” [623/60935]. 

“Cape Lookout, Light Station, N.C., Reservation 

Surveyed 1893 by H. Bamber” [623/60927]. 

“Plat of Cape Lookout Light Sta., Dimensions 

received from Mr. John Lewis, Supt. Of Const, 

April 20th 1889” with annotation for 1907 

improvements [623/60906]. 

“Plat of Cape Lookout Light Station N.C. Showing 

proposed location of new Keeper’s Dwelling &c. 

Dimensions received from Mr. John W. Lewis 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore NC Part I.B Chronology of Development and Use 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.B.40 

Supt. Of Construction, July 31, 1906.” 

[623/60906B] 

“Cape Lookout Light Station N.C. Plat Copied 

Febr’y 18th .1910 brought up to date March 20, 

1959; subdivided April 28, 1959.” [623/60906H]. 

“U.S. Coast Guard Property, Cape Lookout, Carteret 

County, N.C. by J.G. Hassell, October 1961.” 

[623/60980] 

“Cape Lookout L.B.S. Relocation of Station 

Preliminary, U.S. Coast Guard Fifth District, 

Portsmouth VA. Civil Engineering, July 27, 

1962” [623/60942] 

CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.1 

General Description: 

The Cape Lookout Lighthouse is located on 

the uninhabited barrier island known as 

South Core Banks. The island is some three 

miles south of the North Carolina mainland 

and some ten miles southeast of the colonial 

port city of Beaufort. The lighthouse is the 

second built in this location. 

Figure C-1 Satellite view of Cape Lookout and the 

North Carolina coast. Compare with Figure B-1, the 

1856 map of Cape Lookout Shoals. 

 The lighthouse sits on a gentle rise on a 

narrow sliver of open land, its height 

reaching about 165 feet to the top of the 

lantern dome’s finial. A four-foot wide, 

nineteenth-century brick walkway leads 165 

feet north-northwest from the lighthouse to 

the Keeper’s Quarters, a two-story 

weatherboarded wood frame house. It now 

contains park interpretive exhibits on the 

first floor and private living quarters for 

volunteers and other occasional occupants 

on the second floor. 

Figure C-2 Location of Lighthouse and Ferry 

Close by, west of the Quarters, is the onestory, wood frame and weatherboard Radio 

Shack and attached Battery House. 

Northeast of this group, down a wooden 

boardwalk in a grove of low trees, is the 

one-story Light Station Visitor Center. This 

modern complex is open seasonally and 

contains gift shop, restrooms and a rest area. 

The island is accessed only by boat. NPS 

personnel, support staff and volunteers leave 

by agency craft from the boat slip at the 

Cape Lookout National Seashore Visitor 

Center on the east end of Harkers Island. 

They navigate through the many reefs of the 

shallow waters of Back Sound, pass near 

Shackelford Banks, and dock at the Park 

C. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.2 

Service pier adjoining the Light Station 

Visitor Center. 

Visitors come by small, shallow-draft, 

private ferries, also based on Harkers Island, 

or by personal craft. They, too, typically 

come ashore on the more protected west side 

of South Core Banks, but anchor at the 

beach adjacent to the Keepers’ Quarters. 

Figure C-3 Shackelford Banks. 

On most days, the tall slender lighthouse can 

be seen from Harkers Island, and it remains 

in clear view during the entire 15-minute 

boat ride to the shores of its island. 

Figure C-4 Anchorage of private boats off the beach 

next to Keeper’s Quarters. 

The lighthouse was constructed in 1859 

according to a standardized architectural 

design of the period. Though it was the first 

of this prototype built in North Carolina, 

several lighthouses of this design were built 

elsewhere along the East Coast. The 

tapering tower is made primarily of brick 

topped by a sixteen-sided metal and glass 

lantern. Inside the lantern is the 

continuously rotating double beacon. 

Figure C-5 The view looking northeast from Lantern 

Gallery: mooring beach, NPS pier and Light Station 

Visitor Center. 

The tower exterior retains its distinctive 

black-and-white painted diamond pattern 

first applied in 1873. The lantern is painted 

black. 

Blocks of granite are used for the sills and 

lintels of the tower fenestration. The southside entry doorway, two short stone steps 

above grade, provides access to the first 

floor equipment room. The north-side entry 

doorway, accessed by twentieth-century 

wood stairs, provides access to the Second 

Floor and the base of five levels of cast-iron, 

spiral stairs. Each section between landings 

spans twenty-four feet of vertical rise. At 

the Seventh Floor or Service Level, the 

spiral stairs end and a short run of original 

cast-iron ladder stairs connects to the Eighth 

Floor Watch Level, the last landing within 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.3 

the brick tower. Ten small window 

openings, each with a pair of six-over-six 

wood sashes, provide daylight along the 

climb from the Second Floor through 

Seventh Floor. 

At the windowless Eighth Floor Watch 

Room, a small original doorway leads out to 

the Watch Room’s Observation Deck that 

encircles the tower. From the Watch Room, 

another short run of original but narrower 

and steeper cast-iron ladder stairs connects 

to the interior landing of the Ninth Floor or 

Lantern Level. 

Figure C-6 The view looking South. 

The domed Lantern has sixteen sides of 

glass panels held in slender metal frames. 

Within one section is an original metal-andglass door leading to the original narrow 

cast-iron Lantern Gallery that encircles the 

Lantern. 

The interior metal surfaces of the Lantern 

are painted white, reportedly to enhance 

reflectivity of the beacon light. The two 

1976 aero-beacons are mounted at the center 

of the landing floor and dominate the 

Lantern interior space. 

Construction Characteristics 

Structural Systems 

The structural system of the lighthouse 

tower is load-bearing masonry consisting of 

brick with granite sills and lintels at the 

fenestration. 

The structural system of the lantern is metal 

framing with glass inserts between framing 

members to create a continuous, sixteensided, translucent wall. Curved metal 

framing supports the dome and its cladding 

of thin metal sheet roofing. 

• Foundations: According to the drawings 

for the lighthouse prototype, the brick tower 

rests on a masonry platform at grade. The 

platform is not visible, but according to the 

drawings it is the width of the tower and 

rests, in turn, on a wider base of layered 

“concrete or stone” in decreasing diameter 

for an unspecified depth. Centered directly 

beneath the tower is a pylon of layers of 

stone. None of the actual below-grade 

characteristics have been verified. 

• Exterior Wall, Cross Walls & Core Wall: 

Again according to the prototype drawings, 

the tower is double-walled, constructed of 

brick. Both walls are laid in a 5-to-1 

common bond. At grade, the tower has a 

diameter of 28'-0". It is circled by a 2'-11" -

wide brick walkway. The exterior face of 

the lighthouse tapers upward at a decline of 

9/16" per foot. At the Sixth Floor landing, 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.4 

according to the prototype plan, the two 

brick walls merge to become one wall 2'-6" 

thick. The taper continues, and by the 

Eighth Floor Watch Room, the merged 

exterior masonry wall measures 1'-6" in 

thickness and the tower diameter is 12'-0". 

Figure C-7 1857 Whiting’s 1857 illustration 

showing tapered walls 

The central interior shaft containing the stair 

does not taper, but has a diameter of 10'-6" 

and retains that diameter as it extends from 

the floor of the First Floor to the top of the 

tower, the base of the Ninth Floor Lantern. 

This interior core wall, according to the 

drawings, is 1'-6" thick for the entire vertical 

height, while the outer wall, which is 4'-1" 

thick at grade, tapers at its 9/16" –per-foot 

ratio. The outer wall eventually joins the 

core wall to become the single 2'-6" thick 

wall at the Sixth Floor landing, continuing 

its taper to the top of the Eighth Floor, the 

top of the brick tower. Between the outer 

and core walls is a void with a taper 

corresponding to the taper of the exterior 

wall. 

Six equally spaced, radiating cross walls, 

each 9" thick, connect the outer and core 

walls along the way to the union of outer 

and core walls at the Sixth Floor. 

Figure C-8 Modern masonry repairs in Watch 

Room. 

The great majority of the bricks in the tower 

core are original and handmade. (At the 

intersection of the spiral stair treads with the 

core wall, there are some modern bricks, 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.5 

replacements installed when tread conditions 

were investigated in 1999. There are also 

sections of modern replacement bricks 

installed as part of the crack repairs to the 

interior of the Watch Room walls, perhaps 

performed at the time the steel 

reinforcement was installed in 1989.) 

The bricks of the exterior wall also appear to 

be original and possessing the same visual 

characteristics as the core wall bricks, but 

more than a very limited inspection was 

hampered by the current exterior coatings. 

At the outside surface of both the inside core 

wall and the exterior wall, the bricks have 

the same range of sizes. These are: 

 Height: 2" to 21⁄4" 

 Depth: 31⁄4" to 31⁄2" 

 Length: 73⁄4" to 8" 

Figure C-9 Brickwork of interior face of core wall. 

The visual characteristics of the bricks can 

best be seen on the interior of the lighthouse 

where paint and other finish coatings have 

been removed. These bricks can be 

classified as follows in decreasing order of 

color dominance: brown-rose, orange-rose, 

rose-brown. Speckling is common in all 

color ranges. 

The mortar joints of both the outside and 

inside walls have a width of about 1⁄2" and 

are struck flush. However, on the core wall 

interior face, it is clearly evident that 

portions of the brickwork have been repointed with a hard, Portland cement-rich 

mortar. The re-pointing mortar is also fairly 

impermeable as evidenced by the re-pointed 

joints sitting proud, hard and rigid, while the 

adjoining bricks have spalled well back from 

the face of the mortar. Similar spalling has 

not occurred on bricks adjoining the earlier 

mortar. 

Figure C-10 Spalling brick adjoining Portland 

cement-rich repointing mortar. 

On the exterior wall surface, the thick paint 

layers to a large degree mask both bricks 

and mortar. While the presence of Portland 

cement-rich repointing mortars could not be 

verified on the exterior, it is clear that 

portions of the brickwork are in need of 

repointing as revealed by the pattern of 

eroded joints seen in the irregularities of the 

coating. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.6 

The mortar analyses performed for this 

report indicate that both the original bedding 

and pointing mortars were composed of 

natural cement with no lime addition. 

Further, the mortars have held up very well. 

These will be important considerations for 

future maintenance repair efforts. It is of 

historical interest that the cement was 

identified as American and not a European 

product. Although the exact provenance of 

the cement could not be established, it is 

chemically consistent with cements 

produced in northwestern Georgia. Further, 

the sand used for the mortar was identified 

as a very clean and narrowly graded 

siliceous aggregate typical of fine beach 

sand. The material testers conclude that it is 

highly possible that the sand was harvested 

from the Outer Banks region, although the 

extracted sand is darker in color than a 

sample of sand removed from the island 

during the investigation. (See Appendix D: 

Materials Analysis for further discussion.) 

Figure C-11 Natural cement bedding mortar 

exposed at Watch Room air vent. 

The testing of bricks was necessarily limited 

to samples from the core wall interior wythe. 

The tests for compressive strength and water 

absorption indicate the bricks are adequate 

in terms of meeting the basic requirements 

of MW (moderate weathering) grade brick 

and are suitable for their intended use at the 

lighthouse. Areas of distress appear to be 

associated with the later use of the Portland 

cement-rich repointing mortars. 

In addition, the condition of the bricks of the 

exterior wall is not known. These bricks 

have been water-blasted and subsequently 

covered with the current, thick, nonbreathable coating. These actions are likely 

to have damaged the brick by removing 

portions of the fireskin and also trapping 

moisture, conditions that may affect their 

overall water absorption and possibly their 

compressive strength properties. Additional 

testing of the exterior brick is recommended 

to confirm actual performance 

characteristics. (See Appendix D: Materials 

Analysis for further discussion.) 

Figure C-12 A 1976-1981-era photograph of 

exterior masonry at Observaton Deck.

• Column: A hollow, round column, 

made of 3⁄4"-thick iron plate, is bolted 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.7 

Figure C-13 Center column on sandstone pedestal, 

abandoned emergency generator and fuel tank 

nearby. 

together in sections and extends from the 

masonry floor of the First Floor to the Ninth 

Floor Lantern platform for the beacon. At all 

levels the column appears to be sound. 

At the First Floor, the fluted iron column, 1'-

4" in diameter, rests on a sandstone platform 

measuring 2'-2" x 2'-2" and sitting proud 3" 

above the top of the brick flooring. The 

column transitions to a 10" diameter which 

it retains through all the upper levels, 

although it changes at the Seventh Floor 

from fluted to smooth surface, and 

terminates at the Ninth Floor beacon 

platform. 

The distance between the top of the First 

Floor to the top of the Second Floor landing 

Figure C-14 Bolted connection between column 

sections. 

is 10'-6". The distance between the top of 

the Second Floor landing to the top of the 

Third Floor landing is 24'-0", a distance 

maintained between each successive landing 

up to the Seventh Floor. Between the 

Seventh Floor and Eighth Floor, the distance 

is 8'-0" and between the Eighth Floor and 

Ninth Floor it is 7'-2" 

• Flooring Systems: At the First Floor, 

bricks are laid in running bond in a mortar 

bed, presumably immediately on top of the 

masonry platform as indicated in the 

lighthouse prototype drawings. 

At the Second Floor, the lowest floor level 

of the spiral staircase, there is a pair of 

original iron I-beams that straddle the center 

column and support six wedge-shaped, 

interlocking, cast-iron floor sections. Each 

of the six floor sections is mortared into the 

perimeter brick wall and also connects to the 

center column, thus providing a complete 

horizontal covering of the center core space. 

Each subsequent landing, except for the 

Third and Eighth Floor, consists of three 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.8 

Figure C-15 Wood deck and floor joists of rebuilt 

1867 Third Floor landing. 

wedge-shaped iron floor sections providing 

a half enclosure and a single iron I-beam. 

At the Third Floor, a level damaged by the 

Confederate explosion, the landing was 

rebuilt in the 1867 repair effort and is 

comprised of wood plank flooring (3/4" x 

5") atop two wooden joists (2 7/8" x 8") in 

addition to the original I-beam. 

At the Eighth Floor Watch Level there are 

two original I-beams and six original wedgeshaped cast-iron floor plates creating a full 

horizontal enclosure as at the Second Floor. 

Significantly, only the six plates of the 

Second Floor landing have nibs at the 

underside of the adjacent sides of the floor 

panels. These nibs are for bolts to connect 

adjacent panels. The occurrence of nibs at 

only the Second Floor landing plates is 

further confirmation that these are 

replacement plates, dating to the 1867 

repair. 

It is also noteworthy that one of the current 

six metal floor plates of this Second Floor 

landing is different from the others. It does 

not have nibs for bolts, appears to have less 

wear, may be made of steel instead of iron, 

and is painted a different color (green 

instead of black.) The floor plate which this 

plate replaced is stored nearby. The reason 

for the installation of this one odd floor plate 

is not clear. Perhaps the 1867 plate was 

removed for a while to allow a physical 

connection between the First and Second 

Floors, was temporarily misplaced, and 

therefore replaced when a complete 

enclosure was again desired. 

Although there is some surface corrosion as 

well as surface abrasion on sections of the 

cast-iron flooring panels and I-beams, these 

conditions are largely a matter of aesthetics. 

Figure C-16 1989 steel framing at Seventh Floor. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.9 

Figure C-17 Structural supports and central 

ventilator of dome. 

Figure C-18 1989 steel reinforcement of Gallery 

deck and connecting rod. 

• Roof Framing: The sheet metal dome is 

supported with cast-iron ribs and 

interconnecting 7/8" diameter iron rods, and 

rests on a cast-iron wall plate. Seventeen 

vertical iron-framing members hold glass 

panels to create a sixteen-sided wall 

enclosure (Lantern) and to support the wall 

plate. This iron framing sits on an iron floor 

plate atop the masonry tower. The cross 

bracing is copper-based, probably brass. 

Corrosion is extensive among the supporting 

iron elements. 

Outside, steel angles were added to the 

underside of the Lantern Gallery. Stainless 

steel, 1" diameter rods were added as 

connectors between the Lantern Gallery and 

Observation Deck. (See Appendix B: 

Structural Assessment & Carrying Capacity 

Analysis.)

Utility Systems 

• Mechanical Systems: There is no natural 

gas service to the island. (However, the 

Keeper’s Quarters has propane gas for the 

cooking stove and refrigeration. A propane 

storage tank is nearby.)

• Electrical Systems: The Carteret-Craven 

Electric Cooperative provides single phase, 

110/220v electrical service directly to the 

Lighthouse via underwater cable from 

Harkers Island. The cable was installed in 

1982. (Excess power is then available to the 

Keeper’s Quarters. The Light Station 

Visitor Center has electricity supplied by a 

generator which is shut down at the end of 

each day.) 

The electrical service in the Lighthouse was 

upgraded in 1996-97. Upgraded items 

include new wiring, junction boxes, 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.10 

Figure C-19 Typical shop-type utility lighting at 

spiral stairs floor landing. 

emergency beacon and power control. 

Electrical wiring is typically contained in 

conduit. Along the spiral staircase, a utility 

shop type fluorescent lighting fixture 

(having a length of 4'-0" with two bulbs and 

no lens) is mounted on the surface of the 

underside of each landing. A grounded 

electrical outlet is also provided at the 

landing. 

A 1970s vintage emergency generator is 

located at the First Floor of the Lighthouse. 

However, it is disconnected and nonoperational. 

• Plumbing Systems: A deep water well of 

some 300 feet provides potable water for the 

Visitor Center and Keeper’s Quarters, but 

not the Lighthouse. (A shallow well, used 

as a reservoir during the water blasting of 

the Lighthouse in 1991, was fouled by the 

operation and subsequently had to be 

abandoned.) 

The Visitor Center and the Keeper’s 

Quarters have separate septic fields. The 

Figure C-20 Detail of historic construction drawing 

showing roof gutter and scupper/ downspout. 

Lighthouse has no provision for waste 

disposal. 

Exterior Features 

• Roof, Ventilator and Rainwater Collection 

/Dispersal: The dome is sheathed with 

sections of copper roofing panels, perhaps 

the original. A formed cornice is configured 

to serve as a roof gutter and small 

scupper/downspouts direct the runoff out 

away from the Lighthouse. 

Atop the dome is a sheet metal finial pierced 

and screened to provide natural ventilation. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.11 

Figure C-21 Lantern, Lantern Gallery and Watch 

Level Observation Deck. 

Figure C-22 Corroded connecting rod at Watch 

Room floor plate. 

Presumably, this element also is made of 

copper. 

• Lantern & Lantern Gallery: The sixteen 

vertical sections of glass that form the sides 

of the Lantern are held in place by vertical 

Figure C-23 Broken floor plates of Lantern Gallery. 

cast-iron framing members and horizontal 

cross-bracing of a copper-based material, 

perhaps brass. An iron sill plate attaches the 

Lantern atop the masonry tower. There are 

extensive amounts of corrosion at the iron 

elements. 

Four presumably original iron rods, each 

7/8" in diameter, connect the sill plate of the 

Lantern to the floor at Watch Level. These 

rods have extensive corrosion with at least 

one severely compromised. 

Along the outside perimeter of the Lantern 

is the narrow Lantern Balcony. This 

Balcony has sixteen cast-iron floor plates, 

probably the original. These plates are in 

very poor condition with extensive 

corrosion, numerous breaks and some loss 

of material. Stainless steel angles were 

added in 1989 for support beneath the floor 

plates. During those same repairs, the 

current stainless steel railing system was 

installed. This railing consists of 11⁄2" round 

stanchions with a flat 1" x 2" handrail 38" 

above floor level.

• Watch Level Observation Deck: In 1913, 

probably in an effort to isolate and protect 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.12 

Figure C-24 Section of 1914 Observation Deck 

railing at North Carolina Maritime Museum. 

the incandescent oil vapor lamp and the new 

occulting mechanism, plans were prepared 

for constructing air locks at the Watch 

Room Gallery and Service Room. 

Accordingly, the current deck system of 

steel pans filled with cement topping was 

installed the following year to increase the 

Gallery width to 4'-2" in order to 

accommodate the new air lock. A pipe 

railing was installed along the perimeter of 

the new deck (Figure B-12). 

At unknown date(s), the original 1914 

railing and air lock were removed. The 

imprint of the air lock is still visible in the 

deck’s cement. Remnants of the stanchion 

anchors remain in place (Figure C-25). A 

salvaged section of the 1914 railing is in the 

North Carolina Maritime Museum (Figure 

C-24). The current railing is a replica of the 

original 1914 railing. It stands 45" tall and 

is constructed of two 2" round rails and 21⁄2" 

round stanchions, all of steel. 

Figure C-25 Remnants of 1914 stanchion anchors 

and replacement railings of unknown date. 

Figure C-26 Exterior view of one of four Watch 

Room air vents. 

The pan deck system appears to be in good 

condition. The railing is extensively 

corroded and in need of replacement. 

• Walls: The brick walls are discussed 

above in the section Structural Systems – 

Exterior Wall, Cross Walls and Core Wall.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.13 

Figure C-27 Circa 1945 photograph of doorway, 

(CALO Coll.) 

• Air Vents: Four round 8"-diameter vents 

constructed of sheet copper are equally 

spaced in the perimeter wall at the Watch 

Level. Apparently original, each vent is Zshaped with the exterior opening 

approximately 12" below the interior 

opening where a manually-operated, fivepoint, cast-brass closer adjusts airflow. 

• Doorways: There are four exterior 

doorways. Three are in the tower and one is 

in the Lantern. The presumably original 

brass-and-glass door of the Lantern remains 

in place, though it needs cleaning and 

adjustment to operate smoothly. The three 

original brick-and-granite door openings of 

the tower are intact, though the original 

doors and framing have been modified. 

At both the First Floor and Second Floor, 

the original doorway framing and door were 

replaced c. 1980 with steel frame and steel, 

flush-panel door. (These doors were 

severely rusted when they were replaced in 

1999 with the current doors of same design.) 

In both locations, the original door was 

probably board-and-batten with wroughtiron strap hinges and pintels. Such a door is 

Figure C-28 Original masonry opening for First 

Floor doorway with modern infill and steel door. 

Figure C-29 Modern entrance stair to Second Floor.

visible at the Second Floor in an unlabelled, 

c. 1945 photograph in the park’s collection. 

The First Floor replacement door unit has its 

c.1980, 2" x 2" square steel frame and c. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.14 

1999 flush-panel steel door. This door 

measures 2'-7" x 6'-6" x 13⁄4" and has at the 

bottom a metal vent measuring 1'-7" wide x 

1'-5" tall. The door hardware is still in place 

which includes two, “Arrow” brand, 

aluminum ball door knobs, a closer and a 5"-

wide brass threshold. 

At the Second Floor, the steel door frame 

and door are of the same installation periods 

as those of the First Floor and physically 

match as well except that this door measures 

2'-6" x 6'-6" x 13⁄4". Both this and the First 

Floor door suffer from extensive corrosion, 

are in poor condition but remain operational.

A third exterior doorway is at the Eighth 

Floor, connecting Watch Room with 

Observation Deck. The original masonry 

opening is intact with brick jambs and 

granite lintel. It measures just 2'-31⁄2" wide 

by 4'-9" tall. In 1914, the Observation Deck 

was widened and an air lock measuring 3'-4" 

x 5'-6" was constructed. When this air lock 

was removed is unknown, but the wall 

imprints are still visible in the cement deck. 

The appearance of the 1859 door that was 

set in this opening is also unknown but 

probably was a board-and-batten design 

similar to the one at Second-Floor level. 

How this doorway was modified in the 1914 

remodeling, if at all, is uncertain. The 1913 

plan for the air lock construction shows a 

doorframe and door but does not identify 

either repair or modification. No records 

have been located that address subsequent 

action affecting this doorway. 

The current door, a ship’s hatch with six 

latching dogs, measures 1'-6" in width by 3'-

0" in height and is made of painted cast 

Figure C-30 Ship's Hatch at Observation Deck 

aluminum. According to park personnel, it 

was installed in 1996. Whether this door 

replaced a steel ship’s hatch of same design 

is unknown. 

The exterior door plate is steel and has 

extensive wear and corrosion suggesting that 

it may date to a much earlier period with a 

steel door of similar design to the current 

aluminum one. 

The brick jambs of this masonry opening are 

reinforced flush, stainless-steel panels. The 

time of installation is not known but the lack 

of wear suggests a recent date perhaps 1996 

the date of door replacement. The bottom of 

this masonry opening is accessed from the 

interior by a 10" tall, painted masonry step, 

and the base of the hatch door opening is 

another 9" above the masonry. 

The original masonry opening is sound and 

the hatch door is in good condition and 

operational. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.15 

Figure C-31 Doorway to Lantern Gallery. 

A fourth doorway is at the Lantern. 

Apparently an original feature, it is made of 

brass framing with two, glass panels, 

designed to conform to the framing 

configuration of the Lantern. This door 

permits passage between the Lantern and the 

Lantern Gallery. The door metal is heavily 

encrusted with paint and difficult to operate. 

• Windows: Apart from the glass expanses of 

the Lantern, there are ten windows in the 

Tower. All ten of the current window units 

are replacements, fabricated and installed in 

1999 by the NPS Historic Preservation 

Training Center of Shepardstown, West 

Virginia. Each window is an operable, 

double-hung, sash design made of wood. 

The design characteristics mimic the 

replaced sash but are not a duplicate, as 

confirmed by comparison with the salvaged 

sash in the collection of the North Carolina 

Maritime Museum. (See Appendix A: 

Figure C-32 Typical replacement window unit. 

Figure C-33 Brick Apron at intersection with brick 

walk to Keeper's Quarters. Note post and stone base 

for previous stairs. 

Documentation Drawings.) In addition to 

the sash, the replacement material includes 

the sill and interior and exterior casing. The 

framing could not be observed to determine 

if had been replaced as well. Two earlier are 

known to survive. One is in the collection 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.16 

Figure C-34 Two earlier but twentieth-century and 

severely deteriorated wood posts and one cross beam

Figure C-35 Stairs for Main Entrance. 

of the North Carolina Maritime Museum in 

Beaufort. Museum records indicate the sash 

was accessioned in 1992. Its exterior is 

weathered, suggesting a long period of 

service, but it is intact and in good 

condition. Although its date of construction 

Figure C-36 Modern lightning rod at Gallery 

railing. 

is not known, its muntin profile is consistent 

with other windows of the mid-nineteenth 

through early-twentieth century. 

• Apron: Encircling the base of the 

Lighthouse at grade is a brick walkway of 

unknown age. The bricks are handmade and 

laid as four, staggered, soldier courses end 

to end for a sidewalk width of 2'-101⁄2". 

• Entrance Stairs: According to park 

personnel, the current L-shaped 

configuration of stairs and landings was 

installed in the 1980s. The wood members 

are treated pine, unpainted, and cut to 

modern dimensions. They were constructed 

adjacent to and connected with remnants of 

a previous stairs. 

The earlier elements include two 6" x 6" 

posts and their 21⁄2" x 91⁄4" cross beam, all of 

which are attached to two modern 5 3/8" x 5 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.17 

Figure C-37 Physical evidence of red limewash on 

tower's exterior masonry. 

3/8" posts that support the entrance landing. 

These two early posts have extensive rot. 

The 1980s elements remain in good 

condition though the entrance landing posts 

would benefit from additional support as the 

earlier, now supplemental, posts continue to 

deteriorate. 

• Lightning Protection: The prototype 

drawings indicate a lightning rod atop the 

roof finial. Today, a group of modern 

lightning rods include one atop the dome 

and four at the Lantern Balcony rail. Two 

grounding cables connect to this rail, one at 

the north side and one at the south, and then 

run down the face of the masonry to grade. 

The south ground cable is disconnected at 

the Eighth Floor. 

• Finishes: According to the testing of 

exterior finishes prepared for this report, the 

brick masonry contains two campaigns of a 

red limewash followed by six campaigns of 

Figure C-38 Tower finishes c. 1976-1981. 

Figure C-39 Exterior exposure of lighthouse window 

sash in the collection of the North Carolina Maritime 

Museum. 

black and white paint (in a harlequin 

pattern.) This finding apparently confirms 

the application of a coating as opposed to 

the simple exposure of the brickwork to give 

the red appearance noted in the 1859 Notice 

to Mariners. 

The later black and white paints apparently 

post date the 1873 decision of the federal 

Light House Board to implement the current 

distinctive diamond pattern. The recent 

paints applied to the masonry are synthetic 

based, very rubbery and non-breathable. 

Probably applied for their waterproofing 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.18 

Figure C-40 Granite doors sill at Second Floor 

entrance. Note modern infill, door frame, and door. 

Figure C-41 Typical Spiral Staircase section as 

found from Second Floor to Seventh Floor. 

capability and durability, they belong to a 

category of paint that has proven to be 

harmful to soft, handmade bricks, especially 

in combination with the use of hard, nonpermeable repointing mortars as are found at 

this lighthouse. 

Unfortunately, the metalwork of the lantern 

contains only recent layers of paint 

(approximately 2-5), all of which are black, 

and no evidence of historic finishes. 

However, the 1859 Notice to Mariners also 

identifies the color of the lantern as being 

black. This documentary source, therefore, 

remains the best indication of the original 

lantern color. 

The window sash salvaged from the 

lighthouse and now part of the collection of 

the North Carolina Maritime Museum, a 

sash believed to be early if not original, has 

between 15 and 20 layers of paint as would 

be expected of an element with some age. 

The earliest layers are white with the later 

layers showing evidence of the intersection 

of the black and white diamond pattern. 

Unfortunately, the combined physical 

evidence of sash design and finishes does 

not confirm that this sash is indeed original 

or even that it remained in its original 

window opening. It was not unusual for 

sash to be moved from window to window 

during repairs and other operations. It 

would not be surprising, too, if the diamond 

pattern shifted slightly at some point. What 

can be said is that this sash has some age 

and in its later years was in a window 

located at the intersection of the diamond 

pattern. (See Appendix D: Materials 

Analysis.) 

Interior Features - Typical Characteristics: 

• Room Dimension: At each level of the 

lighthouse, the space is circular and 

measures 10'-6" in diameter. 

• Brickwork: The interior core wall of the 

Tower is constructed of handmade brick laid 

in a 1-to-5 common bond. (See Exterior 

Features – Walls for a more detailed 

description.) In 1999, the brickwork was 

water blasted. The bricks’ outer protective 

surfaces that face the Tower’s interior were 

severely eroded in the process, exposing the 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.19 

Figure C-42 Original drawing of Spiral Stair tread. 

soft interior of the bricks. Some portions of 

the brickwork were then spot-pointed with a 

much too hard, impervious mortar. The 

combination of damaged brick and 

impervious mortar is causing the damaged 

bricks to suffer further damage from 

moisture migration and spalling. 

• Lintels and Sills: Throughout the Tower, 

gray granite is used for the door and window 

lintels and doorway sills. 

 Spiral Staircase: The spiral stairway 

extends from the Second Floor to the 

Seventh Floor. Each tread is wedge-shaped 

and made of cast iron 1" thick. At the 

narrow end where it connects to the column, 

the tread is 4" wide. At the flared end where 

the tread intersects the masonry (then 

extends 4" into the wall) the tread measures 

1'-6" wide. The distance from outer edge of 

column to the face of the masonry wall is 4'-

10". From top of tread to top of adjacent 

tread is 8". 

According to Union documents, 61 

replacement steps were to be ordered; the 

exact number that was ordered, arrived or 

installed has not been confirmed. Three 

very clean steps without evidence of wear 

were discovered in Second Floor storage. 

Perhaps they were left over from the initial 

installation, or found to be unnecessary 

during the repairs. No documentary 

reference has been found. Inspection of the 

five runs of these cast-iron steps did not find 

a distinction among them; all steps appear to 

be identical, presumably from the same 

foundry, though no foundry markings were 

found. Inspection of the masonry walls for 

evidence of the 1867 installation of 

replacement treads was hampered by the 

disruption of the masonry caused by the 

1999 inspection of treads which removed 

masonry at the treads. There are 

photographs of the 1999 inspection in the 

park’s archives. 

Figure C-43 Photograph from 1999 inspection. 

(CALO Coll.) 

• Staircase Landings: From the Second 

Floor through the Eighth Floor, with three 

notable exceptions, the landings are made up 

of identical wedge-shaped, 1"-thick cast-iron 

floor plates. 

One exception is a single plate among the 

six at the Second Floor which is clearly a 

modern replacement. Its design is unlike 

any other floor plate and it is painted a 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.20 

Figure C-44 Modern replacement floor plate at 

Second Floor landing. 

different color as well. It is not known when 

or why this plate was installed. The original 

floor plate is stored nearby. The reason the 

original plate was removed is not clear; 

perhaps it was removed to accommodate the 

operation of added equipment. Why the 

early floor plate was not reused when the 

decision was made to close up the floor 

again is also not clear; perhaps the early 

floor could not be located. 

The second exception is the six matching 

floor plates of the Second Floor landing, 

including the five currently in place and the 

one extra noted above. These six are very 

similar in appearance to the metal floor 

plates of other landings, but with one 

distinctive difference; they have nibs on the 

underside for connection with bolts between 

adjoining plates. These nibs are not present 

in the apparently original, 1859 floor plates 

of other landings. These six plates 

apparently date to the 1867 post-Civil War 

repairs. 

The third exception is also a mystery. 

Unlike all the landings above grade, the 

deck of the Third Floor landing is made of 

wood, not cast-iron. In the 1864 Union 

drawing of the temporary repairs, both the 

Second Floor and Third Floor original 

landing are absent, victims of the 

Confederate explosion. The makeshift runs 

of temporary wood stairs bypass the original 

locations of these two landings. In addition, 

the Union assessment calls for nine 

replacement floor plates, a number 

appropriate for the six needed at the full 

landing at the Second Floor and three for 

the intermediate half-landing of the Third 

Floor. 

Figure C-45 Third Floor Landing with reused 1859 

cast-iron I-beam (1) and 1867 wood framing (2). 

The Second Floor landing apparently was 

rebuilt with replacement iron floor plates, 

but the Third Floor landing is instead made 

of wood. The original cast-iron beam 

apparently was reused, but there are two 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.21 

Figure C-46 Original iron handrail of 1-inch 

diameter. 

added wood joists to help support a wood 

board deck. No documentary explanation 

for this change in planning has been 

identified. 

Because there are no records of what was 

actually ordered, what arrived, or what was 

installed, a number of scenarios are 

plausible. Perhaps only six floor plates were 

mistakenly ordered or delivered, 

necessitating the construction of the Third 

Floor landing with available materials. 

For whatever the reason, the Third Floor 

landing is different. Its construction seems 

certainly to date to the 1867 repair effort. 

And as tangible evidence of an important 

chapter in the lighthouse’s history, it is 

exceedingly valuable. 

• Handrail: Along the outer masonry wall 

for the run of the spiral staircase, there is a 

painted, round, iron handrail, 1" in diameter, 

apparently the original. The handrail is in 

good condition except for the masonry 

anchors, several of which are corroded and 

one has rusted through. 

• Windows: In the tower, all ten window 

units, including sash and exterior and 

interior casing, were replaced in 1999. All 

are in good condition. (See Exterior 

Features – Windows for further discussion.) 

 • Finishes: Because of recent restoration 

efforts, many of the historic interior finishes 

have been removed. While some areas of 

preserved finishes were located during the 

process of the testing for this report, the 

majority of the finishes have been disturbed. 

Some of the best evidence of interior 

finishes was found on the salvaged wood 

components currently in storage at the North 

Carolina Maritime Museum. 

Figure C-47 Spiral stair and masonry finishes, 

1976-1981 photograph. (CALO Coll.) 

The interior brick surfaces contain minimal 

evidence of finishes, having been thoroughly 

blasted in the 1990s. The walls not easily 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.22 

Figure C-48 Salvaged air lock doorway, door and 

section of board wall in North Carolina Maritime 

Museum. 

Figure C-49 Close-up view of salvaged wall plate, 

board wall and door casing. 

cleaned, such as the narrow passages of the 

entry vestibules and window wells, 

generally contain the best evidence. In these 

locations, the surfaces retain evidence of 

lime washes. Their presence is consistent 

with historical accounts of another 

lighthouse of the region, specifically Bodie 

Figure C-50 Interior face of salvaged lighthouse 

window sash in North Carolina Maritime Museum. 

Island to the north where interior surfaces 

were whitewashed on a regular basis. This 

practice was consistent with nineteenthcentury standards for maintenance and 

hygiene. Unfortunately, the general lack of 

physical evidence prevents further 

documentation. 

Figure C-51 Watch Room cabinet. 

The interior woodwork has a more-complete 

finishes history. The Third Floor wood 

landing was painted a khaki color followed 

by red-browns and then layers of black, the 

current color. The fragment of the 1914-era, 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.23 

Figure C-52 Red-painted iron work in 1976-1981 

CALO file. (CALO Coll.) 

Seventh Floor (Service or Storage Level), 

air-lock board wall, door and frame in the 

Maritime Museum collection contain this 

khaki color as its first paint layer. So also 

does the other door in the collection, which 

appears to have been the entrance door onto 

the landing. The panels of both doors had a 

dark green as first paint color. The interior 

surface of the salvaged window has no 

evidence of any color except white. 

The cabinet in the Eighth Floor Watch 

Room has for its first colors a dark, cool 

pale gray for its top and white on the face of 

its doors; with just 5-6 paint layers, some 

layers may be missing, or the piece may be a 

later addition, or it was seldom painted. 

The metal work of the interior contains 

uneven amounts of evidence of historic paint 

finishes. The handrail and the treads of the 

spiral stairs contain only two layers of black 

paint. This absence of paint evidence is 

likely a measure of the effectiveness of the 

water blasting in the 1990s. In contrast, the 

central column has multiple paint layers 

present, probably because it was away from 

the focus of the object of the blasting, the 

walls. The column has evidence of two 

layers of dark green paint followed by 

numerous red-browns and grays. Because 

the dark green was applied over a red 

primer, probably indicates the green as the 

initial color. 

Figure C-53 1976-1981-era photograph showing 

red primer on lantern floor (CALO Coll.) 

Another element that contains a large 

number of paint layers, the earliest of which 

may be original, is the glazed lantern frame. 

Although the frame is composed of two 

different types of metal (ferrous vertical 

elements and copper-alloy horizontal 

elements) they both appear to have been 

painted consistently some version of white. 

Sometimes a red primer was also present. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.24 

Figure C-54 First Floor Plan. 

Interior Features – By Room 

First Floor: Unlike the elongated vertical 

spaces of the Second Floor through Six 

Floor, this space is closed off and feels like a 

room. The ceiling height is 10'-4" as 

measured from the top of the floor to the 

bottom of the floor plates of the Second 

Floor above. And unlike any other level in 

the Lighthouse, this room does not have 

interior passage to another floor level. 

This area has always been designated for 

equipment and supplies. In recent decades, 

it has housed an emergency generator with 

fuel tank, batteries, electrical panels and the 

lighthouse power controller. Today, the 

electrical panels and power controller 

remain active and the remainder of the room 

is used for storage. 

• Flooring: Handmade brick set in a mortar 

bed constitutes the flooring. The bricks are 

laid in a running bond pattern perpendicular 

to the doorway. 

Figure C-55 Typical late-twentieth century, brushed 

steel doorknobs of First and Second Floor doors. 

• Baseboards: There are no baseboards. 

• Walls: The wall surface is constructed of 

handmade brick laid in a 1-to-5 common 

bond. In 1999 the brickwork was water 

blasted. The bricks’ outer protective 

surfaces that faced the room were severely 

eroded in the process, exposing the softer 

interior of the bricks. This brickwork was 

then spot-repointed with a much too hard, 

impervious mortar. The combination of 

damaged brick and impervious mortar is 

causing the bricks to suffer further damage 

from moisture migration and spalling. 

• Doors: There is an original doorway 

opening on the south wall. (See above 

section Exterior Features – Doors for a 

description of this doorway.) Door 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.25 

Figure C-56 View of First Floor Room from 

Passageway. 

hardware is brushed steel dating to the 1999 

installation of the replacement door. 

• Windows: There are no windows at this 

level. 

• Ceiling: The underside of the cast-iron 

floor plates for the Second Floor serve as the 

ceiling for this room. 

• Column: At this level, the iron column at 

the center of the room is fluted and measures 

1'-4" in diameter. At about five feet above 

floor level, the column transitions to a 10" 

diameter. The column sits on a sandstone 

base that measures 2'-2" x 2'-2" x 3" 

• Stairs: There are no stairs at this level.• 

Finishes: The cast-iron column is painted 

and there are remnants of the early finishes 

on the brick wall surfaces. (See above 

section Interior Features – Typical 

Characteristics: Finishes for further 

discussion.) 

Figure C-57 Metal electrical conduit with 

incandescent and fluorescent light fixtures. 

Figure C-58 Abandoned power controller and fuel 

cells. 

• Electrical Systems: Most of the active 

components of the electrical system date to 

1996-97. The wiring is contained in surface 

mounted metal conduit. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.26 

Figure C-59 Currently operational electrical panels 

on west wall of entrance passage. 

There are two, “jelly jar globe” type 

incandescent lighting fixtures. One is on the 

ceiling of the passageway from the door. 

The other is located near the center of the 

room. 

There are two, 4'-0" long, ceiling-hung, twobulb fluorescent lighting fixtures. One is in 

the passageway and the other is in the 

northeast quadrant of the room. 

There are two electrical panel boxes on the 

west wall of the passageway. The circuit 

breaker is identified as 100 amp 600 v I 

Phase. The non-operational emergency 

generator is just east of the center column. 

Its fuel tank is just north of the column. 

The lighthouse power controller (USCG) is 

located on the masonry wall in the southeast 

quadrant of the room. 

Figure C-60 Second Floor plan. 

Fuel cell batteries are on two racks west of 

the column. 

• Other Features: The entrance passageway 

that connects the south side exterior 

doorway with the room is set on a northsouth axis. The ceiling is spanned from side 

to side with sections of gray granite that also 

forms the lintel for the exterior doorway. 

The floor to ceiling height of this passage is 

7'-6 1⁄2". 

Second Floor: This is the room that 

provides the point of entry to all parts of the 

Lighthouse except the First Floor service 

area below. 

Once inside the door, a short passageway, 

measuring 3'-0" wide with a 6'-6" ceiling 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.27 

Figure C-61 Modified original exterior doorway and 

c.1914 interior door/transom framing in foreground. 

 height, leads to the center core and its spiral 

staircase that connects with the levels above. 

The height from top of this floor to the top 

of the Third Floor landing is 24'-2". 

• Flooring: There are six, pie-shaped, iron 

floor sections providing a complete 

horizontal covering. 

One of the six panels, the one that is in the 

southeast sector is slightly different in 

design and appears to be a much newer 

element than the others. (See Interior 

Features – Staircase Landings for further 

discussion.) 

• Baseboards: There are no baseboards. 

• Walls: The wall surface is constructed of 

handmade brick laid in a 1-to-5 common 

bond. (See above section Interiors–Typical 

Characteristics: Brickwork for a discussion 

of the wall condition.) 

Figure C-62 Typical cast-iron treads of Spiral 

Staircase. 

• Doors: There is an original doorway 

opening on the north wall. (See the section 

above Exterior Feature –Doors for a 

description of this doorway.) Door 

hardware is brushed steel dating to the 1999 

installation of this door. 

Partway down the passageway are the 

framing remnants of a wood doorway and 

transom framing. The door and transom 

sash are missing. Although associated 

documentary evidence has not been found, 

the construction is similar to the 1914 work 

at the Service Room and may be remnants of 

another air lock, part of the effort of that 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.28 

Figure C-63 Abandoned GE transmitter/receiver. 

period to better isolate and protect the new 

occulting device. 

• Windows: En route up the spiral stairs to 

the Third Floor is a masonry opening 

measuring 2'-10" wide x 6'-11" tall framing 

a shaft that extends 6'-5" horizontally to the 

southwest exterior surface of the Tower. At 

the outer end of the shaft is a typical 

window unit, a replacement installed in 

1999.

• Ceiling: Because there is more than a full 

360-degree rotation in reaching the next 

floor landing, there is not a sensation of a 

ceiling height. The vertical distance from 

the top of the Second Floor to the top of the 

Third Floor landing is 24'-0". 

• Column: At this level, the column at the 

center of the room is fluted and measures 

10" in diameter. 

• Stairs: The spiral staircase begins just to 

the left (east) as one enters the room. 

There are thirty-five cast-iron treads 

between the Second Floor and Third Floor 

landings. 

Figure C-64 Second Floor entrance passageway, 

spiral stairs, and modern steel fence enclosure. 

• Finishes: The cast-iron column, stair 

treads, landing and handrail are painted. 

There are remnants of the early finishes on 

the brick wall surfaces. (See above section 

Interior Features – Typical Characteristics: 

Finishes for further discussion.) 

Electrical Systems: There are two, 4'-0"-

long, two-bulb fluorescent lighting fixtures 

above the cyclone fence enclosure to the 

west side of the First Floor. 

There is a single, 4'-0"-long, two-bulb 

fluorescent lighting fixture attached to the 

Third Floor framing to light the staircase. 

Abandoned electronic equipment includes a 

General Electric Master Transmitter/ 

Receiver. 

• Other Features: The passageway that 

connects the north side exterior doorway 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.29 

Figure C-65 Third Floor plan. 

with this room is set on a north-south axis. 

It measures 2'-11 1⁄2" wide. The ceiling is 

spanned from side to side with sections of 

granite, the outermost of which also forms 

the lintel for the exterior doorway. A 

granite panel also forms the door sill. The 

floor to ceiling height is 7'-7". 

On the west side of the Second Floor 

landing, cyclone fence material with posts, a 

gate, and wire mesh walls and ceiling create 

an enclosed secure room. 

The masonry opening that connects the core 

with the window as discussed above is 

blocked at the interior core wall with two 

posts and a gate of metal cyclone-fence 

material. The gate is operable and in good 

condition. 

There is evidence of the temporary 1863 

stairs in the brickwork. Opposite the 

doorway there are two patches at the height 

of 11'-5" above top of the Second Floor 

level. Each patch is 8" tall. The width is 

irregular. (It is noteworthy that the wood 

joists for the Third Floor landing measure 2 

7/8" x 8 ".) 

Third Floor: Although the Union forces 

submitted an assessment indicating the need 

for cast-iron floor panels to replace those 

that had been damaged by the Confederate 

explosion, this landing was not rebuilt 

accordingly. The reason is not clear from 

the documentary records. 

The original I-beam was apparently reused. 

However, two wood joists measuring 2 7/8" 

x 8" were added and a new flooring of 

boards measuring 13⁄4" x 5" was installed in 

place of iron floor plates. 

The height from top of this floor to the top 

of the Fourth Floor landing is 24'-2". 

Figure C-66 Third Floor wood Landing. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.30 

Figure C-67 Detail of bull nose edging of Third 

Floor landing. 

• Flooring: The landing was rebuilt in the 

same location and configuration as shown in 

the prototype design. However, the landing 

is made of wood instead of cast-iron. The 

plank floor boards, each measuring 13⁄4" x 

5", are laid running northwest to southeast 

with a bull nose edge. 

• Baseboards: There are no baseboards. 

• Walls: The wall surface is constructed of 

handmade brick laid in a 1-to-5 common 

bond. (See Interiors above for a discussion 

of the wall condition.) 

• Doors: There is no doorway. 

• Windows: At the Third Floor landing is a 

masonry opening measuring 2’-10" wide x 

6'-11" tall forming a shaft that extends 

horizontally 5'-8". At the far end of the 

shaft is a typical window unit, a replacement 

installed in 1999. 

En route up the spiral stairs to the Fourth 

Floor landing is a masonry opening 

measuring 2'-10" wide x 6'-4" tall framing a 

shaft that extends horizontally 5'-0" to the 

northeast. At the far end of the shaft is a 

typical window unit, a replacement installed 

in 1999. 

• Ceiling: Because there is more than a full 

360-degree rotation in reaching the next 

floor landing, there is not a sensation of a 

ceiling height. 

• Column: At this level, the column at the 

center of the room is fluted and measures 

10" in diameter. 

Figure C-68 Two masonry patches presumably 

associated with the 1864 framing for temporary 

stairs. 

• Stairs: There are thirty-five cast-iron 

treads between the Third Floor and Fourth 

Floor landings. The Union documents record 

61 cast-iron steps were to be ordered as 

replacements for the ones damaged and 

three extra steps, very clean and without 

wear marks, presumably unused, were 

discovered stored on the Second Floor 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.31 

landing. Although it is likely that some of 

the thirty-five treads in place are 

replacements dating to 1867, no distinction 

in physical characteristics or wear pattern 

were noted. Disruption of the masonry 

where the treads connect to the core wall 

during the 1999 inspection also hampers 

determination of which treads are the 1867 

replacements and which are the 

originals.

Figure C-69 Fourth Floor plan. 

• Finishes: The cast-iron column, stairs, 

landing and handrail are painted and there 

are remnants of the early finishes on the 

brick wall surfaces. (See above section 

Interior Features – Typical Characteristics: 

Finishes for further discussion.) 

• Electrical Systems: There is a single 4'-0"-

long, two-bulb fluorescent lighting fixture 

attached to the underside of the framing of 

the Fourth Floor landing to light the 

staircase below. 

• Other Features: There are two sets of 

evidence of the 1863 temporary stairs in the 

core wall brickwork. One set is along the 

northeast surface of the wall, at the same 

level as the 8" deep joists that support the 

Third Floor landing. Each of the two patches 

is 8" tall and the width is irregular. 

The second set of evidence consists of five 

patches. All are at a height of 11'-9" above 

the top of the Third Floor landing. Two are 

on the north wall surface and three are 

opposite on the south wall surface. All five 

are similar to the other patches found lower 

at the level of the Third Floor landing and 

between the Second Floor and Third Floor 

landings. 

Fourth Floor: This is an intermediate level 

without particular distinction. The height 

from top of this floor to the top of the Fourth 

Floor landing is 24'-2". 

• Flooring: There are three, pie-shaped, 

cast-iron floor plates spanning horizontally 

across roughly half the available space as 

designated in the prototype plan. 

• Walls: The wall surface is constructed of 

handmade brick laid in a 1-to-5 common 

bond. (See Interior Features – Typical 

Characteristics: Brickwork for further 

discussion.) 

• Doors: There is no doorway. 

• Windows: At the landing is a masonry 

opening measuring 2'-10" wide x 6'-11" tall 

forming a shaft that extends horizontally 4'-

81⁄2" to the south exterior surface of the 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.32 

Tower. At the outer end of the shaft is a 

typical window unit, a replacement installed 

in 1999. 

En route up the spiral stairs to the Fifth 

Floor is a masonry opening measuring 2'-

10" wide x 6'-11" tall forming a shaft that 

extends horizontally 4'–1" to the southwest 

exterior surface of the Tower. At the outer 

end of the shaft is a typical window unit, a 

replacement installed in 1999. 

Figure C-70 Fifth Floor plan. 

• Ceiling: Because there is more than a full 

360-degree rotation in reaching the next 

floor landing, there is not a sensation of a 

ceiling height. 

• Column: At this level, the column at the 

center of the room is fluted and measures 

10" in diameter. 

• Stairs: There are thirty-five cast-iron 

treads between the Fourth Floor and Fifth 

Floor landings. 

• Finishes: The cast-iron column, stairs, 

landing and handrail are painted and there 

are remnants of the early finishes on the 

brick wall surfaces. (See above section 

Interior Features – Typical Characteristics: 

Finishes for further discussion.) 

• Electrical Systems: There is a single, 4'-0" 

long, two-bulb, fluorescent lighting fixture 

attached to the framing of the Fifth Floor 

landing to light the staircase below.

Fifth Floor: This is an intermediate level 

without particular distinction. 

The height from top of this floor to the top 

of the Fourth Floor landing is 24'-2". 

• Flooring: There are three, pie-shaped, 

cast-iron floor plates of the typical design 

spanning horizontally roughly half the 

available space in the location designated in 

the prototype plan. 

• Baseboards: There are no baseboards. 

• Walls: The wall surface is constructed of 

handmade brick laid in a 1-to-5 common 

bond. There is a large amount of the 

spalling of bricks between the Fifth Floor 

and the Sixth Floor. (See section above 

Interior Features – Typical Characteristics: 

Brickwork for further discussion.) 

• Doors: There is no doorway. 

• Windows: At the landing is a masonry 

opening measuring 2'-10" wide x 7 '-0" tall 

forming a shaft that extends horizontally 3'-
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.33 

5" to the north exterior surface of Tower. At 

the outer end of the shaft is a typical 

window unit, a replacement installed in 

1999. 

En route up the spiral stairs to the Fifth 

Floor is a masonry opening measuring 2'-

10" wide x 6'-0" tall forming a shaft that 

extends 2'-10" horizontally to the northeast 

exterior surface of the Tower. At the far end 

of the shaft is a typical window unit, a 

replacement installed in 1999. 

 Figure C-71 Sixth Floor plan. 

• Ceiling: Because there is more than a full 

360-degree rotation in reaching the next 

floor landing, there is not a sensation of a 

ceiling height. 

• Column: At this level, the column at the 

center of the room is fluted and measures 

10" in diameter. 

• Stairs: There are thirty-five cast-iron 

treads between the Fourth Floor and the 

Fifth Floor. 

• Finishes: The cast-iron column, stairs, 

landing and handrail are painted and there 

are remnants of the early finishes on the 

brick wall surfaces. (See above section 

Interior Features – Typical Characteristics: 

Finishes for further discussion.) 

• Electrical Systems: There is a single, 4'-0" 

long, two-bulb, fluorescent lighting fixture 

attached at the bottom of the framing of the 

Fifth Floor landing to light the staircase 

below.

Figure C-72 Original cast-iron steps leading down 

from Seventh Floor Landing. 

Sixth Floor: This is an intermediate level 

without particular distinction. 

The height from top of this floor to the top 

of the Seventh Floor landing is 24'-2". 

• Flooring: There are three, pie-shaped, 

cast-iron floor plates of the typical design 

spanning horizontally roughly half the 

available space in the location designated in 

the prototype plan. 

• Baseboards: There are no baseboards. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.34 

Figure C-73 1914 tread modification to 

accommodate the weight for occulting mechanism. 

• Walls: The wall surface is constructed of 

handmade brick laid in a 1-to-5 common 

bond. (See section above Interior Features 

– Typical Characteristics: Brickwork for 

further discussion.) 

• Doors: There is no doorway. 

• Windows: At the landing is a masonry 

opening measuring 2'-10" wide x 6'-6" tall 

forming a shaft that extends horizontally 2" 

– 5" to the south exterior surface of the 

Tower. At the outer end of the shaft is a 

typical window unit, a replacement installed 

in 1999. 

En route up the spiral stairs to the Seventh 

Floor is a masonry opening measuring 2'-

10" wide x 6'-111⁄2" tall forming a shaft that 

extends horizontally 1" – 9" to the southwest 

exterior surface of the Tower. At the far end 

of the shaft is a typical window unit, a 

replacement installed in 1999. 

• Ceiling: Because there is more than a full 

360-degree rotation in reaching the next 

floor landing, there is not a sensation of a 

ceiling height. 

• Column: At this level, the column at the 

center of the room is fluted and measures 

10" in diameter. 

• Stairs: There are thirty-five cast-iron 

treads between the Sixth Floor and the 

Seventh Floor. This is the highest run of the 

spiral staircase. 

Figure C-74 Metal strap reinforcement of unknown 

installation date. 

One step is missing half of its tread and is 

supported by an added vertical brace. This 

modification was made in 1914 to two 

treads in order to accommodate the chains 

for the new oscillating device. 

A number of the treads have a metal strap 

added to make connection between steps in 

sequence. The date of installation of this 

additional support is unknown. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.35 

• Finishes: The cast-iron column, stairs, 

landing and handrail are painted and there 

are remnants of the early finishes on the 

brick wall surfaces. (See above section 

Interior Features – Typical Characteristics: 

Finishes for further 

discussion.)

Figure C-75 Seventh Floor plan. 

• Electrical Systems: There is a single, 4"-

0" long, two-bulb, fluorescent lighting 

fixture attached to the bottom of the framing 

of the Seventh Floor landing to light the 

staircase below. 

Seventh Floor (or Service Room): The 

spiral staircase ends at this level. This is the 

only location where an historic frame wall 

appears. 

The height from top of this floor to the top 

of the Eighth Floor landing is 8"-0". 

• Flooring: There are three wedge-shaped 

cast-iron floor plates of the typical design 

spanning horizontally roughly half the 

available space in the location designated in 

the prototype plan. 

• Baseboards: There is a baseboard/wall 

plate for the board wall. Made of wood and 

dating to 1914, it measures 11⁄2" tall and 4" 

wide with a slot in the center of the top 

surface to hold in place the board wall. A 

horizontal bevel edge runs along face of 

both sides of the baseboard/ wall plate. (See 

Appendix A: Documentation Drawings.) 

• Walls: The exterior wall surface is 

constructed of handmade brick laid in a 1-

to-5 common bond. (See section above 

Interior Features–Typical Characteristics: 

Brickwork for further discussion.) 

 Figure C-76 Air lock in place in 1976-1981. 

(CALO Coll.) 

A board wall runs along the edge of the 

flooring. The boards, aligned vertically, are 

tongue-and-groove measuring 7/8" x 43⁄4" 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.36 

with a 1/8" edge bead and are assembled 

with wire nails. This wall is shown as an 

existing wall on the 1913 drawings which 

call for its repair and construction of an 

adjoining airlock, as well as an air lock on 

the newly expanded Observation Deck. 

These air locks were probably meant to 

isolate and protect the incandescent oil 

vapor lamp and the new occulting 

mechanism. Construction of the new 

Observation Deck and the two air locks was 

completed in 1914. At some unknown date, 

perhaps during the 1989 installation of the 

metal bracing, this Service Room air lock 

was removed. 

Figure C-77 1914 board wall and doorway at 

Seventh Floor landing. Note 1989 steel 

reinforcement added at masonry perimeter. 

The North Carolina Maritime Museum has 

in its collection a complete doorway with 

door and a portion of the attached board 

wall. There is also a second door. These 

elements are identified as originating at the 

Figure C-78 Salvaged four-panel door; detail 

images of rim lock with sheet metal doorknob and 

two-knuckle brass hinge. (North Carolina Maritime 

Museum Collection) 

Cape Lookout Lighthouse “Storage Room” 

and were accessioned in 2001. The board 

wall at the museum matches this remaining 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.37 

Figure C-79 Seventh Floor door casing. Note miter 

cut of corner. 

Figure C-80 Door threshold and board wall at 

Seventh Floor, the top landing of the spiral stairs. 

board wall at the lighthouse in types of 

material, methods of construction and paint 

finishes. The Museum’s board wall and 

doorway appears to be part of the missing 

air lock. In addition, it appears that in situ 

wall was not repaired as called for on the 

1913 plans but was rebuilt. Both the wall in 

situ and the air lock were constructed in 

1914. 

• Doors: There is a doorway in the board 

wall at the top of the spiral stairs. The 

doorway was framed for a 2'-0" x 7'-0" x 

11⁄4" door, now absent. The second fourpanel door in the North Carolina Maritime 

Museum matches these dimensions as does 

its hinges and rim lock. This door retains 

most of its original 1914 hardware. It has a 

sheet metal-clad, box lock measuring 31⁄4" 

wide x 41⁄2" tall. The sheet metal doorknobs 

are probably replacements. 

This door also retains its two, 21⁄2" tall, twoknuckle, brass hinges. The keeper for the 

box lock remains on the doorway jamb still 

in place in the lighthouse. The door casing, 

appearing on both sides of the doorway, 

measures 3⁄4" x 31⁄2" with an edge bead of 

3/8" and is mitered cut at the corners. 

 Figure C-81 Door latch keeper matches rim lock of 

extra door in North Carolina Maritime Museum 

collection. 

The second door in the North Carolina 

Maritime Museum collection measures 1'-

113⁄4" wide x 6'-91⁄2" tall and 11⁄4" thick. It 

retains its sheet-metal clad box lock 

measuring 31⁄4" wide x 41⁄4" tall and two 

black, mineral door knobs. There are two, 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.38 

Figure C-82 Original cast-iron ship’s ladder stairs 

connecting Seventh Floor Service Room to Eighth 

Floor Watch Room. 

three-knuckle, iron hinges with 3/8" ball 

hinge pins, also typical for the 1914 period. 

• Windows: A typical, double-hung, 

replacement window unit installed in 1999 is 

located along the north wall of this landing. 

• Ceiling: The underside of the six, pieshaped, cast-iron floor panels for the level 

above form the ceiling for this space. 

• Column: At this level, the 10" fluted 

column at the center of the room transitions 

to a 10" smooth column, the base for the 

pedestal that holds the beacon. 

• Stairs: The spiral staircase does not 

continue beyond this Seventh Floor landing. 

Instead, the original, boot-shaped, 2'-2"-

wide cast-iron ladder stairs, the design of 

which is unique to this level, begins along 

the east exterior wall (whereas the prototype 

plan has the steps beginning along the 

northeast wall) and connects with the Eighth 

Floor landing. The wider flange of each 

tread is imbedded in the masonry wall, while 

the narrow end is connected by separate 1" 

diameter rods with both the step above and 

the step below. The rise between adjoining 

treads is 9". Two of the seven treads have 

been partially removed to accommodate the 

1989 steel bracing.• Finishes: The cast-iron 

column, stairs, landing plates and handrail 

are painted. The board wall is painted. In 

addition, there are remnants of the early 

finishes on the brick wall surfaces. (See 

above section Interior Features – Typical 

Characteristics: Finishes for further 

discussion.) 

• Electrical Systems: There are no 

components of the electrical system at this 

level. 

Figure C-83 Eighth Floor plan. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.39 

Figure C-84 Floor cuts for 1914 drive chain for 

occulting mechanism. 

Figure C-85 Jacking of iron floor plate at doorway 

to Observation Deck. 

• Other Features: The handrail along with 

the spiral staircase terminates at this level. A 

reinforcing, tubular-steel frame was installed 

in 1989 at this and both the Eighth Floor 

(Watch) and Ninth Floor (Lantern) levels. 

(See Appendix B: Structural Assessment & 

Carrying Capacity Analysis for further 

discussion.) 

Eighth Floor (or Watch Level): This room 

is immediately below the Lantern Floor 

where the beacon is located. It also has the 

observation deck immediately adjacent with 

access only through a doorway from this 

room.

The height from top of this floor to the top 

of the Lantern landing is 7'-2". 

Figure C-86 Cast-iron floor plates of Eighth Floor 

Watch Room looking to Seventh Floor Service Room. 

• Flooring: There are six wedge-shaped, 

cast-iron floor plates of the typical design 

creating a full landing, as designated in the 

prototype plan. (One floor pan has a cast 

opening for stair connection to the Seventh 

Floor or Service Level immediately below.) 

Near the center column there are two small 

holes cut in 1914 for the occulting chain. 

At the hatch to the Observation Deck, there 

is jacking of the iron floor plate with one 

section of broken plate sitting proud of the 

floor about 13⁄4". 

• Baseboards: There are no baseboards. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.40 

Figure C-87 Reinforcing steel added in 1989 

partially blocks ship’s hatch to Observation Deck. 

Figure C-88 Column and underside of cast-iron 

platform for beacon. 

• Walls: The exterior wall surface is 

constructed of handmade brick laid in a 1-

to-5 common bond. (See section above 

Interior Features – Typical Characteristics: 

Brickwork for further discussion of these 

wall conditions.) In addition, vertical cracks 

are present in numerous locations, some of 

which extend from floor to ceiling and 

through to the exterior wall surface. 

• Doors: There is an original doorway 

opening, with granite lintel and sill, along 

the northeast wall surface leading to the 

Observation Deck. The opening was 

partially infilled in 1914. At an unknown 

time a ship’s hatch was installed. The 

Figure C-89 Original cast-iron ship’s ladder to 

Lantern. 

current hatch is cast aluminum, was installed 

c. 1996 according to park personnel, and 

measures 1'-6" x 3'-0". The original 

masonry doorway opening is intact and 

measures 2'-31⁄2" wide x 4'-9" tall. (See 

above section Exterior Features – Doorways 

for further discussion.) 

• Windows: There are no windows at this 

level. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.41 

Figure C-90 Close-up view of ship’s ladder to 

Lantern. 

Figure C-91 Two-door cabinet in Eighth Floor 

Watch Room. 

• Ceiling: Underside of cast-iron beacon 

platform forms the ceiling for this room. 

• Column: At this level, the column at the 

center of the room has a 10" diameter and a 

smooth surface, as was transitioned from a 

fluted surface at the Seventh Floor. 

• Stairs: The original cast-iron ladder stairs 

provide the access to the Lantern. These 

steps are also in the shape of a boot like 

those at the level below, but narrower and 

with a greater rise between treads. The steps 

begin along the southeast exterior wall 

(whereas the prototype plan has the steps 

beginning along the northeast wall.) Each 

tread measures 1'-9 1⁄2" wide x 31⁄2 to 41⁄2" 

deep and 1" thick. The wider flange of each 

tread is connected to the masonry wall, 

while the narrow end is connected by two, 

separate 1" diameter rods with both the step 

above and the step below. The riser height is 

91⁄2". Portions of two of the eight treads 

have been removed to accommodate the 

steel reinforcement framing installed in 

1989. Otherwise, this original ladder stair is 

intact and in good condition. 

Figure C-92 Curved interior face of board-andbatten cabinet door. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.42 

Figure C-93 Ghost marks of missing shelving 

supports. 

Figure C-94 Cabinet’s five-knuckle hinge and 

batten. 

• Finishes: The cast-iron column, stairs, and 

floor plates are painted. In addition, there 

are remnants of the early finishes on the 

brick wall surfaces. (See above section 

Interior Features–Finishes.) 

Characteristics: See Appendix D: Materials 

Analysis.

The wood cabinet is painted. 

Figure C-95 Brass manual control for adjusting air 

flow. 

• Electrical Systems: There are no elements 

of the electrical service at this level. 

• Other Features: There is an early, if not 

original, cabinet along the south wall. Built 

on the curve to fit against the exterior 

masonry wall, it measures 2'-81⁄2" high x 1'-

8" deep x 7'-61⁄2" at longest length. Its 

panels are made of boards measuring 7/8" x 

31⁄4" or 41⁄4" with a 1⁄4" edge bead. There are 

two cabinet doors, each constructed with 

inside surface battens. Each door has two, 

3" tall, five-knuckle cast-iron hinges and a 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.43 

Figure C-96 Ninth Floor plan.

wood door pull. The cabinet’s counter 

surface has a 5/8" radius bull nose at the 

forward and side edges. Towards the back 

of this counter top are paint ridges indicating 

three vertical supports for bookshelves, now 

missing. 

Figure C-97 Center cast-iron platform for beacon. 

There are four, adjustable, brass air vents set 

equidistant around the room and extending 

through to exterior face of the masonry wall. 

Figure C-98 Deteriorated iron framing. 

 Figure C-99 Close-up view of horizontal framing 

of a cast copper-based metal.

Ninth Floor (or Lantern Level): The glass 

and metal framing of the sixteen-sided wall 

enclose the beacon and provide a clear view 

in all directions. 

• Flooring: There are two portions, both of 

cast iron. The outer walkway is 1'-9" wide. 

A 6" gap separates it from the center 

platform that holds the light. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.44 

Figure C-100 Metal ceiling panels. 

Figure C-101 Original cast-iron ship’s ladder 

connecting to Lantern floor plates. 

• Baseboards: There are no baseboards, per 

se, but there is a 5" wide masonry curb upon 

which the iron and glass encircling wall sits. 

• Walls: The vertical framing elements are 

cast iron. The connecting horizontal 

framing elements are brass with small 

Figure C-102 Access to stairs to Watch Level 

partially blocked by 1989 reinforcing steel.

refined details. There is much corrosion and 

surface loss of the cast iron, especially at the 

floor plate and at some connection points 

with the brass. A few of the glass panels are 

damaged. 

• Doors: Set in one of the 16 exterior wall 

sections is an original doorway with a brass 

and glass door that connects with the 

Figure C-103 Beacon. 

Balcony. Though heavily coated with paint 

layers that make operation difficult, the door 

appears to be in sound condition. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.45 

• Windows: The vertical planes of glass in 

the thin metal framing of the walls create, in 

effect, a glass enclosed room. 

• Ceiling: Thin, pie-shaped, copper panels 

form the ceiling. 

• Stairs: An opening in the perimeter castiron walkway allows access to the original 

cast-iron ladder stairs that connect with the 

Eighth Floor (Watch Level). The opening is 

partially blocked by framing for the 1989 

steel reinforcement. 

• Finishes: The cast-iron ladder stairs, curb, 

walkway and pedestal are painted. 

The wall framing and ceiling panels are 

painted. 

In addition, the housing for the beacon is 

also painted. 

• Electrical Systems: The beacon operates 

24 hours per day.Summary of Conditions 

The lighthouse retains a large percentage of 

building fabric from the 1859 initial 

construction, the 1867 repair of Civil War 

damages, the 1871 exterior painting 

campaign which established the distinctive 

black-and-white diamond pattern, and the 

1914 building modifications. The later 

manifestations, as well as the initially 

constructed design, are tangible evidence of 

significant chapters in the building’s 

evolution. These components are important 

character-defining elements, worthy of 

preservation. 

While the lighthouse’s historic character is 

largely intact, there are physical conditions 

which limit the building’s use either because 

of the constraints of the initial design or 

because of deteriorated condition. 

Limitation of Inherent Design 

Characteristics 

As a working lighthouse at mid-nineteenth 

century, the building was designed for a 

small crew working in tight spaces. 

Accordingly, the major internal circulation 

route, for five levels, is the spiral staircase. 

It is necessarily narrow, the distance 

between steps is steep, and the path of travel 

is long. Further, the treads are awkward for 

navigating, pie-shaped, radiating from the 

point of attachment to the center column. A 

single handrail, attached to the masonry 

along the outer edge of the treads, provides 

support to steady the traveler. 

Figure C-104 Extensive corrosion of cast-iron 

framing. 

The two levels of ladder stairs above the 

spiral staircase are even more narrow, 

without handrail, and steeper, though the 

distance of travel is much less. 

Doorways and passages are likewise narrow 

and sometimes small. Natural light, 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.46 

Figure C-105 Through-wall cracks in masonry at 

top of Tower. 

provided by the ten small windows along the 

route of vertical travel, is limited, even 

under the best of conditions. 

Deteriorated Building Materials 

With the repeated loadings of foot traffic 

over some one hundred and fifty years of 

use, the treads of the spiral stairs have 

incurred some degree of fatigue. The 

resultant “bounce” of some treads is 

noticeable. Concern for the strength of these 

steps and thereby the safety of the 

occupants, led to the park’s closing of the 

lighthouse interior to public visitation in 

January 2008 and subsequently to the 

preparation of this HSR.The inherent design 

characteristics can be improved with tread 

reinforcement, artificial lighting, added 

handrails and administrative policy. The 

physical modifications can be accomplished 

with sensitive applications that respect the 

character-defining historical qualities of the 

lighthouse. 

Other deterioration is also present and 

potentially just as serious though less 

obvious to the casual observer. Two of the 

most serious occurrences are in certain iron 

elements and the masonry. 

The iron elements of the Lantern including 

wall plate, framing struts, and Gallery 

walkway plates have extensive advanced 

deterioration. In addition to the damages to 

these elements, the expansion caused by the 

deterioration process is not only damaging 

Figure C-106 Underside of Lantern Gallery 

reinforced in 1989. 

adjoining material, most notably the top of 

the masonry Tower, but also allowing 

moisture to freely enter, causing yet more 

damage. The prime example of suspected 

collateral damage is imbedded in the upper 

masonry at Watch Level, a tension ring 

presumably made of iron as was typical of 

the period and indicated on the prototype 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part I.C Physical Description 

2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN—ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page I.C.47 

drawings. The long, vertical cracks in the 

masonry from top of the Tower down to the 

Seventh Floor area is likely the result of the 

expansion from a deteriorating tension ring. 

The 1989 installation of steel supplemental 

framing and tie rods provides much-needed 

reinforcement, but it does not address the 

cause of the problems. The damaged iron 

will continue to deteriorate and weaken, and 

in expanding it will continue to cause 

collateral damages as well. The only longterm solution and ultimately the most costeffective, is to make repair to the damaged 

iron. 

The second area of concern is the brickwork 

of the Tower. The bricks are handmade and 

low-fired, creating an irregular building 

block with an outer protective crust and 

softer interior core. The masonry was laid 

in a natural cement mortar which has proven 

to be quite durable. 

Unfortunately, both the interior surface of 

the core wall and the exterior surface of the 

exterior wall have been water blasted. The 

effect as seen on the interior of the 

lighthouse, is that the protective outer 

surfaces of the bricks have been damaged, 

exposing the less-durable interior material. 

Compounding this vulnerability has been the 

repointing of masonry with a too rigid and 

impermeable a mortar, at least on the 

interior, and the installation on the exterior 

of a non-breathable paint coating. Essential 

remedial actions include the reapplication of 

a breathable shelter coating to the interior 

brickwork, removal of incompatible 

mortars/reapplication of suitable mortar, and 

removal of the non-breathable exterior 

coating/replacement with a compatible 

coating. 

Figure C-107 Displaced masonry and supplemental 

tie rods. 

Figure C-108 Non-breathable coating on exterior 

masonry. 

CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part II.Treatment and Use 

 2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN – ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page II.1 

PART II: TREATMENT AND USE 

A. ULTIMATE TREATMENT & USE 

Building Fabric: Significance 

The great majority of the building fabric of 

the Cape Lookout Lighthouse dates to the 

initial construction of 1859 and the postCivil War repairs-in-kind of 1867. Even 

today, the building at first look appears 

pristine, evoking the character of its earliest 

construction period. 

The structure’s largest mass of material is 

the masonry work. The original loadbearing brick construction, punctuated with 

granite lintels at the fenestration, remains 

intact. The most distinctive exterior features 

are the striking black-and-white painted 

diamond pattern of the tower and the black 

lantern. The lantern likewise is complete, 

inside and out, with the exception of its lens 

and associated lighting equipment. 

The most impressive feature inside the 

lighthouse is the cast-iron spiral staircase. 

Five levels rise some one hundred and 

twenty feet. The stairs are indistinguishable 

though some sixty of the two hundred ninety 

treads are actually 1867 replacements 

matching those destroyed in an attack during 

the Civil War. Two landings also are 

replacements; the cast-iron landing at the 

second floor strongly resembles the originals 

in appearance, while the third-floor landing 

is inexplicably but almost unnoticeably 

made of wood. Also impressive are the 

short runs of cast-iron ladder stairs at the 

service and observation levels. These stairs 

also are original, although two treads in each 

run were modified in subsequent repairs. 

These original and early features all have 

architectural and historical significance. 

There have been only a few additions and 

changes to the design of the lighthouse. 

Most of these modifications are minor and 

relatively indistinguishable, visually, from 

the early building components. At the watch 

level, for example, the observation deck was 

widened in 1914. Its small access door was 

replaced. In part due to its height above 

ground level, these changes are hardly 

noticeable. 

Also during the 1914 remodeling campaign, 

two board walls, each with doorway, were 

built at the seventh-floor service level. The 

wall enclosing the landing was rebuilt while 

the other was built anew to create an air 

lock, presumably to isolate and protect a 

new occulting mechanism. Today, the 

enclosing wall and doorway, without door, 

remain. Part of the air lock wall, its 

doorway and door are at the North Carolina 

Maritime Museum in nearby Beaufort, along 

with the door for the rebuilt enclosure wall. 

These 1914 modifications had a significant 

impact on the architectural character of the 

lighthouse and with age have acquired 

historical importance. They are valuable as 

tangible evidence of the evolution of the 

lighthouse prompted by changes in its use. 

In 1999, all ten wood windows were 

replaced. The replacement units, also of 

wood and consisting of six light sashes, are 

very similar to the originals in overall design 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part II. Treatment and Use 

 2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN – ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page II.2 

characteristics. The replacements are 

valuable features because they continue to 

portray the historical character of the 

lighthouse. 

In contrast, certain other recent 

modifications are out of character and quite 

noticeable. One example is the 1999 flatpanel steel entrance doors at first- and 

second-floor levels. They are stylistically 

incongruous with the historical character of 

the lighthouse. Equally distracting is the 

second-floor room created of modern 

galvanized mesh fence. The wood entrance 

stairs, on the other hand, are not especially 

distracting but are ill-suited in their moderndimensioned, treated lumber. 

The most jarring of the intrusions is the steel 

square pipe and angle reinforcement at the 

interior of the lantern, the watch level, the 

service level, and area immediately below. 

Although added 1989 to serve an important 

purpose, its presence is not only a major 

visual intrusion but also a physical barrier to 

passage through the interior spaces and 

through the doorway to the exterior watchlevel observation deck. 

These recent modifications addressed 

physical needs but do not possess historical 

significance, and in some instances detract 

from the building’s historic character. 

Building Fabric: Condition 

While much of the original and early 

building fabric is intact and stable, there are 

two localized areas of significant 

deterioration, the metal lantern and the 

masonry of the top of the lighthouse tower. 

The two areas adjoin each other and the 

problems are at least partially interrelated. 

At the lantern, the ferric-based framing 

elements show numerous pockets of severe 

rusting. The lantern’s iron sill plate, which 

attaches to the top of the masonry, has the 

most serious deterioration with extensive 

rust and severe buckling. 

The top of the masonry tower, immediately 

below this plate and extending downward as 

far as fifteen to twenty feet, has sections of 

displaced material as well as vertical cracks. 

Some of the cracks and displacement are 

clearly associated with the jacking of the 

lantern’s iron sill plate. Some of these 

damage may be associated with the 

deterioration of an iron tension ring, unseen 

but identified on the prototype drawing as 

imbedded in the masonry. These damages 

also may be associated with a progressive 

inability of the deteriorating masonry and 

iron to resist significant lateral loading 

associated with storms. And the damages 

could be the result of a combination of these 

factors. 

The steel framing installed in 1989 

addressed these deteriorated conditions of 

lantern and masonry by providing additional 

support. Although this framing does 

provide valuable temporary support, it does 

not address all the causes of the damages. 

The installation also is a major intrusion, 

physically and visually, that adversely 

affects the opportunities for visitation and 

interpretation. 

A third set of conditions is less urgent but 

will lead to serious deterioration if not 

addressed. On the masonry exterior, an 

impermeable paint coating has been applied. 

On the interior masonry surface, there has 

been considerable repointing of mortar 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part II. Treatment and Use 

 2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN – ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page II.3 

joints with a rigid impermeable mortar. 

These two systems of replacement paint and 

mortar overpower the inherent qualities of 

soft brick and the permeable and flexible 

mortar. As a result, moisture is unable to 

migrate out through the mortar for 

evaporation, and instead, the moisture in the 

masonry moves through the brick. This 

moisture migration is causing significant 

spalling in the brickwork. 

Other instances of deterioration are minor 

and localized. The two modern steel 

entrance doors are severely rusted and need 

to be replaced. Portions of the wood 

entrance stairs are built on earlier stair 

framing which has deteriorated to the point 

of requiring replacement. 

Change in Use 

The lighthouse was designed to be the work 

area for a small crew performing important 

tasks for safe coastal navigation at midnineteenth century. Technological advances 

reduced and eventually eliminated the need 

for daily crew activity both on the site and in 

the building. The lighthouse nonetheless 

retains its original physical qualities and has 

remained a most familiar and beloved icon 

of the East Coast. It has also become a 

major tourist destination. 

The Challenge 

The Park Service has the challenge of 

balancing its responsibility to protect 

important cultural resources with its 

responsibility to educate the public. 

While there are many ways to address 

education short of actual visitation, there is 

no question that a trip to South Core Banks 

and a visit to the lighthouse is a most 

impressive experience. However, access to 

the site and throughout the building can be 

problematic for some visitors. It is arduous; 

some should not attempt it at all. 

The trip to the island is by small boat. Once 

ashore, a choice of a small board walkway 

or beach paths leads to the base of the 

building. The first floor service room is the 

most readily accessible interior space, up 

two steep steps from grade. The remainder 

of the building is much more difficult, 

accessed by an exterior wood stairs to the 

main entrance at second floor level. Once 

inside, there are five sections of a spiral 

staircase, each section extending vertically 

almost twenty-five feet between landings. 

The steps are steeper than today’s 

convention and the winding pie-shaped 

treads require concentration. The distance 

of travel is physically demanding. 

Along the way, a few of the building’s ten 

windows align with stair landings and are 

reached by narrow corridors in the masonry. 

Windows are small and give an impressive 

though limited view. The major reward of 

the journey, undoubtedly, is the view at 

observation deck. 

The next two landings are reached by ladder 

stairs. Both runs are short, each less than 

ten feet in vertical height, but the steps are 

steeper and the treads both more shallow 

and narrow. 

The next-to-last run of stairs opens into the 

watch room. From there, access to its 

observation deck is yet another hurdle, with 

its entrance through a small masonry 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part II. Treatment and Use 

 2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN – ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page II.4 

opening with ship’s hatch. The 360-degree 

view is spectacular. 

While repeated ascent through these interior 

work spaces was common for the small crew 

of nineteenth-century light keepers, it is a 

physical challenge for most twenty-first 

century visitors. 

In accommodating the modern visitor, the 

Park Service must keep ever in mind the 

difficulty of the long ascent, sometimes 

circular as well as steep. It is also important 

to be mindful of the limitations of the 

building fabric itself. The design of the 

interior, with its narrow corridors, stairs, and 

wedge-shaped treads, tends to align the 

occupants in single file. In addition, the 

engineering assessment of the spiral stair 

carrying capacity, contained in Appendix B, 

concludes that even with reinforcement of 

the stair treads, regular inspections will be 

necessary; the change in occupancy from 

small work crew to public visitation will 

dramatically increase loading and 

consequently diminish the material life 

expectancy. 

Another limiting factor is the International 

Building Code, which governs the use of 

this lighthouse. Its provisions regulate 

occupancy by total number as well as by 

building section. No more than twenty-five 

persons may occupy the building at one time 

and of those no more than six may be at the 

seventh floor landing and higher. See 

Appendix C for a partial listing of applicable 

code requirements. Compliance with the 

building code is mandatory. 

Essential repairs for the conservation of the 

lighthouse have been enumerated above. 

Some are urgently needed. There are also 

critical modifications needed to make the 

building safer for the larger groups that 

come with public visitation. The most costeffective approach is to implement all 

repairs and modifications in a single 

campaign. 

Recommended Ultimate Treatment 

The Recommended Ultimate Treatment 

proposes actions that conserve important 

building features, enhances the historic 

character and maximizes the opportunities 

for visitation and interpretation, 

The Recommended Ultimate Treatment 

includes the preservation of the exterior 

and interior, the restoration of key 

exterior features to their c. 1976 

appearance, and the rehabilitation of 

certain features to more safely 

accommodate public visitation. 

A 1976 restoration date was chosen because 

it was a pivotal year when the Fresnel lens 

was removed and replaced with two aerobeacons. Regardless of whether the 

restoration to that period includes the 

retention of those two lights or the return of 

the Fresnel lens, the remainder of the 

building would reflect the major 

modifications of historical importance and 

remove the more distracting and intrusive 

changes that occurred after that year. 

This approach would have the following 

advantages: 

• Preserves in place for interpretation, 

tangible evidence from a broad 

spectrum of the lighthouse’s history. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part II. Treatment and Use 

 2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN – ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page II.5 

• Retains the distinctive black-andwhite diamond-pattern paint scheme 

of the tower, which has been in place 

since 1873. 

• Interprets more fully an historical 

epoch by preserving the 1914 watchlevel observation deck and 

reconstructing the 1914 watch-level 

board walls and second-floor interior 

doorway. 

• Potentially reinstalls the original 

Fresnel lens. 

• Retains the mid-twentieth century 

beacon equipment, batteries, and 

emergency generator of the first 

floor, evidence of an epoch of the 

lighthouse’s history. 

• Removes modern additions (such as 

the steel entrance doorways, the 

cyclone fence room, and the steel 

square pipe and angle shoring) 

whose designs are incongruous with 

the historical architecture.. 

• Addresses the deterioration of 

significant historic fabric before it 

progresses to the point of requiring 

replacement; 

• Eliminates the necessity for, and thus 

allows for the removal of, the 

modern steel square-pipe-and-angle 

shoring which distracts from the 

lighthouse’s historical character and 

hinders access through interior 

spaces; 

• Corrects the causes of structural 

deterioration of the upper masonry 

and cast-iron lantern rather than 

applying yet another temporary 

repair; 

• Improves safe passage through the 

interior spaces of the lighthouse by 

removing the 1989 steel from egress 

doorways and stairs, adding 

reinforcement to certain early 

character-defining elements (castiron stair treads) and adding visually 

unobtrusive elements (a second 

spiral-staircase handrail). 

• Improves historical interpretation by 

removing the modern configuration 

of wood entrance stairs and allow a 

more accurate reconstruction based 

on archaeological evidence. 

• Improves safe passage along the 

wood entrance stairs by 

incorporating handrail design and 

other potential modifications that are 

more consistent with code 

recommendations. 

• Enhances interpretation by 

facilitating visitation. 

• Constitutes the most cost-effective, 

long-term expenditure for treatment. 

This approach would have the following 

disadvantages: 

 

• Potentially removes the two 1976 

aero-beacons, in situ evidence of an 

epoch of the lighthouse’s history and 

the current source of a powerful 

navigational light. 

• Removes the 1989 steel 

reinforcement, evidence of an epoch 

of the lighthouse’s history. 

• Removes the 1999 steel entrance 

doors, evidence of a minor epoch of 

the lighthouse’s history. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part II. Treatment and Use 

 2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN – ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page II.6 

• Constitutes the most expensive initial 

outlay of financial expenditure for 

treatment. 

B. REQUIREMENTS FOR 

TREATMENT 

The General Management Plan for the Cape 

Lookout National Seashore was prepared 

prior to the acquisition of the Cape Lookout 

Lighthouse. Therefore, the lighthouse is not 

addressed in the plan. 

The park, in cooperation with a friends’ 

group, has established a goal of conducting 

public tours of the lighthouse including 

access onto the observation deck. However, 

park administration closed the interior to 

public access in January 2008 due to safety 

concerns. The closing led to the preparation 

of this Historic Structure Report. 

The National Park Service Cultural 

Resources Management Guideline (DO – 

28) requires planning for the protection of 

cultural resources on park property. 

In addition, Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) mandates 

that federal agencies, including the National 

Park Service, take into account the effects of 

their actions on properties listed or eligible 

for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places and give the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation a 

reasonable opportunity to comment. 

Treatment of the building and site are to be 

guided by The Secretary of Interior’s 

Standards for Historic Preservation 

Projects, the Americans with Disability Act, 

and the International Building Code. 

Threats to public life, safety and welfare are 

to be addressed; however, because this is an 

historic building, alternatives to full 

legislative and code compliance are 

recommended where compliance would 

needlessly compromise the integrity of the 

historic building. Appendix B: Structural 

Assessment/ Carrying Capacity Analysis and 

Appendix C: Code Compliance & 

Recommendations of this report provide 

analytical data as supplemental information. 

C. ALTERNATIVES FOR 

TREATMENT 

In addition to the Recommended Ultimate 

Treatment discussed in Section I.A above, 

three alternative treatments are discussed 

below. 

Alternative #1: Restore the exterior and 

interior of the lighthouse to their 1867 

appearance and rehabilitate certain 

features to more safely accommodate 

public visitation.

This approach has the following advantages: 

• Returns the building to its earliest 

design configuration and paint 

scheme of red limewash-coated 

masonry and black-painted lantern. 

• Potentially reinstalls the original 

Fresnel lens. 

• Focuses interpretation to a period 

that has few remaining lighthouses. 

• Addresses the deterioration of 

significant historic fabric before it 

progresses to the point of requiring 

replacement. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part II. Treatment and Use 

 2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN – ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page II.7 

• Eliminates the necessity for, and thus 

allows for the removal of, the 

modern steel square pipe and angle 

shoring which detracts from the 

lighthouse’s historical character and 

hinders access through interior 

spaces. 

• Corrects the causes of structural 

deterioration of the upper masonry 

and cast iron lantern rather than 

applying yet another temporary 

repair. 

• Improves the safe passage through 

the interior spaces of the lighthouse 

by adding reinforcement to some 

early character-defining elements 

(cast-iron stair treads) and adding 

visually unobtrusive elements (a 

second spiral staircase handrail). 

• Enhances interpretation by 

facilitating visitation. 

• Constitutes a long-term efficiency of 

expenditures. 

This approach has the following 

disadvantages: 

• Replaces the well-known black-andwhite diamond-pattern paint scheme 

of the masonry with a 

monochromatic red color. 

• Removes the 1914 watch-level 

observation deck, which has 

historical significance. 

• Removes the remaining 1914 watchlevel board wall and door surround, 

which have historical significance. 

• Removes the 1914 interior door 

surround at second-floor level, which 

has historical significance. 

• Loses the opportunity to interpret the 

physical building fabric from 1914 

that evidences the evolution of 

lighthouse service. 

• Removes the mid-twentieth century 

beacon equipment, batteries, and 

emergency generator of the first 

floor, evidence of an epoch of the 

lighthouse’s history. 

• Removes the two 1976 aero-beacons, 

evidence of an epoch of the 

lighthouse’s history and the current 

source of a powerful navigational 

light. 

• Removes the 1989 steel 

reinforcement, evidence of an epoch 

of the lighthouse’s history. 

• Removes the 1999 steel entrance 

doors, evidence of an epoch of the 

lighthouse’s history. 

Alternative #2: Restore the exterior and 

interior of the lighthouse to their 1914 

appearance and rehabilitates certain 

features to more safely accommodate 

public visitation.

This approach has the following advantages: 

• Allows the most accurate design 

representation of an historical epoch 

by preserving the 1914 watch-level 

observation deck and reconstructing 

its air lock, the watch-level board 

wall air lock at seventh floor, and 

second-floor interior doorway. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part II. Treatment and Use 

 2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN – ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page II.8 

• Retains the distinctive black-andwhite diamond-pattern paint scheme 

of the tower, which has been in place 

since 1873. 

• Potentially reinstalls the original 

Fresnel lens. 

• Addresses the deterioration of 

significant historic fabric before it 

progresses to the point of requiring 

replacement. 

• Eliminates the necessity for, and thus 

allows for the removal of, the 

modern steel square pipe and angle 

shoring which detracts from the 

lighthouse’s historical character and 

hinders access through interior 

spaces; 

• Corrects the causes of the structural 

deterioration of the upper masonry 

and cast iron lantern rather than 

applying yet another temporary 

repair; 

• Improves the safe passage through 

the interior spaces of the lighthouse 

by adding reinforcement to certain 

early character-defining elements 

(cast-iron stair treads) and adding 

visually unobtrusive elements (a 

second spiral staircase handrail); 

• Enhances interpretation by 

facilitating visitation. 

• Constitutes a long-term efficiency of 

expenditures. 

This approach also has the following 

disadvantages: 

• Hampers visitor circulation along the 

observation deck with the 

reconstructed air lock. 

• Removes the mid-twentieth century 

beacon equipment, batteries, and 

emergency generator of the first 

floor, evidence of an epoch of the 

lighthouse’s history. 

• Removes the two 1976 aero-beacons, 

evidence of an epoch of the 

lighthouse’s history and the current 

source of a powerful navigational 

light. 

• Removes the 1989 steel 

reinforcement, evidence of an epoch 

of the lighthouse’s history. 

• Removes the 1999 steel entrance 

doors, evidence of an epoch of the 

lighthouse’s history. 

Alternative #3: Preserve the exterior and 

interior of the lighthouse in its current 

appearance and rehabilitate the interior 

stairways with added reinforcement and 

handrails. 

This approach has the following advantages: 

• Preserves all building fabric, thus 

most comprehensively representing 

the various epochs of evolution with 

tangible evidence. 

• Retains the mid-twentieth century 

beacon equipment, batteries, and 

emergency generator of the first 

floor, evidence of an epoch of the 

lighthouse’s history. 

• Retains the two 1976 aero-beacons, 

evidence of an epoch of the 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part II. Treatment and Use 

 2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN – ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page II.9 

lighthouse’s history and the current 

source of a powerful navigational 

light. 

• Retains the 1989 steel reinforcement, 

evidence of an epoch of the 

lighthouse’s history. 

• Retains the 1999 steel entrance 

doors, evidence of an epoch of the 

lighthouse’s history. 

• Provides the least expensive 

treatment option, at least initially. 

This approach also has the following 

disadvantages: 

• Retains modern design elements that 

are incongruous with the historical 

character of the lighthouse, thus 

detracting from historical 

interpretation; 

• Retains modern reinforcement that 

restricts safe passage through the 

historical spaces. 

• Does not address the deterioration of 

the iron elements and associated 

deterioration of the masonry frustum. 

• Diminishes the opportunities for the 

public to experience the lighthouse 

by hampering visitation to the 

lighthouse interior. 

• Increases the cost of eventual repairs 

to the cast iron and masonry. 

D. RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Recommended Ultimate Treatment for 

the Cape Lookout Lighthouse includes the 

preservation of the exterior and interior, the 

restoration of key exterior features to their c. 

1976 appearance, and the rehabilitation of 

certain features to more safely accommodate 

public visitation. 

The 1976 restoration date is recommended 

because it coincides with the removal of the 

original Fresnel lens and replacement with 

the current two aero-beacons; the date leaves 

the possibility of the return of the Fresnel 

lens. This time frame also postdates the 

removal of the observation deck air lock, 

which blocked circulation. Further, this 

time frame predates insensitive 

modifications such as the installation of the 

modern steel doors, the awkward modern 

entrance steps, and the wire mesh room at 

second-floor level. 

Actions to Achieve Recommended 

Ultimate Treatment: 

To achieve the Recommended Ultimate 

Treatment, the following actions should be 

taken: 

• Dismantle, thoroughly clean, repair 

and repaint the deteriorated iron 

elements of the lantern. 

• Dismantle, clean, make operable 

where appropriate and repaint the 

brass elements of the lantern. 

• Replace the damaged glass and 

reglaze all glass of the lantern; 

• Repair and re-secure damaged 

copper sheets of the lantern roof. 

• Repair and re-secure damaged 

copper sheets of the lantern ceiling. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part II. Treatment and Use 

 2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN – ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page II.10 

• Install new isolation pads between 

iron and copper and copper-based 

lantern elements. 

• Clean, repair, and make operable the 

lantern ventilator. 

• Replace the lantern’s deteriorated 

cast-iron plate connecting to the top 

of the masonry wall with a stainless 

steel plate. 

 

• Replace the deteriorated cast-iron 

tension ring at the top of the masonry 

with a tension ring of non-corrosive 

material. 

• Remove the modern steel tube and 

angle reinforcement; 

• Selectively remove damaged bricks 

and mortar from the top twenty feet 

of masonry fulcrum, and replace inkind. 

• Dismantle, clean, and repair or 

replace the cast-iron walk plates of 

the lantern gallery. 

• Remove the severely deteriorated 

galvanized steel railing of the eighth 

floor observation deck and replace 

with a non-corrosive metal railing of 

same design. 

• At the watch room ladder stairs to 

the lantern, cast new treads and 

replace the two damaged by the steel 

reinforcement. Restrict lantern-level 

access to staff and service personnel 

only. 

• At the service-level ladder stairs, cast 

new treads and replace the two 

damaged by the steel reinforcement. 

Install a stair handrail for additional 

safety. 

• At service level, reconstruct missing 

section of the 1914-era enclosing 

board wall. Reconstruct walls and 

doorway of air lock as per physical 

evidence and original plans. 

Reinstall original doors and door 

hardware now in North Carolina 

Maritime Museum or construct and 

install replicas. 

• At the spiral staircase, retain the two 

treads modified in 1914 for the 

occulting mechanism, or replace 

shortened treads with the whole 

treads discovered in storage. 

• At the spiral staircase center column, 

add a handrail as another source of 

support for the visitor and to move 

the visitor toward the wider area of 

the tread. 

• At the spiral staircase, add 

reinforcement to each tread. 

• Remove the rubberized-paint coating 

from the exterior of the masonry. 

Clean mortar joints of failing mortar 

or incompatible pointing material. 

Repoint with mortar as per analysis. 

Repaint the historic black-and-white 

diamond pattern with a breathable 

coating. 

• Remove incompatible mortars from 

interior masonry and clean joints of 

failing mortar. Repoint with mortar 

as per analysis. Apply a breathable 

limewash coating to interior 

masonry. 

• Remove modern panel of secondfloor landing and replace with early 

panel now in storage. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part II. Treatment and Use 

 2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN – ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page II.11 

• Remove two deteriorated, modern, 

steel, flat-panel entrance doors and 

replace with replicas of early wood 

doors according to physical evidence 

and photographic documentation. 

• Install replica door according to 

physical evidence at interior 

doorway of second-floor 

passageway. 

• Remove electrical lighting and 

associated equipment. Install 

interior and exterior lighting more 

appropriate for public visitation and 

maritime conditions. 

• Conduct archaeological 

investigations to establish pattern of 

construction of main entrance stairs. 

Remove existing main entrance stairs 

and install replacement stairs 

according to archaeological 

evidence. Make modification to 

design to bring handrails into 

compliance with International 

Building Code standards. 

• Install lightning protection system. 

• Install fire and intrusion detection 

systems. 

Recommended Limitations as per 

International Building Code & Stair 

Loading Capacity: 

• Limit total lighthouse occupancy to 

no greater than 25 persons at any one 

time. 

• Limit the number of occupants at 

eighth floor Watch Room and 

Observation Deck combined to not 

more than 10 persons. Of these 10, 

two are to be NPS guides, one 

stationed in the room and the other 

on the deck. 

• Limit the occupancy of the ship’s 

ladder stairs between seventh and 

eighth floor levels to one at a time. 

• Limit the occupancy of the seventh 

floor Service Room to not more than 

3. 

• Limit the number of occupants to 6 

at each intermediate landing (levels 3 

through 6) as per engineering 

analysis and IBC. 

• Limit the number of persons per 

spiral stair tread to one, except for 

passing. 

• At a minimum, station a third NPS 

guide at the base of the spiral stairs. 

• Conform to IBC in the design and 

construction of the handrail added to 

the seventh floor ship’s ladder stairs 

and the second handrail added to the 

spiral stairs. 

• Construct with solid hardwood only 

the replica wood features (first and 

second floor entrance doorways, the 

second floor interior door, and 

seventh floor board walls and doors.) 

Other Recommended Actions: 

• Strategically place signage to remind 

occupants of the above restrictions.

• Allow visitors to make observation 

from window locations that are 

easily accessible. 

• In addition to stationing NPS guides 

(NPS staff and/or volunteers) at the 

base of the spiral stairs and at the 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Part II. Treatment and Use 

 2008 • JOSEPH K. OPPERMANN – ARCHITECT, P.A. • Page II.12 

watch room/observation deck, station 

additional guides whenever possible 

along the stairs between those two 

points to monitor compliance and 

lend assistance as needed. 

• Prior to entering the lighthouse, 

provide potential visitors with 

advance information describing the 

varying difficulty of ascending the 

lighthouse stairs and passageways. 

• Prior to entering the lighthouse, 

provide potential visitors with 

physical mockups of the ladder-tolanding floor opening at the watch 

level and the ship’s door hatch to the 

observation deck. 

• Prepare an emergency plan for staff 

and volunteers, and establish stations 

for medical assistance along the 

visitation route. 
APPENDIX A 

Documentation Drawings 



















APPENDIX B 

Structural Assessment/Carrying Capacity 

Analysis 

7000 Central Parkway ♦ Suite 1475 ♦ Atlanta, GA 30328 

678-320-1888 ♦ fax 770-522-8115 ♦ www.hartrampf.com 

STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT OF CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE 

The structural analysis of the stair treads and other structural elements of the lighthouse involved 

assumptions based on field observations and judgment of existing conditions. The following 

categories were developed and used in the computer model of the structure to define each 

component of the structural system for the purpose of analysis: 

Excellent: Modeled as shown on original drawings (no evident loss of material/strength) 

Good: Modeled with a 10 percent reduction of material due to deterioration, 

delamination, etc. 

Fair: Modeled with a 25 percent reduction of material due to deterioration, delamination, 

etc. 

Poor: Features in this category must be replaced, so models of existing conditions were 

not developed 

Using Visual Analysis, computer models were built for each of the following to determine 

applicable capacities: a typical stair tread and a typical landing. Models were built and analyses 

were performed for both the current and the originally designed condition, for compliance with 

current building codes. All handrails were also reviewed for compliance with current building 

codes. 

Live loads used in the analysis were based on Table 1607.1 of the 2006 International Building 

Code (IBC) with North Carolina Amendments. From the IBC, the minimum uniformly 

distributed live loads for stairs is 100 psf, so a 100 psf uniform live load and a 300 lb point load 

in the center of the stair, and two 250 lb point loads were used independently in the analysis of 

the stairs. 

Wind loads for the Outer Banks from ASCE 7-05 and IBC Chapter 16, Figure 1609 were used to 

apply lateral loads on the upper levels of the lighthouse. An analysis of the current bracing 

configuration installed in 1988 determined that this bracing is adequate to resist all applied wind 

loadings. All models were checked for compliance with the 2006 International Building Code 

based on flexure, shear, and deflection criteria. 

Since cast iron is not a product that is used as a structural material today, stress values had to be 

interpreted from various texts. Structural Renovation of Buildings (Newman) gives the typical 

maximum allowable bending stress for cast iron as 3 ksi with a safety factor of 13.33 and 

allowable bending stress of 12 ksi for wrought iron based on a safety factor of 4.17. The 

allowable bending stress of wrought iron matches the value given in Iron and Steel Beams 1873 

to 1952 (AISC). Based on the average modulus of rupture value of 40 ksi, the allowable bending 

stress was obtained by dividing the modulus of rupture by a safety factor, exactly like the method 

described in Structural Analysis of Historic Buildings (Rabun). The safety factor used for cast 

iron is substantially higher than that used for wrought iron. Cast iron is a brittle material, 

exhibiting little or no yielding before failure, and is weak and unpredictable in tension and 
CALO Structural Assessment Page 2 

12/10/08 
CALO Structural Assessment Page 3 

12/10/08 

bending. Therefore, a higher safety factor must be used to account for that unpredictability and 

for the variability of different castings. 

When analyzing an existing structure that has been standing for over 130 years, a lower factor of 

safety may be used than when designing a new structure. With a new structure, there is more 

uncertainty about how the structure and material will behave. An existing structure has been 

subjected to various loads throughout its life and, if it is still standing with no signs of distress, it 

is obvious that it can support those loads. Because structural capacity may be more accurately 

assessed for existing structures based on the current conditions, a smaller factor of safety than for 

a new structure may be used. 

Because of the brittleness of cast iron, fatigue stress, caused by cyclic loading is a major 

concern. Three main factors affect fatigue performance of a structural component: material, 

loading (stress), and environment. The structural properties of a component, such as its 

metallurgical and mechanical properties and any discontinuities in the material, have a major 

effect on how much fatigue it can withstand. External environmental factors, such as 

temperature, also have an impact on a structure’s fatigue life. According to Fracture & Fatigue 

Control in Structures, “the primary factor that affects the fatigue behavior of structural 

components is the fluctuation in the localized stress,” that is, the number of repeated cycles of 

loadings to which a component is subjected. Once fatigue cracks develop, they will propagate 

rapidly as the magnitude of loading cycles increases and will ultimately lead to failure. 

Stair System: The stair system was analyzed in multiple parts: in the lower portion of the 

lighthouse all of the spiral stair treads are independent of one another, and in the two ship ladders 

in the upper portion of the lighthouse all of the treads are inter-connected with a bracket system. 

The bracket system causes all the stairs to be stressed when loading is applied to a single stair, 

and therefore causing additional stress to the system. All of the treads appear to be cast iron and 

the brackets connecting the upper stairs appear to be painted mild steel. Analyses were 

performed on the individual stair treads for each connection type. 

The majority of the spiral stair treads are in good condition, though some are in fair or poor 

condition. The source of concern for the fair or poorly evaluated stairs was primarily deflection 

criteria. Engineering of the stair system allows each of the stairs to act independently, but also 

allows for different deterioration to have occurred at each individual connection. It was observed 

that some of the mortar which helps provide the connection at the masonry wall has deteriorated 

and fallen away over time (see Figure 2), and may therefore cause treads to deflect more readily. 

Also, due to imperfections that may occur during casting and connections, the pin connections at 

the interior column could allow additional deflection (see Figure 3). Additionally some of the 

stairs may have received additional traffic or impact over time from unknown sources and 

therefore would show increased deflection at the time of analysis. (See Figure 1 for noteworthy 

stairs which were evaluated as fair or poor during the May 2008 structural evaluation.) 
CALO Structural Assessment Page 4 

12/10/08 

Figure 2 – Stair Connection at Exterior Masonry Wall 

Figure 3 – Pin Connection at Interior Support Column

Analyses of a single tread were based on a 300-pound person stepping on the middle of a tread, 

and two 250-pound people stepping near the stair tread support points (including impact) per the 

IBC. By placing the loading in the center of the stair, the stress is maximized. Visitors climbing 

the lighthouse will most likely traverse up the stairs at a point closer to the handrail, and 

therefore additional loading may be applied if the loadings occur closer to the support points. As 

originally designed, a maximum stress of 8.2 ksi and a maximum deflection of 0.726 inch were 

produced. Existing treads in good condition produced a stress of 10.2 ksi and deflection of 1.0 

inch, and existing treads in fair condition produced a maximum stress of 14.5 ksi and a 

deflection of 1.71 inch. The stress results for two 250-pound people traversing up the tower at 

opposite ends of the stair provided the controlling criteria. 

With the stress results for two 250-pound people the safety factors are 3.9 for the treads in good 

condition and 2.75 for the ones in fair condition. Those safety factors are much lower than the 

recommended safety factor of 13.3 for new cast iron. Because of the variability of the different 

castings of the treads and the unpredictability of cast iron, the small safety factor exceeds the 

“comfort zone” of safety for cast iron and the possibility exists of failure of the stair treads when 

subjected repeatedly to the load of a 300-pound person. 
CALO Structural Assessment Page 5 

12/10/08 

However, the likelihood of a two 250-pond people walking up and down the lighthouse stair 

system simultaneously slim, so the treads were also analyzed for a more realistic condition, one 

250-pound person stepping on the tread (including impact). As originally designed, the 

maximum stress of the analysis was 7.0 ksi. Existing treads in good condition produced a stress 

of 8.63 ksi, and existing treads in fair condition produced a stress of 12.2 ksi. 

The stress results for a 250-pound person show safety factors of 4.6 for the treads in good 

condition and 3.3 for the ones in fair condition. Those safety factors are much smaller than the 

recommended safety factor of 13.3 for new cast iron. Because of the variability of the different 

castings of the treads and the unpredictability of cast iron, the low safety factor exceeds the 

safety “comfort zone” of cast iron, and the possibility of failure of the stair treads exists when 

repeatedly subjected to the load of a 250-pound person stepping on the tread. However, the stair 

treads have withstood the load of personnel using the stairs in the structure for over 150 years 

and are still in mostly fair to good condition. From the physical evidence of the existing treads, 

the treads in good condition should be able to support the loading of a 250-pound person 

stepping on a single stair tread. However, this does not account for the additional stress that will 

be caused by fatigue. 

Over the years, the lighthouse has been accessed by a few people for maintenance purposes and 

has not been subjected to excessive loading. The two light keepers, working in shifts, walked up 

and down the lighthouse stairs every day for nearly 90 years until it was converted to an 

electrical light in 1933. Thereafter, fatigue loading cycles were less frequent until 1933, when 

the Cape Lookout became an unmanned light and such loading cycles ceased except for 

occasional maintenance activities. Typically when analyzing fatigue, loading cycles are taken for 

a 25-year period. Based on the history of its use, for four cycles per day over the first 25-year 

period, the stair treads and landings were subjected to 36,500 loading cycles. A National Park 

Service volunteer has estimated that 100,000 visitors per year will want to climb the lighthouse if 

it is open to the public, based on surveys of use for other lighthouses in the area. For the next 25-

year period the number of loading cycles resulting from this number of visitors would be 

approximately 2,500,000. Based on the allowable stress range for fatigue at each loading 

condition, if the lighthouse were to be opened to the public at the number estimated, the increase 

in loading cycles would decrease the allowable stress of the structural component, specifically 

the stair treads and landings, by 60 percent over that 25-year period. 

If the lighthouse were to be open for public access, the number of loading cycles would increase 

significantly from its past use. Little to no cracking is currently present on the stairs examined, 

but with increased traffic through the lighthouse fatigue cracking could propagate quickly if not 

addressed. The presence of cracking fatigue is a factor in the safety of the stair treads. Since the 

number of loading cycles will be increased more than 150 times its previous loading cycles, the 

fatigue stress on the stair treads will be increased by 60 percent from its current state. For a tread 

in good condition, using the 250-pound load, the stress would increase from 8.63 ksi to 13.81 

ksi. The fatigue stress of 13.81 ksi exceeds the stress of 12.2 ksi determined for treads in fair 

condition. The number of loading cycles can be altered so that the fatigue stress on these treads 

is less than 12.2 ksi. The rationalization is that the existing treads have supported the load of a 

man for over 130 years and most are in good condition; therefore, as long as stresses are lower 
CALO Structural Assessment Page 6 

12/10/08 

lower than 12.2 ksi, the treads should be adequate. If the number of loading cycles on the stair 

treads is increased by only 25 times the previous condition, the fatigue stress will be increased 

by only 40 percent from the current state. A 40-percent increase in fatigue stress would result in 

a stress of 12.1 ksi for the treads in good condition, which is lower than the stress of 12.2 on the 

treads in fair condition for a 250-pound load. Based on the rationalization mentioned above, the 

stair treads in good condition should be able to support a 250-pound person if the magnitude of 

loading cycles does not exceed 50 cycles per day (25 people walking up and down) for a 25-year 

period. If the National Park Service wishes to allow more than 25 people per day into the 

lighthouse, the stair treads would have to be assessed again in several years. For instance, if 68 

people were allowed into the lighthouse per day, the stair treads would have to assess again in 

ten years for fatigue. That number can be increased to 95 people per day for assessment in seven 

years. In any case, if the light tower is opened for public visitation, the National Park Service 

should implement a program of regular inspections of all stair treads for cracks. 

Landings: Analyses were also performed on the landing plates and beams, which are typical 

across most levels, as originally designed and in its existing condition. As noted in the original 

construction drawings, the landing plates are formed with bracing ribs integral to the plates. The 

integral bracing prevents most deflections out of plane and adds strength to the landing plates. 

Some out of plane deflection is visible at some landings and this concern is addressed in the 

recommendations section below. 

One landing differs in construction from the remainder of the other landings. The third floor 

landing is of wood construction with wood support beams (see Figure 4). Analyses were also 

performed on this landing to determine if it may provide adequate capacities to support the 

traffic which will occur. In addition, since this is the first landing that visitors will reach it is 

more likely that it will receive the most traffic and impact. Interest was expressed by both the 

park service staff, and the architect to preserve this landing during the May 2008 site visit. In an 

earlier report “Engineering Study of Cape Lookout Lighthouse” issued on May 12, 2005, issues 

concerning the fire resistivity of this landing were expressed. Recommendations for these 

concerns may be found in the recommendations section below. The flexural and shear capacities 

used in analysis were that of visually graded sawn Southern Pine No. 2. It is known that the 

lumber present during the construction of the lighthouse had a greater available capacity, but the 

decrease in allowable values ensure that the actual landing capacities are conservative. 

Analysis has shown that the presence of the bracing ribs (at the steel landings) increases the 

allowable stress by 25 percent to 3.75 ksi for the landing plates. Using the minimum code 

recommended live load of 100 psf, the maximum stress of the landing plates as originally 

designed was calculated to be 5.4 ksi, giving a safety factor of 9.3 based on the additional 25 

percent of allowable stress. Although that value is lower than the recommended safety factor for 

cast iron, it is still a comfortable safety factor since the landing plate showed no apparent signs 

of cracks. The maximum calculated deflection of 0.42 inch exceeds the allowable deflection of 

0.23 inch. In its existing condition, an analysis of the steel plate landing produced stress and 

deflection results of 6.5 ksi and 0.56 inch. With the additional 25 percent allowable stress, the 

safety factor for the existing landing plate is 7.7, much lower than the recommended safety factor 

of 13.3 and exceeding the “comfort zone” for safety. Since analysis of the landing plate produces 
CALO Structural Assessment Page 7 

12/10/08 

results that exceed the safety “comfort zone,” there is a possibility of failure if the landing is 

fully loaded to the maximum code-mandated load of 100 psf; 16 people weighing 250 pounds 

per person would have to stand on the landing. It would be physically impossible for 16 people 

to stand on the landing simultaneously. A more realistic assumption would be 6 people on the 

landing at the same time (one person per 7 square feet), reducing the load to approximately 40 

psf and the stress to 3.2 ksi. The resulting stress would be within the recommended range for cast 

iron. 

Figure 4 – Wood Landing

Bracing: Bracing elements were added in 1988 in order to remove lateral forces from the 

existing masonry, and support the upper lantern level. Cracking has propagated through the 

upper portion of the lighthouse, and therefore the original masonry in its current damaged state 

does not provide sufficient capacities to resist hurricane force without the assistance of the 

additional bracing. The presence of the existing bracing inhibits traffic passage in the upper 

portion of the lighthouse and, therefore, interest was expressed to remove some elements in order 

to facilitate the passage of visitors. 

During the field evaluation, all of the steel at this level was determined to be in good condition, 

though some surface rust was present, none of which appears to have penetrated the steel fully. 

Therefore, it is believed that the steel bracing as described in the recommendation section below 

may be removed with the possibility that additional strengthening may have to occur at the beam 

to column joints for lateral stability. 

The presence of the frame is still required, but small modifications may be made to allow visitor 

traffic to proceed safely. Interest has been expressed to restore the lighthouse to the original 

condition by removing all instances of the bracing, which was added during 1988. See the 
CALO Structural Assessment Page 8 

12/10/08 

recommendations section below for applicable revisions that must be made for such 

modifications to occur. 

Watch Level Observation Deck: This exterior deck consists of a metal pan deck supported by a 

brick corbel, which projects from the lighthouse shaft. An inspection was performed on the 

exposed deck from the top and the bottom and it appears to be in good condition. The deck in 

this condition is adequate to support the passage of visitors on this level. Some surface rusting 

was exhibited on the bottom portion of the deck, but this should not affect the capacity of the 

deck, and therefore no additional bracing is required for this level. 

The steel handrails at the observation level exhibit significant rusting and a vast majority of them 

have rusted through. Therefore, it is recommended to replace all posts and handrails to provide 

maximum safety and resist the code prescribed live lateral loadings. 

Lantern Level Gallery: The structural elements were not analyzed for the lantern level. This level 

will be used for maintenance purposes of the light only. Currently it is not recommended that any 

visitor traffic proceed to this level. 

Roof: A structural analysis was not performed on the roof. A visual inspection of the interior and 

exterior of the roof indicates a separation of the trim from the roof panel at the cornice bracket. A 

few of the bolts that connect the trim to the roof have deteriorated, enabling the trim to separate 

from the roof. From a structural perspective, because the span of the trim and roof panel 

(approximately 2’-3”) and the forces on the roof are not great, risk of failure of the roof 

connection is not an immediate concern. However, the greatest risk is an abnormal wind 

condition that could dislodge the roof and do significant damage to this historic feature that is 

otherwise sound. Repair to the trim involves removing the paint on the trim to check for any 

deterioration. If there is no deterioration of the trim, the missing and deteriorated bolts should be 

replaced with new stainless steel bolts and the trim reattached to the roof panel and cornice. 

Missing trim pieces should be replaced to match the original. 

Recommendations - Structural 

Stair System: Based upon the visual as well as computer analyses performed it is recommended 

that the altered stair treads be replaced that to support for minimum traffic of VIPs and park 

service staff (see Figure 1 for altered stair tread locations). It is our understanding that during the 

investigation additional stair treads were found in storage which appear to have been 

manufactured at the same time as the existing stair treads. Upon inspection of these treads to 

determine that no cracking is visible, these treads may be used to replace the altered treads. In 

addition, it is also recommended that the stair treads determined to be in fair condition as 

indicated in Figure 1, be stiffened through the use of a channel, with flanges protruding 

downward, or other stiffening element which runs under the length of the stair. 

If increased traffic of tourists is desired through the lighthouse, all of the improvements as 

indicated in the paragraph above should be performed, and all stair treads be stiffened (per the 

methodology described above) to prevent any fatigue cracking. 
CALO Structural Assessment Page 9 

12/10/08 

Currently one handrail exists along the perimeter masonry wall to the watch level. In order to 

ensure that tourist traffic may proceed in both directions in the safest manner possible it is 

recommended that an additional handrail be inserted along the center support column. The 

handrail should be offset from the column a minimum distance of six inches (6”) to prevent 

impact on the smallest part of the stair and undue fatigue on the pin used to support the stair 

tread at the column. 

Landings/Handrails: Currently the cast iron plate landings are deemed sufficient to support 

tourist traffic. The cast iron plates exhibit some surface rusting. This rusting does not provide 

concerns for structural stability, but aesthetically the surface rust should be removed and the 

plates should be repainted. Some differential plate movement has occurred at some landings. 

This provides a tripping hazard, and angles should be added on the underside of the plates at the 

rib locations for a plate to plate connection in order pull together the plates and to prevent any 

additional movement. One floor plate did exhibit cracking during the May 2008 evaluation. Due 

to this isolated condition, this floor plate should be supported along the cracked location using a 

similar method as described above for the stair treads. 

The single wood landing as previously discussed is sufficient to provide support for traffic. As 

previously mentioned the fire-resistivity was expressed as a concern in the “Engineering Study 

of Cape Lookout Lighthouse”. The fire resistivity could be increased through the use of an 

intumescent paint and its potential application merits further consideration. 

The handrails which currently exist along the perimeter masonry wall do not meet the size 

standards of current codes. These handrails however, allow enough stability to adequately 

support lighthouse traffic. There is one support point, which has been separated from the 

masonry, which should be replaced prior to the lighthouse being occupied for anything more 

than maintenance purposes. 

Storage Level: The storage level, which is currently used as the transition point between the 

main stairway and the watch level, is also the lowest level of the bracing which was used as the 

stabilization technique in the 1988 drawings. The introduction of the X-bracing caused some 

access safety issues. It has been determined that some elements may be removed or modified in 

order to facilitate visitor traffic. The brace which inhibits passage through the main door into the 

storage level may be removed, but the angle support, which also occurs at this location, must 

remain in order to support the bracing members above. This angle may be trimmed in order to 

increase clearances but it should not be removed. 

Bracing also occurs on the opposite wall face to the bracing described above. In order to insert 

this bracing element, the separation wall from the storage level to the main staircase opening had 

to be partially removed (see Figure 5). This opening and resulting instability of the wall could 

endanger tourists on this level. The bracing should be removed at this location and the wall 

should be restored so that it would fully block passage through this area. This separation wall 

must also be stiffened at mid-height with a horizontal brace supported off of the masonry wall 

and the center column in order to ensure that this wall provides enough ridgity in order to 

support a lateral force (visitors leaning against the wall) against this partition. 
CALO Structural Assessment Page 10 

12/10/08 

The original cast iron ship ladder which allows passage of traffic from the storage to the watch 

level poses some challenges. The tread height is somewhat steep, the ladder consists of four 

partial treads due to the insertion of the 1988 adjacent bracing, and the maximum width of the 

stairs is narrow at 26”. Passage is not ideal. Given its importance as an original characterdefining element, other limitations of the path of travel, and the potential for full restoration of 

the lighthouse, it is recommended that if the ladder be retained in place and a temporary railing 

be added or other remedial action be taken to ensure safe passage. 

Watch Level Recommendations: Overall, the watch level was determined to be in good 

condition. Internal braces, similar to what was previously discussed at the storage level, exist 

around the perimeter of the lighthouse. The brace located directly in front of the passageway to 

the exterior watch level may be removed to facilitate easier passage. The boat hatch type opening 

to the exterior watch does not provide a large amount of room, but removal of the adjacent 

masonry and lintels would compromise the structural stability of the lighthouse and is not 

recommended. 

Figure 5 – Bracing Interrupting Partition Wall at Storage Area

The exterior watch level observation deck appears to also be in overall good condition. The 

decking consists of a metal pan with concrete fill, and some surface rusting is exhibited on the 

bottom; the deck has only a small cantilever, but is overwhelmingly supported by a brick corbel. 

The surface rusting should be removed during repair work, and the underside of the deck should 

be repainted for aesthetics as well as to prevent additional rusting through this area. Wear to the 

top of the deck has also exposed some of the concrete deck reinforcement. In order to prevent 

any additional wear on this structural element the deck should be resurfaced with new concrete. 

As previously indicated in the gallery deck analysis section above, the handrails exhibit 

significant rusting and do not provide sufficient lateral support, and should be completely 
CALO Structural Assessment Page 11 

12/10/08 

replaced. In addition, it appears that the current handrails are not original to the lighthouse as 

there are other embedment points along the perimeter of the deck. These embedment points 

should be filled for aesthetic reasons as well as to prevent any tripping hazards which may occur. 

Lantern Level Recommendations: The current overall lantern condition is currently evaluated as 

poor due to broken floor plates and rusted out support points. It is recommended that only 

maintenance traffic be allowed into this area due to the unsafe conditions. The ships ladder 

which allows passage from the watch level to the lantern level should be roped off and sufficient 

signage provided to indicate that traffic should not proceed up to this level. For visitor or 

minimum occupancy it is recommended that no traffic occur onto the outer deck and therefore at 

this point in time no improvements are deemed necessary. 

Full Historic Rehabilitation: Rehabilitating the lighthouse to remove all of the bracing additions 

per the 1988 drawings would require significant maintenance efforts. According to the structural 

evaluation performed in May 2008, it is determined that the window mullions at the lantern level 

have little structural support capabilities. In order to remove all non-original bracing, the lantern 

level must be removed from the masonry base of the lighthouse for proper repair of mullions and 

floor plates. 

In addition, the bracing from the lantern level through the storage level was added in order resist 

the applied lateral loadings from wind forces. The braces are not historically accurate or 

aesthetically pleasing, but in order to fully remove all of this bracing due to the cracking 

observed at these levels, the masonry must be fully removed and rebuilt from below where the 

current X-bracing brackets are embedded into the concrete to approximately twenty feet (20’) of 

masonry. Upon design phasing inception, the lighthouse will be properly evaluated to determine 

that the masonry below the brackets is sufficient to support all lateral wind forces and allowing 

for all former bracing to be removed. 

All previous recommendations of the stiffening of the stairs and landings are still required in 

order to ensure that fatigue cracking does not propagate from prolonged traffic up and down the 

lighthouse. 

** End of Report** 

APPENDIX C 

Code Compliance and Recommendations 

CODE COMPLIANCE and RECOMMENDATIONS 

INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC): 

Chapter 10: Means of Egress 

Section 1008 Doors, Gates and Turnstiles 

• 1008.1.1 Size of Doors 

“....clear width of not less than 32 inches.” 

“...height of doors not less than 80 inches.” 

Section 1009 Stairways and Handrails 

• 1009.1 Stairway Width

“Stairways serving an occupant load of 50 or less shall have a width of not less 

 than 36 inches.” 

• 1009.3 Stair Treads and Risers

“...riser heights shall be 7 inches maximum...depth shall be 11 inches minimum”

• 1009.6 Vertical Rise 

“A flight of stairs shall not have a vertical rise greater than 12 feet between floor 

 levels or landings.” 

• 1009.9 Spiral Stairs 

“...permitted to be used as a component in the means of egress only within

 dwelling units or from a space not more than 250 square feet in area and 

 serving not more than five occupants, or from galleries, catwalks and 

 gridirons....” 

“...shall have a 7.5 inch minimum clear tread depth at a point 12 inches from the 

 narrow edge.” 

“...riser height shall not be more than 9.5 inches.” 

“...minimum stairway width shall be 26 inches.” 

• 1009.11 Handrails 

“Stairways shall have handrails on each side.” 

 

Section 1012 Guards 

• 1012.2 Height 

“...shall form a protective barrier not less than 42 inches high....” 

• 1012.3 Openings 

“Open guards shall have balusters or ornamental patterns such that a 4-inch 

diameter sphere cannot pass through any opening up to a height of 34 inches.” 

Code Compliance & Carrying Capacity Recommendations Joseph K. Oppermann-Architect, P.A. 

Page 1 of 4 December 2008 
CONDITIONS: 

Location: Conditions: 

1st Floor: Round room of 10’- 6” diameter. 

Floor-to-ceiling height 10’- 4” 

No vertical connection; 

Exit door of 31” width in original masonry opening of 3’-8” x 7’-7”. 

2nd – 6th Floors: Handrail at perimeter masonry wall. 

 Vertical rise between landings is 24’ – 0”. 

 Cast-iron spiral staircase with wedge-shaped stair treads of 4’-10” width. 

• Tread depth of 4” at connection to column. 

• Tread depth of 18” at perimeter masonry wall. 

• Tread depth of 71⁄2” occurs 143⁄4” from small tread end (at column). 

• Only outer 2’ – 6” of tread has a depth of 11” to 18”. 

• Rise between treads is 8”. 

Second floor exit door of 31” width in masonry opening of 3’-5” x 7’-7”. 

• Entrance passage has interior doorway for door of 32”+. 

Second floor is a full-circle landing. 

• Six, wedge-shaped, metal floor plates. 

• Landing area comprised of 86 s.f. 

 Third thru sixth floor are intermediate level landings of half-circle size. 

• Three landings are made of three cast-iron floor plates. 

• One landing is made of wood deck boards on iron and wood frame. 

• Each intermediate landing area has 43 s.f. 

7th Floor A floor-to-floor height of 8”- 0”. 

 One 1914 doorway in board wall at landing. 

• Missing door has 24” width. 

• 1989 steel reinforcement reduces doorway width to 20”. 

• 1914 air lock with 24” wide doorway proposed for reconstruction. 

 Cast-iron, ship’s ladder stair connects with Eighth Floor landing. 

• No handrail. 

• Rise between stair treads is 9”. 

• Stairs have a 2’-0” width. 

• Treads are boot-shaped with 63⁄4” to 93⁄4” tread depth. 

8th Floor A floor-to-floor height of 7’ - 2”. 

 Ship’s hatch connects with outside Observation Deck; 

• Hatch is 18” x 36” in 271⁄2” x 57”original masonry opening. 

 Observation Deck circles Eighth Floor Watch Room. 

• Deck has a depth of 4’ – 2”. 

• Deck rail is 45” high with two rails and stanchions 34” o.c. 

Cast-iron ship’s ladder stairs connects to Ninth Floor Lantern. 

• Stairs has no handrail; 91⁄2” rise; 

Code Compliance & Carrying Capacity Recommendations Joseph K. Oppermann-Architect, P.A. 

Page 2 of 4 December 2008 
• Stairs have a width of 1’-9”. 

• Treads are boot-shaped with depth varying 31⁄2” to 41⁄2”. 

9th Floor Glass in metal frame creates sixteen-sided Lantern. 

 Metal-and-glass door connects with outside Gallery. 

• Metal-and-glass door has width of 2’ – 0”. 

Lantern Gallery encircles Lantern. 

• Gallery depth id 2’ – 1”. 

• Gallery deck has top rail of 38” height and no second rail. 

 

ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS: 

At the main portal to the lighthouse (second floor entrance) the current modern door is less wide 

at 31 inches than the 32 inches clear width that code requires. However, the historic doorway 

was partially infilled for the modern door. Restoring the doorway will remove the infill and 

thereby correct this too-narrow doorway. The wood stairs that lead to this entrance are modern. 

They are scheduled for repair. 

The original cast-iron, spiral stairs extend from the second floor to the seventh floor landing. 

The IBC does not make reference specifically to a lighthouse for egress considerations; under 

“spiral stairs” as a means of egress, however, there is a general qualification that such a feature 

should serve no more than five occupants. This is an unrealistic limitation for the occupancy of a 

former work station now converted to a tourist destination, especially in light of the minimal 

amount of combustible materials and lack of potential incendiary sources, as well as the limited 

opportunity for other potentially sudden, unforeseen causes of disaster. 

In calculating a more realistic number of occupants with a pragmatic procedure for visitation, it 

is the historically tight dimensions and awkward shapes of the building elements, rather than the 

inherent strengths of the building materials, that pose the greatest danger to safe usage. The 

wedge-shaped stair treads of the spiral stairs are especially problematic; they are difficult to 

navigate and the process, either climbing or descending, is slow and tedious. NPS prefers a tread 

depth of eleven to eighteen inches. On these wedge-shaped treads, this preferred depth range 

leaves just two and one-half feet of tread for use, or room for just one person per tread. 

However, if the seven and one-half inches of minimum tread, as the code recommends, is 

deemed acceptable at least occasionally, the width of usable tread becomes three feet and seven 

inches, which allows two people to pass. Limiting one person per tread, except for passing, is 

also desirable because it in minimizes loading and thereby the wear to the treads. To 

accommodate the potential of two adults per stair tread, all the treads will need to be reinforced. 

The stair landings at the intermediate levels (floors three through seven) are half the area (43 

square feet) of floors two and eight. If the typical number of seven square feet per person is 

used, this limits the number of persons allowed at intermediate landings to six. Seven square feet 

per person, as used as a guide for other lighthouses, appears to be a comfortably safe number. 

Code Compliance & Carrying Capacity Recommendations Joseph K. Oppermann-Architect, P.A. 

Page 3 of 4 December 2008 
Code Compliance & Carrying Capacity Recommendations Joseph K. Oppermann-Architect, P.A. 

Page 4 of 4 December 2008 

A bottleneck occurs at the seventh floor where an historic doorway is just twenty-four inches 

wide and is also intersected by modern steel reinforcement creating a smaller passage. Though it 

can be modified somewhat, part of this steel must remain in place or the tower masonry properly 

repaired. Until the steel is removed, the number of occupants at this level and above should be 

minimized. 

At the eighth floor, the small access portal to the Observation Deck, the feature providing the 

grandest view, is even more physically restrictive. Accordingly, the number of persons allowed 

on the Observation Deck at one time should be limited and carefully monitored. 

We recommend, for safety of egress, that at any given moment: 

• No more than 25 total occupants are to be allowed in the lighthouse, the same total 

number allowed at the Bodie Island Lighthouse. 

• Only NPS staff and service personnel are to use the ship’s ladder to the Ninth Floor 

Lantern, to be at the Lantern level, or on the Lantern Gallery. 

• No more than 10 occupants are to be in the Watch Room (eighth floor landing) and on 

the adjoining Observation Deck combined. Two of these 10 occupants are to be NPS 

guides, one stationed on the Observation Deck and the other inside the Watch Room as is 

typical for the annual Lighthouse Climb SOP. 

• No more than one person at a time is to be allowed on the ship’s ladder stairs between the 

eighth and seventh floor landings. 

• No more than 3 occupants may be in the Service Room (seventh floor landing.) 

• No more than 6 persons are to be on any intermediate landing (Levels 3 through 6.) 

• No more than 1 person per spiral stair tread is permitted, except for passing. 

• At a minimum, a third NPS guide is to be stationed at the base of the spiral staircase. 

In addition, we recommend: 

• The repairs to the existing and/or reconstruction of an earlier exterior wood stairs to the 

second floor entrance are to incorporate elements that bring the handrail into compliance 

with code. 

• The replacement doors for the first floor entrance, second floor entrance, second floor 

interior intermediate door and two doors of seventh floor are to be made of solid 

hardwood. 

• The added handrails of the spiral stairs and the seventh floor ship’s ladder stairs are to 

conform to life and safety code standards. 

 
APPENDIX D 

Materials Analysis 

Cape Lookout Lighthouse

Materials Analysis

Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina

February 2009

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC
Cape Lookout Lighthouse

Materials Analysis

Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina

Prepared For

Joseph K. Oppermann - Architect P.A.

Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Prepared By

Building Conservation Associates, Inc.

329 Race Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................2

3.0 METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................4

3.1 Finishes Analysis.................................................................................4

3.2 Mortar Analysis .................................................................................6

3.3 Brick Analysis......................................................................................6

4.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS............................................................................8

4.1 Exterior Finishes Analysis ...............................................................8

4.2 Interior Finishes Analysis..................................................................14

4.3 Mortar Analysis...................................................................................21

4.4 Brick Analysis......................................................................................24

5.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................26

5.1 Finishes ................................................................................................26

5.2 Masonry................................................................................................31

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Key to Sample Locations

Appendix B: Sample Stratigraphies and Photomicrographs

Appendix C: Mortar Analysis Report (Testwell, Inc. 2008)

Appendix D: Brick Analysis Report (CTL Group 2008)
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 1

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

1.0 INTRODUCTION

At the request of Joseph K. Oppermann Architect, P.A., Building Conservation Associates, Inc. (BCA) 

prepared an analysis of select building materials of the Cape Lookout Lighthouse. The lighthouse is 

located in Cape Lookout National Seashore in the Outer Banks of North Carolina. The materials 

investigated as part of this study include brick, mortar and paint finishes. The primary goal of the 

materials analysis is to document the building’s original mortar and paint finishes, as well as the 

physical properties of the original brick, for inclusion in a Historic Structure Report (HSR). A 

secondary goal is to provide recommendations for future restoration work based on the findings of 

the analysis.

The report summarizes the findings of both the masonry analysis and the finishes study. Following the 

introductory information regarding the site and study methodology, the report discusses the findings 

of the research and then makes recommendations for appropriate restoration mortar mixes and 

paint colors. All mounted cross-sections have been labeled and permanently housed and will be 

archived at BCA’s Philadelphia office unless otherwise requested by the client. The extracted 

aggregate portions of the analyzed mortars will be submitted with this report for reference during 

restoration.

All work required for the execution of this study was performed by Dorothy S. Krotzer, BCA 

Regional Director, with assistance from Testwell, Inc. and CTL Group for completion of the 

laboratory portion of the masonry analysis. Mortar, brick and paint samples were taken from the site 

in September and October 2008 and laboratory analysis was performed in October and November 

2008. 
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 2

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The current Cape Lookout Lighthouse was built in 1858-59 to replace an undersized, wooden 

lighthouse with an interior masonry stair tower that had been built in 1812.1 The existing lighthouse 

is constructed solely of brick with an internal cast iron stair that extends up nine levels and 

approximately 150-feet to a metal and glass lantern that sits atop the masonry structure. The design 

of the lighthouse is based on a prototype developed by a member of the Corps of Engineers, William 

Henry Chase Whiting.2 Interior spaces include entry at the second floor level, a Service Room at the 

seventh floor level, an Observation Deck and Watch Room at the eighth floor level and the Lantern 

at the ninth floor level. (Figures 1 and 2)

The lighthouse exists today in relatively good condition and fairly intact, with much of its original 

1859 fabric still extant. However, there have been some alterations to the building, the most 

significant of which include: repairs to interior steps and landings that were damaged during the Civil 

War; an exterior re-painting campaign in 1873; widening of the Watch Room observation deck and 

installation of interior wood partition walls in 1914; and extensive window and door replacement in 

1996 following damage from Hurricane Fran.3 The 1873 re-painting campaign, which was executed at 

the direction of the U.S. Light House Board and is well documented in period descriptions of the 

building, is particularly important because it marks a significant shift from the lighthouse’s original 

appearance to its existing, iconic appearance. Its existing black and white checkered exterior dates 

from this 1873 re-painting campaign and is not original.4 This shift in the lighthouse’s exterior 

appearance will be discussed in more detail later in the report. 

The lighthouse passed from the hands of the U. S. Lighthouse Service to the U.S. Coast Guard in 

1939 and subsequently to the National Park Service in 1984. The lighthouse was placed on the 

National Register of Historic Places in 1972.5

 1 Oppermann, Joseph K. Architect P.A. Cape Lookout Lighthouse Historic Structure Report 75% Draft. August 2008. Page I.B.3 2 Ibid, I.B.4

3 Ibid, I.B.32. 4 Ibid, I. B.18 5 Ibid, I.B.23-25.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 3

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

Figure 1. Cape Lookout Lighthouse, September 2008. Photograph by author.

Figure 2. Cape Lookout Lighthouse, September 2008. This photograph shows typical interior 

features, including the exposed brick walls and cast iron spiral stair. Photograph by author.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 4

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

3.0 METHODOLOGY

Prior to the site visit and removal of samples, information related to the history of Cape Lookout 

Lighthouse provided by Joseph K. Oppermann was reviewed. A draft of the HSR, including historic 

images and information on the construction chronology, were studied in order to gain a general 

understanding of the history of the building and any information related to its paint finishes and 

masonry construction.

Once the relevant historical documentation was reviewed, a site visit was made and the building was 

physically examined for areas from which representative samples of brick, mortar and paint finishes 

could be removed. Once these intact areas were identified, samples were removed. In addition, 

various salvaged wood elements currently in storage at the North Carolina Maritime Museum in 

Beaufort, North Carolina were examined and sampled as part of the paint analysis portion of the 

project. These salvaged elements are of particular significance because many of the historic wood 

components of the lighthouse have been removed. These salvaged pieces represent the only 

surviving examples of historic (presumably original) exterior wooden elements such as window sash.

Bricks were removed using a combination of hand tools, an angle grinder and a hammer drill. Mortar 

samples were removed using a small masonry chisel or five-in-one tool and a hammer. Paint samples 

were removed using a scalpel. A total of 2 mortar samples, 5 whole brick units and 34 finish samples 

were removed from the building and taken back to the laboratory for analysis. See Appendix A for a 

list of all sample locations. (Figures 3 and 4)

3.1 Finishes Analysis

All finish samples were initially examined in reflected light using a Nikon high-resolution 

stereomicroscope SMZ-1500 with variable magnification (16x-160x) to identify which samples would 

be embedded and sectioned for analysis. The selected samples were then mounted in a commercial 

polyester/methacrylate resin polymerized with a methyl ethyl ketone peroxide catalyst (Bioplast®). 

Embedded samples were sectioned on a Leco® VC-50 micro-saw for microscopic examination. The 

sectioned samples were dry-polished using a series of fine Micromesh® polishing clothes ranging from 

6,000 to 12,000 grit. Sectioned samples were observed under a Nikon 50i compound microscope in 

both visible light filtered through a daylight correction filter and ultraviolet light. The ultraviolet light 

was generated by a mercury illumination system filtered through a violet filter cube (EF4 V-2A 

Ex400/40 Dm430 Bar 450). Photomicrographs of representative samples were taken using a 5 mega 

pixel Nikon DigiSight color digital camera system and are included in this report to illustrate specific 

observations.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 5

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

Figure 4. Cape Lookout Lighthouse, October 2008. Removal of a brick for laboratory testing. 

A total of five bricks were removed from the building. Photograph by author.

Figure 3. Cape Lookout Lighthouse, 

September 2008. Location of wellpreserved original mortar that was 

sampled for analysis. Photograph by 

author.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 6

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

All paint samples were viewed in cross-section and their paint layering sequences, or stratigraphies, 

recorded. These stratigraphies are included in Appendix B. Once the stratigraphies of every sample 

were deciphered, significant paint layers were identified and raw samples were manipulated in order 

to expose these layers for color matching purposes. Once the target layers were exposed, they were 

subjected to a bleaching process in order to reverse any yellowing that may have occurred over time. 

It is well documented that linseed oil-based paints (especially pale-colored paints) darken and yellow 

over time if not exposed to sunlight. This even affects oil-based finishes that have been covered with 

subsequent paint layers. In order to diminish this yellowing of paint layers, they were exposed to a 

broad-spectrum fluorescent light source for approximately two weeks.

Following the bleaching process, the exposed layers were visually matched to two different color 

systems, the standardized Munsell color system and the commercial Benjamin Moore paint palette.

All color matches are included in Section 5.1 of this report.

3.2 Mortar Analysis

Samples of brick mortar were removed from two locations: the exterior brickwork of the Watch 

Level (from an area of parging inside an air intake) and the interior brickwork of the Ground Level 

room. Cursory visual examination of the mortar samples was performed by D. Krotzer and 

subsequent laboratory analysis was executed by John Walsh of Testwell Laboratories, Inc. in 

Ossining, New York. John Walsh specializes in the analysis and identification of historic mortar 

materials. Testwell’s laboratory work included both petrographic examination and chemical analysis 

(acid dissolution, gravimetric analysis and atomic absorption spectroscopy) of each mortar. The goal 

of Testwell’s analysis was to identify the binder and aggregate components of each mortar, as well as 

the original component ratio. Although Testwell’s findings are discussed in Section 4.3 of this report, 

the full mortar analysis report has also been included in Appendix C. In addition, the extracted sand 

portion of each mortar sample has also been submitted with this report.

3.3 Brick Analysis

Five whole brick units were removed from the interior wall of the Ground Floor Level room at the 

rear of the lighthouse. The bricks were carefully removed by cutting out the original mortar joints 

surrounding the bricks in order to free them from the wall. This task proved to be challenging, as the 

mortar was quite hard and very well-bonded to the bricks on all sides. The irregularities in the 

composition of the brick also made them prone to spalling and cracking with even the slightest bit of 

pressure. Once the bricks were removed, modern replacement brick of approximately the same 

dimensions were installed in the voids created by the sampling procedure. They were installed in the 

original pattern, but using a soft lime based mortar to ensure reversibility.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 7

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

The bricks were sent to CTL Group in Skokie, Illinois for physical testing in order to establish their 

overall physical attributes and compare them to modern standards. The bricks were subjected to 

water absorption and compressive strength testing in accordance with ASTM C-67. The results of all 

physical testing are discussed in Section 4.4 and CTL Group’s report is included in Appendix D.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 8

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

4.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

4.1 Exterior Finishes Analysis

Examination of the exterior finishes of the lighthouse involved investigation of the painted brick 

masonry, woodwork and metalwork associated with the lantern and observation levels. Each of these 

architectural components is discussed below.

MASONRY

Analysis of paint samples indicates that the exterior brick masonry of the lighthouse contains two 

early campaigns of red limewash followed by four to six campaigns of black and white paint (always 

applied in a checkered pattern). The red limewash is also visible under the existing exterior paint 

coatings, on the surface of both the brick and mortar, in numerous locations. Archival research,

performed by Joseph K. Oppermann Architect, P.A. as part of the HSR, revealed that the lighthouse 

was historically red in color. An 1859 Notice to Mariners states that: “The color of the tower is red.”6

Until now, the source of the red color was unknown. The color could have been achieved through 

the application of an oil paint or the description could have simply referred to the color of the brick 

masonry construction. The current research, however, provides proof that the first finish applied to 

the lighthouse’s exterior masonry was in fact a pigmented red limewash. While it is possible that the 

exterior brickwork of the lighthouse was originally unpainted and that the red-colored limewash was 

applied subsequently in order to refresh its red brick appearance, the lack of a distinct dirt layer 

between the surface of the brick and the first pigmented limewash suggests that the first red 

limewash layer is original. (Figures 5 and 6)

Historical documentation also provides information about the point in time when the masonry 

exterior of the lighthouse underwent this dramatic change. In 1873, the U.S. Light House Board 

directed that the lighthouse be painted in a new way in order to conform to new universal standards 

that gave each lighthouse along the Outer Banks a unique and discernible appearance. The new paint 

scheme called for the Cape Lookout Lighthouse to “be checkered, the checkers being alternatively 

black and white.”7 It is this pattern, dating from 1873, that is depicted in the historic photographs 

from 1899 and 1910, and which still adorns the lighthouse today. Although the paint type has 

changed, from traditional oil paints to more modern coatings, the color palette and pattern has been 

maintained since 1873. The HSR includes five references to the exterior of the tower being painted 

since 1873 (in 1885, 1992, 1995, 2000 and 2004). In each of these repainting campaigns, the black and 

white diagonal checkered pattern was re-applied. (Figures 7 and 8)

 6 Oppermann, I.B.8.

7 Oppermann, I.B.18.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 9

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

Figure 5. Cape Lookout Lighthouse. Photomicrograph of Sample CALO.E.11, removed from the 

exterior of the lighthouse shows the original red limewash (L) applied over brick mortar (M), followed 

by layers of modern black and white paint coatings. Photograph by author, 40x magnification.

Figure 6. Cape Lookout Lighthouse. Photomicrograph of Sample CALO.E.10, removed from the 

exterior of the lighthouse shows the original red limewash (L) applied over brick substrate (B). 

Subsequent layers of black and white paint coatings are also visible Photograph by author, 40x 

magnification.

L

M

L

M

B

L
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 10

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

Figure 7. Cape Lookout Lighthouse. A detail of an historic photograph of the lighthouse, dated 1899. 

This is the earliest known photograph of the lighthouse and shows its 1873 paint scheme. Photograph 

courtesy of Joseph K. Oppermann – Architect P.A.

Figure 8. Cape Lookout Lighthouse. 

Another historic photograph, dated 1910. 

Note the light-colored window sash and 

frames, even in areas of black paint (inset). 

Photograph courtesy of Joseph K. 

Oppermann – Architect P.A.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 11

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

It should be noted that, although no binder or pigment identification was performed as part of this 

study, the 1873 paint finish is most likely based on linseed oil and lead white pigment, which were the 

most widely used paint ingredients available at the time. Further testing would be required to 

confirm the composition of any paint layers.

In summary, both physical and archival evidence indicate that the black and white patterned paint 

scheme is not original to the lighthouse exterior and that, when the lighthouse was built in 1859, it 

was finished with a red limewash.

WOODWORK

As previously mentioned, the majority of the exterior woodwork on the lighthouse was damaged by 

Hurricane Fran and replaced in 1996. However, the historic (presumably original) window sash were 

salvaged and are in storage at the North Carolina Maritime Museum in Beaufort, North Carolina. 

These sash were examined as part of this study and were found to retain much of their paint history. 

Unfortunately, the original exterior doors were not located. (Figure 9)

The current paint scheme of the salvaged window sash examined for this study, which must have 

been located at the diagonal seam between black and white sections of the lighthouse exterior, is half 

black and half white. A paint sample was removed form the black portion of the sash and revealed 

approximately 15-20 layers of paint, the majority of which were white or off-white. Therefore, it 

appears that the exterior face of the sash was historically painted solid off-white, even when the 

black and white checkered pattern was applied to the lighthouse masonry. In fact, the historic 

photograph from the early 20th century, visible in Figure 8, shows a light-colored sash in one of the 

window openings within the black-painted area. It seems that the bi-color paint scheme on the sash is 

not original and that it is a fairly recent treatment. (Figure 10)

METALWORK

The exterior metalwork, which is limited to components of the lantern and observation deck levels, 

was also examined as part of this study. Unfortunately, the majority of the metalwork contains only 

recent paint and much of it, including the balconies, are non-original. 

The lantern level metalwork (balcony floor and railings) was examined and found to only contain 

approximately 2-5 layers of modern black paint and no evidence of historic finishes. However, 

historic images of the lighthouse from 1899 and the early 20th century show a dark paint color on the 

metalwork of these areas. (Figures 7 and 8) More useful, however, is a statement in the 1859 Notice to 

Mariners that states that the lantern was painted black.8 Although the physical evidence is lacking, this 

 8 Oppermann, I.B.8.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 12

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

Figure 9. Cape Lookout Lighthouse, October 2008. A salvaged window sash currently located at the North 

Carolina Maritime Museum. Two samples were removed from the exterior face of the sash (arrows). 

Photograph by author.

Figure 10. Cape Lookout Lighthouse. Photomicrograph of Sample CALO. SALV.3, which was removed from the 

exterior face of the salvaged window sash. Between 12 and 18 paint layers were found on the exterior face of the sash 

and the majority of the layers were off-white, even in the area currently painted black. This evidence suggests that the 

sash were painted off-white for the majority of the lighthouse’s history. Photograph by author, 40x magnification.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 13

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

recorded statement is solid evidence that the metalwork of the lantern level was originally painted 

black. The lantern was painted again in 1869, although the paint color is not included in this later 

reference.9 And in 1873, when the diagonal checkered pattern was applied to the lighthouse’s 

masonry, the lantern was again noted as being painted black.10

The roof of the lantern, which is believed to be copper sheet, is currently painted black. Whether or 

not this paint color is original is not known, although both historic images of the lighthouse show a 

dark colored lantern roof. It would be unusual for a copper roof to be painted, as they were typically 

left unpainted and allowed to oxidize a pale blue-green. However, because black is a much more 

visible color (when viewed from the sea and against the sky), it is very possible that the copper roof

was painted black. Access to this area was not possible, so its finish history could not be determined. 

 9 Oppermann, I.B.30

10 Oppermann, I.B.31
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 14

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

4.2 Interior Finishes Analysis

Because of recent restoration efforts, many of the historic interior finishes have been removed from 

the brick and metalwork of the interior. In addition, as previously mentioned, the window sash and 

frames have been replaced, so the amount of historic woodwork is also limited. While some areas of 

preserved finishes were located as part of this study, the majority of the finishes have been disturbed. 

The best evidence of interior finishes was found on the salvaged wood components currently in 

storage at the North Carolina Maritime Museum. These salvaged pieces include original window sash 

and sets of doors and associated beadboard partition walls that are believed to date to a 1914 period 

of modification.11

MASONRY

The interior brick walls, which were blasted in 1996, currently contain minimal evidence of paint 

finishes. The entry vestibule walls and the floors of window wells contain some evidence of 

limewashes, but all other walls throughout the lighthouse are exposed brick. Historical accounts of 

other lighthouse in the same region, namely the Bodie Island Lighthouse to the north, indicate that 

the interior was typically whitewashed on a regular basis.12 This would certainly be in keeping with 

nineteenth century practices of maintenance and hygiene. White limewash was found on the entry 

vestibule walls and also on the bottom four courses of brick in the boiler room (in a location that 

would have been under a wood platform and therefore protected), suggesting that historically a 

white limewash treatment may have been applied to the interior of the lighthouse. Unfortunately, the 

lack of physical evidence prevents this from being documented with any degree of certainty. (Figures 

11 and 12)

WOODWORK

The interior woodwork of the Cape Lookout Lighthouse has a richer finishes history. In general, 

there is consistency between the paint evidence found on the salvaged woodwork and the pieces 

that remain in situ. On several pieces of interior woodwork, the earliest existing paint color is khaki. 

This color was found on a section of salvaged beadboard wall and associated interior door and frame, 

as well as on an in situ section of beadboard wall located on the service level of the lighthouse. These 

components of the lighthouse are believed to be contemporaneous, dating from a 1914 period of 

modification for the lighthouse.13 On the salvaged interior door, the khaki color was documented on 

rails and stiles but the panels were picked out in a dark green. (Figures 13 and 14)

The interior face of the salvaged sash (which dates to the original 1858-59 period of construction) 

does not contain the khaki, only numerous layers of white and off-white. Nor does the wood cabinet 

 11 Based on conversation with Joseph Oppermann, February 6, 2009. 12 Oppermann, I.A.11 13 Based on conversation with Joseph Oppermann, February 6, 2009.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 15

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

located at the watch level contain the khaki paint layer. Its earliest paint scheme consists of a dark, 

cool pale gray on the top surface of the cabinet and white on the face of the cabinet doors. Each area 

of the cabinet that was sampled contained only 5-6 layers of paint, suggesting the earliest paint layers 

may be missing. It is also possible that this piece was added to the lighthouse and is not original, 

meaning its historic paint scheme is not reflective of the lighthouse interior.

The lone wood stair landing in the lighthouse, which dates to 1867, also has evidence of a khaki color

paint followed by several red-browns and blacks. Although similar to the khaki colored paint found 

on other elements of the interior woodwork, the earlier installation date of the floor prevents this 

khaki paint layer form being the same as that found on the doors and beadboard walls. It is possible, 

although unlikely, that the stair landing was stripped and re-painted in 1914 when the other 

modifications were made to the lighthouse interior. It is also possible that this khaki color was a 

primer for subsequent paint applications on the landing, which were predominantly red-brown in 

color. Unfortunately, the earliest paint finish for this landing remains unclear.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 16

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

Figure 11. Cape Lookout Lighthouse, September 2008. Evidence of white limewash on the entry 

vestibule walls. All other finishes have been removed from the interior brick walls. Photograph by author.

Figure 12. Cape Lookout Lighthouse, September 2008. Additional evidence of limewash was found 

in the boiler room, in an area previously covered by a wood platform. Photograph by author.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 17

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

Figure 14. Cape Lookout Lighthouse. A comparison of two paint samples, CALO.SALV.4 (left) and CALO.SALV.5 (right), 

removed from the stile (left) and the recessed panel (right) of a salvaged interior door. Note the layer of dark green applied 

over the original khaki (K) paint only on the sample removed from the panel. This evidence suggests polychromy. 

Photograph by author, 100x magnification.

Figure 13. Cape Lookout Lighthouse, October 

2008. An interior door salvaged from the 

lighthouse and now in storage at the North 

Carolina Maritime Museum. Photograph by 

author.

K

K
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 18

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

METALWORK

Like the exterior, the metalwork on the interior of the lighthouse contains very little evidence of 

historic paint finishes and it was difficult to compare paint layering sequences on various elements. 

The handrail of the stairs and most elements of the stairs, including treads and risers, contain only 

two layers of modern black paint. 

The one metal component of the interior that contains numerous layers of paint, the earliest of 

which may be original, is the glazed lantern frame. Although the frame is composed of two different 

types of metal (ferrous vertical pieces and cooper alloy horizontal pieces), they both appear to have 

always been painted some version of white. One area of the copper alloy component was sampled 

and was found to contain twelve layers of cream or white paint, sometimes applied over a red 

primer. A similar stratigraphy was found on the iron-based component. This light color for the 

interior of the lantern would have been important for reflecting the light from the lens. (Figures 15 

and 16)

Other metal components of the interior were painted differently. The earliest paint color on the 

central cast iron column was dark green (two layers), followed by numerous red-browns and grays. 

The dark green was applied directly over a red primer on the metal, indicating it may have been 

original. In total, however, there were twelve layers of paint applied to the column. The earliest color 

on the cast iron stair treads was dark gray, followed by several red-browns and dark grays. This area 

also contained approximately twelve layers of paint. Although there are a fair number of paint layers 

on both of these interior elements, the lighthouse would have been well maintained and one would 

expect to find evidence of even more paint layers. There is unfortunately no way to determine 

whether or not the early dark green and gray paint colors on these metal components are original.

(Figures 17 and 18)
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 19

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

Figure 15. Cape Lookout Lighthouse. Photomicrograph of Sample CALO. I.22, removed from one of 

the copper alloy components of the glazed lantern frame. Numerous layers of off-white (as well as 

primer red) are visible. There is also a thick metallic paint layer that was applied to the lantern interior 

fairly early in its history but is not original. Photograph by author, 40x magnification.

Figure 16. Cape Lookout Lighthouse, 

September 2008. Glazed lantern, interior face.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 20

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

Figure 17. Cape Lookout Lighthouse. Photomicrograph of Sample CALO. I.3, removed from the astragal of 

the center cast iron column (at the Watch Level). Note the early red-orange primer followed by a dark green 

paint finish at bottom of photograph. This campaign may be original. Photograph by author, 100x magnification.

Figure 18. Cape Lookout Lighthouse, September 2008. Location of Sample CALO.I.3. Photograph by author.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 21

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

4.3 Mortar Analysis

Laboratory analysis of mortar samples removed from two separate locations of brickwork indicates 

that the original mortar used at the lighthouse is a natural cement-based mortar with no lime 

addition. The mortar binder was further identified as a domestic product, even though both 

American and European natural cements were available during the time of the lighthouse’s 

construction. Although the exact provenance of the cement could not be established, it is chemically 

consistent with cements produced in northwestern Georgia.

This mortar type differs from that used for the construction of the original Cape Lookout 

Lighthouse. If the Call for Proposals issued by the Treasury Department in 1810 represents the 

actual construction of the lighthouse, then it was built of “good lime mortar” and not a natural 

cement-based mortar.14 Lime-mortars were far more common than natural cement mortars at this 

early point in the 19th century, as production of natural cements did not begin in earnest until the 

construction of the Erie Canal in 1819.15

A natural cement is defined as an eminently hydraulic lime that is typically derived from the burning 

of highly impure limestone. It is these impurities that give the lime the characteristic of hydraulicity, 

or the ability to set by reaction with water (no air is needed, unlike with pure high calcium limes). 

Natural cements differ from Portland cements, which were produced later, in that the latter are 

artificially produced. Portland cements of the 19th century were made by grinding together chalk and 

clay and then heating the mixture at high temperatures to produce a simulated natural cement. Both 

natural and Portland cements can have quite high strength and durability. 

Natural cement based mortars were quite common in the mid to late 19th century and would have 

been readily available at the time of the lighthouse’s construction. The use of natural cements 

specifically for maritime construction, pioneered by Englishman James Smeaton in the late 18th

century, was also common and has been documented at other sites in the United States, namely Fort 

Adams in Rhode Island and Fort Jefferson in Florida.16

In addition to the binder of the Cape Lookout Lighthouse mortar, the aggregate portion of the 

mortar was also examined. The sand used for the mortar was identified as a clean and narrowly 

graded siliceous aggregate typical of a fine beach sand, most likely harvested from the Outer Banks 

region. It is light brownish-gray in color (Munsell 10YR 6.5/1.5) and contains traces of carbonate shell 

fragments and coal dust, although the latter most likely represents contaminants form the binder. 

 14 Oppermann, I.B.2. 15 Eckel, Edwin C. Cements, Limes and Plasters. Reprinted Third Edition. Dorset: Donhead Publishing, 2005. Page 242. 16 Martin, Mary Catherine, “Military Experiments with Lime and Hydraulic Cement Mortars in Seacoast Fortifications”, 

paper presented at 2003 APTI Conference, Portland, Maine.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 22

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

Although finding a source for the original sand was not included in this study, a sample of the sand 

adjacent to the lighthouse was removed from the site for visual comparison with the sand extracted 

as part of the analysis. The sand in the brick mortar is darker in color than the sample of sand 

removed from the island and does not appear to be an exact match.

The average binder to sand ratio for the mortar was identified as 1 part binder to 1.5 parts sand 

(1: 1.6 for sample CALO. Mortar.1 and 1: 1.3 for sample CALO. Mortar.2). While these proportions 

may be considered quite binder-rich by contemporary standards, ratios of 1: 1 and 1: 2 were typical 

for 19th century natural cement mortars.

17 In addition, although non-hydraulic lime was sometimes 

added to natural cement mortars to retard set and increase workability, the Cape Lookout 

Lighthouse mortar shows no evidence of any addition of lime.

For a more in depth discussion of the specific findings of the mortar analysis performed as part of 

this study, including detailed characterization of the aggregate and binder as well as annotated 

photomicrographs, refer to Appendix C.

 17 Baker, Ira O. A Treatise on Masonry Construction. 9th Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1906. Page 85.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 23

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

Figure 19. Cape Lookout Lighthouse, September 2008. Area of typical interior brickwork showing 

the brick’s hand-pressed, low-fired quality and appearance. Photograph by author.

Figure 20. Cape Lookout Lighthouse, September 2008. An area where inappropriate Portland 

cement based re-pointing mortar has caused the original brick to spall and the original mortar to 

deteriorate. Photograph by author.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 24

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

4.4 Brick Analysis

The bricks that the Cape Lookout Lighthouse is constructed of are low-fired and handmade, with 

subtle variations in color and texture due to the low temperature firing process. There are also 

numerous visible inclusions of aggregate and clay, as well as evidence micro-cracks from the forming 

process. Although much of the brickwork on the exterior of the building is obscured by paint, the 

interior brick is currently exposed. (Figured 19 and 20)

Laboratory analysis was performed on brick units removed from the interior of the ground floor 

boiler room of the lighthouse. Testing included compressive strength and water absorption, in 

accordance with ASTM C 67-07. The results of the testing indicate that all brick samples tested meet 

the ASTM-established absorption requirements and that the majority of the brick samples meet the 

compressive strength requirements for Grade MW (moderate weathering).

The results of the testing indicate that the compressive strength of the bricks is better than 

expected, typically exceeding the ASTM minimum requirement for Grade MW (moderate 

weathering) brick. In addition, 50% of the time the compressive strength for individual brick 

exceeded the minimum requirement for Grade SW (severe weathering) brick. The average gross 

area compressive strength of the four brick samples tested is 2,720 psi. The minimum requirement 

for the gross area compressive strength of Grade MW bricks is 2,500 psi and for Grade SW is 3,000 

psi.

Results of the absorption testing indicate that the average absorption of the brick samples is below 

the maximum average of the ASTM requirements for both Grade SW and Grade MW, and the 

results meet the individual requirements for absorption. The average saturation coefficient of the 

bricks tested is also below the maximum average requirement for Grade SW and Grade MW. 

Based on the results of the testing, the brick can be considered adequate in terms of meeting the 

basic requirements for MW (moderate weathering) grade brick and is perfectly suitable for their 

intended use at the lighthouse. Areas of distress noted on the interior of the lighthouse seem to be 

related to re-pointing campaigns in which hard, Portland cement-based mortars were used. The 

condition of the brick on the exterior or the lighthouse is unknown. The brick were reportedly 

blasted with water in the 1990s to prepare for a re-painting campaign and were then subsequently 

covered with thick, non-breathable coatings. These actions may have harmed the brick by removing 

portions of the outer fireskin and also trapping in moisture, conditions which may affect their overall 

water absorption and possibly their compressive strength properties. Additional testing of brick

removed from the exterior is also recommended to ensure that the physical properties of the brick 

have not been adversely impacted by the blasting and current paint coatings.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 25

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

For a more in depth discussion of the specific findings of the brick analysis performed as part of this 

study, including all laboratory data, refer to Appendix D.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 26

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Finishes

Making recommendations for appropriate restoration finishes for the lighthouse poses some 

challenges. Firstly, some of the building’s paint evidence has been lost and much of the woodwork 

replaced; preventing historic paint finishes from being documented for certain elements. In addition, 

making recommendations to restore the paint colors to a specific point in time is not altogether 

straightforward. This is due to the fact that the National Park Service may decide not to recreate the 

lighthouse’s original paint scheme since its current appearance, although not original, has become 

somewhat iconic and is historic in its own right. Fortunately, many of the lighthouse’s architectural 

features retained a consistent color palette for the majority of their life, making recommendations 

for these elements easier. Because of the possibility of two different periods of interpretation for the 

lighthouse, recommendations and color matches are provided for paint finishes from both of these 

significant historic periods whenever possible.

Please note that the lack of surviving physical evidence prevents recommendations from being made 

for certain elements of the lighthouse. This is particularly true of the building’s metal components 

(interior and exterior), which have been stripped and re-painted numerous times over the course of 

the lighthouse’s history. The Munsell and Benjamin Moore color matches provided below are based 

solely on surviving physical evidence and are only for those paint colors known to date to 1858-59 or 

1873. However, when archival information (written or photographic) indicates a color for an element 

that no longer contains physical paint evidence, a description of the original color is included below 

but without a specific color match.

The recommended paint colors for restoration are provided below. Specific color matches have 

been made to both the standardized Munsell color system and the commercial Benjamin Moore paint 

palette. Please note that any attempt to reproduce this page, including printing from the electronic 

version of the report, will distort the color of the provided chips. Only the actual color chip or 

notation should be used for paint replication purposes.
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 27

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

EXTERIOR

1858-59 Ca. 1873

Brick Masonry

Red Limewash

Munsell 10R 4/8

Benjamin Moore 035

Alternating Black and White

Munsell N 0.5 & 10YR 9/2

Benjamin Moore Black & OC-34

Window Sash

Off-white

Munsell 5Y 9/2

Benjamin Moore OC-13

Off-white

[Based on Archival Photographs -

No Match Provided]

Window Frames

Inconclusive

[No Match Provided]

Off-white

[Based on Archival Photographs -

No Match Provided]

Lantern

Black

[Based on Written Archival 

Documentation - No Match 

Provided]

Black

[Based on Archival Photographs -

No Match Provided]
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 28

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

INTERIOR

1858-59 1873

Brick Masonry

Inconclusive, Possibly White 

Limewash [Based on Written 

Archival Documentation - No 

Match Provided]

Inconclusive, Possibly White 

Limewash [Based on Written 

Archival Documentation - No 

Match Provided]

Window Sash

Off-white

Munsell 5Y 9/2

Benjamin Moore OC-13

Inconclusive, Possibly Off-white

[No Match Provided]

Window Frames

Inconclusive

[No Match Provided]

Inconclusive, Possibly Off-white

[Based on Archival Photographs -

No Match Provided]

Watch Level Cabinets

Inconclusive

[No Match Provided]

Inconclusive

[No Match Provided]
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 29

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

1858-59 1873

Stair Handrails

Inconclusive, Possibly Black

[No Match Provided]

Inconclusive, Possibly Black

[No Match Provided]

Lantern Frame

Inconclusive, Possibly White

[No Match Provided]

Inconclusive

[No Match Provided]

Central Cast Iron 

Column

Dark Green

Munsell 2.5G 4/4

Benjamin Moore 630

Inconclusive

[No Match Provided]

Stair Treads

Inconclusive, Possibly Dark Gray

[No Match Provided]

Inconclusive

[No Match Provided]
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 30

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

1858-59 1873

Wood Stair Landing

[Non-Applicable, Dates to 1867] Inconclusive

[No Match Provided]

Interior Doors and Bead 

Board Walls

[Note: These elements 

date to 1914]

[Non-Applicable, Dates to 1914] Khaki & Green(1914 paint scheme)

Munsell 5Y 6/1 & 10GY 3/4

Benjamin Moore 1537 & 637
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA. Page 31

Materials Analysis

BUILDING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATES INC February 2009

5.2 Masonry

Analysis of the brick masonry and mortar of Cape Lookout Lighthouse indicates that the original 

construction was composed of low-fired brick laid up with a natural cement mortar. These materials 

are typical for the period and especially for maritime construction of the period. The masonry 

system has apparently held up well through the years, even in the harsh maritime environment of 

wind and salt-laden sea air. However, the full extent of the brick and mortar condition cannot be 

determined because of the thick synthetic paint coatings applied on the exterior of the lighthouse. It 

is safe to say, however, that the impervious modern coatings are not appropriate for the masonry 

and are most likely trapping moisture in the walls and exacerbating any existing deterioration. 

Evaluation of this aspect of the masonry construction falls outside of the scope of this research.

In addition to inappropriate exterior masonry coatings, the lighthouse has also undergone some 

incompatible masonry repairs. These repairs used dense mortars based on Portland cement and 

often replacement bricks that do not match the original brick, neither visually nor dimensionally. The 

Portland cement-based repairs are particularly problematic, as they have caused significant albeit 

localized damage to the original masonry adjacent to the repair area. This damage is visible in repair 

areas on the inside walls of the lighthouse. The extent of the re-pointing on the exterior (and any 

damage it may be causing) is unknown because of the existing paint coatings.

For future re-pointing campaigns, it is important that the correct mortar be used. It may also be 

prudent to replace existing repair campaigns with a more appropriate mortar. Mortars based on 

large amounts of Portland cement are typically too strong and dense to be used in combination with 

the type of low-fired brick and, as previously mentioned, have already caused damage to the 

lighthouse. However, the use of a high calcium or hydraulic lime mortar would also be inappropriate. 

Current research and recently completed restoration projects have documented the failure of such 

mortars in similar buildings in coastal environments. 

The recommended restoration mortar for the Cape Lookout Lighthouse is as follows:

Binder: natural cement (available from Edison Coatings)

Sand: fine grayish brown siliceous sand (to match provided sieve analysis and sand sample)

Component Ratio (binder: sand): 1:1.5
APPENDIX A.

KEY TO SAMPLE LOCATIONS
CAPE LOOKOUT

PAINT SAMPLE LIST

Sample 

Number

Level Location Notes

CALO.I.1 Watch Interior, wood 

cabinet, top

Top, at areas of paint buildup from 

vertical membrane (now gone).

CALO.I.2 Watch Interior, wood 

cabinet, front

Front T&G door.

CALO.I.3 Watch Interior, center 

column shaft, 

astragal

CALO.I.4 Watch Interior, cast iron 

stair, tread

Between watch and lantern levels.

CALO.I.5 Watch Interior, door to 

balcony, surround

Interior face; 1914 addition.

CALO.I.6 Lantern Interior, glass 

lantern; vertical 

frame member

Interior face of ferrous member.

CALO.I.7 Lantern Interior, glass 

lantern; horizontal 

frame member

Interior face of copper alloy

member.

CALO.I.8 Lantern Interior, cast iron 

platform

Below rotating lens.

CALO.I.9 Service Interior, T&G 

boardwall, board

1914 addition.

CALO.I.10 Service Interior, T&G 

boardwall, door 

casing

1914 addition.

CALO.I.11 Service Interior, stair 

tread, underside

Between service and watch level.

CALO.I.12 Service Interior, cast iron 

column, from 

landing

CALO.I.13 Service Interior, handrail, 

just before 

boardwall of 

service level

CALO.I.14 Interior, stair tread Between service level and Landing 

6.

CALO.I.15 Interior, center 

column

Between service level and Landing

6.

CALO.I.16 Interior, landing, 

underside, I-beam 

support

CALO.I.17 Interior, wood 
Sample 

Number

Level Location Notes

stair landing

CALO.I.18 2nd fl. level Interior, door 

frame at entry to 

2nd floor level

CALO.I.19 Machinery 

Room

Machinery room,

interior.

Finishes on brick.

CALO.I.20 Wood stair 

landing, floor.

Finishes on wood.

CALO.I.21 Wood stair 

landing, brick 

window well.

Finishes on brick.

CALO.I.22 Lantern Bronze lantern 

frame.

Paint on bronze.

CALO.I.23 Handrail. Paint on ferrous metal.

CALO.E.1 Watch Exterior, metal 

door, surround

1914 addition.

CALO.E.2 Watch Exterior, balcony, 

underside 

Lantern level cast iron observation 

deck.

CALO.E.3 Watch Exterior, metal 

railing

Rounded connection joint.

CALO.E.4 Watch Exterior, copper 

sheet metal conical 

cover

For interior air vent.

CALO.E.5 Watch Exterior, brick 

masonry

CALO.E.6 Lantern Exterior, 

observation deck, 

cast in place floor,

CALO.E.7 Lantern Exterior, 

observation deck, 

copper alloy 

vertical member.

CALO.E.8 Ground Exterior, paint on 

brick.

Currently white.

CALO.E.9 Ground Exterior, paint on 

brick.

Currently black.

CALO.E.10 Ground Exterior, paint on 

brick.

CALO.E.11 Ground Exterior, paint on 

mortar.
Sample 

Number

Level Location Notes

CALO.SALV.1 N/A Salvaged, window 

sash, interior face, 

stile.

CALO.SALV.2 N/A Salvaged, window 

sash, exterior face, 

stile, black portion.

CALO.SALV.3 N/A Salvaged, window 

sash, exterior face, 

stile, white 

portion.

CALO.SALV.4 N/A Salvaged, storage 

level door, rim 

lock face, lock stile.

CALO.SALV.5 N/A Salvaged, storage 

level door, door

knob/rosette face, 

bottom recessed 

panel.

CALO.SALV.6 N/A Salvaged, storage 

level door frame

CALO.SALV.7 N/A Salvaged, storage 

level door frame, 

beadboard wall 

above.

CALO.SALV.8 N/A Salvaged, unlabeled 

door, rim lock 

face, hinge stile.

CALO.SALV.9 N/A Salvaged, unlabeled 

door, door 

knob/rosette face, 

hinge stile.
APPENDIX B.

SAMPLE STRATIGRAPHIES AND 

PHOTOMICROGRAPHS
CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHTHOUSE

PAINT STRATIGRAPHY

EXTERIOR

   Visible light, 40x UV light. 40x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.E.1 

LOCATION: Watch Level, metal door, surround

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Metal

1 Pale green Green Traces 

2 red dark gray

3 black light gray

4 black gray

5

6

7

8

9

10

11
   Visible light, 100x UV light. 100x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.E.2

LOCATION: Watch Level, Balcony, underside

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Metal-Rust

1 Black

2 Black

3 Black

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11
 Visible light, 40x UV light. 40x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.E.3a

LOCATION: Watch Level, metal railing

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate

1 Red Primer

2 Black

3 Silver Primer

4 Black

5 Black

6 Black

7 Black

8 Black

9

10

11
   Visible light, 100x UV light. 100x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.E.3b

LOCATION: Watch Level, metal railing

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Metal

1 Silver Red

2 Black Black

3 Black Black

4 Black Brown

5 Black

6

7

8

9

10

11
   Visible light, 100x UV light. 100x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.E.4

LOCATION: Watch Level, copper sheet metal conical cover

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate

1 Red-orange Primer

2 Red

3 Black Blue-green

4 Black Light blue-green

5 Black Dark gray Uneven, weathered

6 White White

7 Black Black

8 Black Bright bluegreen

9 Black Black Thick

10 Black Light blue-green Thick

11 Black Dark gray Very thin

12
 Visible light, 100x UV light. 100x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.E.5a

LOCATION: Watch Level, brick masonry

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Brick

1 Red-orange Red-orange Limewash

2 Red Dark red Limewash? Brick?

3 White White

4 Black Black

5 Black Gray

6

7

8

9

10

11
 Visible light, 100x UV light. 100x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.E.5b

LOCATION: Watch Level, brick masonry

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Brick

1 Black Dark gray

2 Black Dark blue-gray Smooth

3 Black Dark Gray Not continuous

4 White White/iridescent

5 Dark gray Gray

6

7

8

9

10

11
 Visible light, 100x UV light. 100x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.E.6

LOCATION: Lantern Level, Observation Deck, cast iron plate floor

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate

1 Reflective green Blueish-white 

matrix

Heterogenous pigment particles fluorescing 

differently; primer

2 Black Gray Smooth

3 Black Blue-green Very thin

4 Black Gray Smooth

5 Dirt

6 Gray Very thin

7 Dirt

8 Black Blue-green

9 Silver Multi-color

10 Black Gray

11 Black Blue

12 Black Gray
   Visible light, 100x UV light. 100x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.E.7

LOCATION: Lantern Level, Observation Deck, copper alloy vertical member

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate

1 White/tan Blue-green Paint? Oxidation?

2 Silver Multi-color Thick; primer – seems to match to later 

layers in CALO.E.6 suggesting this is a later 

finish and was either unpainted or had earlier 

paint removed

3 Black Blue

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11
   Visible light, 40x UV light. 40x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.E.8a

LOCATION: Exterior paint on brick

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Mortar

1 Red Red Limewash

2 White White Paint

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11
   Visible light, 40x UV light. 40x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.E.8b

LOCATION: Exterior paint on brick, currently white

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Brick

1 Red Limewash (see sample E.8a)

2 Gray-white Bright gray

3 Creamy white Bright white Separated within – not continuous

4 Off-white Blue-green

5 Dirt/separation

6 Pinky-white Off-white

7 Pinky-white Bright pinkywhite

8 Pinky-white Cream

9 Creamy white Bright bluegreenThin

10 White Blue-green

11 White Pink

12 White White

13 Dirt

14 White Pink

15 Gray-white Pink

16
   Visible light, 40x UV light. 40x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.E.9

LOCATION: Exterior paint on brick, currently black

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Brick

1 Red limewash

2 Gray Gray

3 White Blue-green Very thick

4 Gray Gray

5 Dirt

6 White White

7 Black Black

8 White White Thin

9 Black Black

10 White White Thin

11 Black Black
  

Visible light, 40x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.E.10

LOCATION: Exterior paint on brick.

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Brick

1 Orange-red limewash

2 Brown-red limewash

3 Black

4 Black

5 Gray

6 White

7 Black

8 White

9 Black
Visible light, 40x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.E.11

LOCATION: Exterior paint on mortar.

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Brick

1 Orange-red limewash

2 Brown-red limewash

3 Black

4 Black

5 Black

6 White

7 Black

8 White

9 Black

10 White

11 Black
INTERIOR

   Visible light, 40x UV light. 40x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.I.1

LOCATION: Watch Level, wood cabinet, top

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Wood

1 White/Light gray Very, very thin and uneven

2 Gray Gray

3 Dirt

4 White Cream

5 Gray Gray Uneven, weathered

6 Dirt

7 Light gray Green Uneven – separation at this layer

8 Dirt

9 White

10 White Pink

11

12

13
   Visible light, 100x UV light. 100x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.I.2

LOCATION: Watch Level, wood cabinet, front

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Wood

1 Beige Bright white

2 Creamy White Bright beige Separation at this layer

3 White Blue-green

4 Dirt

5 Creamy White Bright white

6 White Bright gray

7 Dirt

8 Gray Dark gray

9 White Blue-green

10

11
   Visible light, 100x UV light. 100x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.I.3

LOCATION: Watch Level, center column shaft, astragal

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Metal

1 Orange Primer

2 Green

3 Dark Green

4 Dark Green

5 Red Thick, primer, heavily prepped surface

6 Light gray

7 Blue-gray

8 Gray

9 Light Gray

10 Blue-gray

11 Gray

12 White
   Visible light, 40x UV light. 40x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.I.4

LOCATION: Watch Level, Cast iron stair, tread, between watch and lantern levels

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Metal

1 Gray

2 Dark Gray/Black

3 Red Primer

4 Red Primer

5 White? Very distressed layer

6 Red

7 Red

8 Brown-red?

9 Red

10 Blue-gray

11 Gray
   Visible light, 100x UV light. 100x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.I.5

LOCATION: Watch Level, door to balcony, surround, interior face

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Metal

1 Dark Gray Fill 

2 Black

3 Red Red

4 White Pink

5

6

7

8

9

10

11
   Visible light, 100x UV light. 100x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.I.6

LOCATION: Lantern Level, glass lantern vertical frame member, interior face

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Metal

1 Red Brown Primer

2 Silver Multi-color Primer

3 White Blue-green

4 Beige Beige Thin

5 White Blue-green Separation at this layer

6 Beige/Tan Brown

7 White Light gray

8 Light gray Blue-green

9 White Bright gray

10 White Bright blue-green

11
   Visible light, 200x UV light. 200x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.I.7

LOCATION: Lantern Level, glass lantern horizontal frame member, interior face

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate

1 Green n/a Thin, uneven

2 Silver Multi-color Not continuous

3 Red-orange n/a Thin, uneven

4 White Blue-green

5 Dirt/separation

6 White Blue-green/gray

7 White Blue-green

8 White n/a

9 White n/a Uneven

10 Dirt

11 White Bright bluegreen

12 White Blue-green/gray
   Visible light, 100x UV light. 100x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.I.8

LOCATION: Lantern Level, cast iron platform, below rotating lens

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate

1 Red Beige/Pink Primer

2 Dirt/separation

3 Light gray Bright bluegreenPrimer

4 Gray Gray Uneven

5 Gray Blue-green

6 Silver n/a

7 Dark gray Bright bluegreen

8 White

9

10

11
   Visible light, 40x UV light. 40x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.I.9

LOCATION: Service Level, tongue and groove boardwall board

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate wood

1 Lt. khaki/wm. 

gray

Dark

2 Cream Blue-white

3 Off-white

4 White

5 White Blue-white

6 White Blue-white

7 cCeam Blue-white

8 Cream White

9 Cream Blue-white

10 Cream

11 Off-white Dark

12 White Blue-white

13 White
   Visible light, 40x UV light. 40x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.I.11

LOCATION: Service Level, Stair tread, underside, between service and watch levels

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Metal

1 Dark gray Thick

2 Black Partial

3 Beige Brown

4 Dark Gray Brown

5 Iridescent green

6 Silver Partial

7 Red Partial

8 Red Partial

9 White

10

11
   Visible light, 200x UV light. 200x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.I.12

LOCATION: Service Level, cast iron column, from landing

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate

1 Brown Brown

2 White Blue-green

3 Orange Partial

4 Silver n/a

5 White Blue-green

6

7

8

9

10

11
   Visible light, 200x UV light. 200x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.I.13

LOCATION: Service Level, handrail, just before beadborad wall of service level

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate

1 Beige Multi-color

2 Beige n/a

3 Red n/a

4 Silver/green

5 Black Blue

6

7

8

9

10

11
   Visible light, 100x UV light. 100x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.I.14

LOCATION: Service Level, stair tread between service level and landing

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate

1 Black Gray

2 Red Beige

3 Silver

4 Black n/a

5 White n/a

6

7

8

9

10

11
   Visible light, 40x UV light. 40x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.I.15

LOCATION: Service Level, center column, between service level and landing

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Metal

1 Light Gray

2 Dark gray/Black

3 Dark gray/Black

4 Light Gray

5 Beige

6 White

7 Brown

8 Silver

9 Black

10

11
   Visible light, 40x UV light. 40x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.I.17

LOCATION: Service Level, wood stair landing

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Wood SHOULD RELATE TO I.14

1 Brown

2 Black

3 Red-brown n/a Cracks within

4 Red-brown

5 Red-brown

6 Red-brown

7 Light gray Light gray

8 Dirt

9 White Light gray

10 Beige Pink Should relate to other samples

11 Red n/a

Black n/a
   Visible light, 200x UV light. 200x

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.I.18

LOCATION: Service Level, door frame at entry to second floor level

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Wood Stripped surface

1 Blue-gray Gray

2 White Bright blue-green Thin

3 White Blue-green Thick

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11
   Visible light, 40x (Part A) Visible light. 40x (Part B)

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.I.20

LOCATION: Wood Stair Landing, Floor.

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Wood

1 Warm gray

2 Res. brown

3 White

4 Red-orange

5 Gray

6 Black

7 Red-orange

8 Red-orange

9 Red-orange

10 Peach

11 Red-orange

12 Black

13 Brown
Visible light, 40x 

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.I.21

LOCATION: Wood Stair Landing, Brick Window Well Floor.

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Brick

1 Red-brown

2 Red-brown

3 Black

4 Black

5 Black

6 Black

7 Off-white limewash

8 Off-white limewash

9 White
Visible light, 40x 

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.I.22

LOCATION: Lantern, bronze frame piece.

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate

1 Red-orange

2 Cream

3 Cream

4 Silver thick

5 Cream

6 Yellow-green

7 Orange

8 White

9 Orange

10 White

11 Orange

12 White

13 Salmon

14 White

15 White

16 Red-orange

17 White

18 White

19 White
Visible light, 100x 

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.I.23

LOCATION: Interior hand rail

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate

1 White

2 Red

3 Green

4 Silver

5 White

6 Black

7 Black
Visible light, 40x 

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.SALV.1

LOCATION: Salvaged interior window sash, interior face.

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Wood

1 White

2 White

3 White

4 White

5 White

6 White

7 Light Gray

8 White

9 Off-White grayish
Visible light, 100x 

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.SALV.2

LOCATION: Salvaged interior window sash, exterior face (black)

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate None

1 White

2 White

3 White

4 White

5 White

6 White

7 White

8 White

9 White

10 Black Leaked down through earlier layers

11 Black
Visible light, 40x 

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.SALV.3

LOCATION: Salvaged interior window sash, exterior face (white)

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate None

1 White Creamy

2 White Grayish

3 White Grayish

4 White Grayish

5 White Creamy

6 White

7 White Creamy

8 White Creamy

9 White

10 White

11 White Grayish

12 White

13 White

14 White Creamy

15 White

16 White

17 White

18 White

19 White
Visible light, 100x 

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.SALV.4

LOCATION: Salvaged interior door, stile

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate None

1 Light khaki/warm 

gray

2 White

3 White

4 White

5 White

6 White

7 White

8 White

9 Gray

10 White
Visible light, 100x 

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.SALV.5

LOCATION: Salvaged interior door, panel

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate None

1 Light khaki/warm gray

2 Dark kelly green

3 White

4 White

5 White

6 White

7 White

8 White

9 White
Visible light, 100x 

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.SALV.6

LOCATION: Salvaged interior door frame

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate None

1 White

2 White

3 White

4 White Grayish

5 White Creamy

6 White

7 White

8 White

9 White

10 White

11 White Grayish

12 White

13 White

14 White

15 White

16 White

17 White

18 White

19 White
Visible light, 40x 

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.SALV.7

LOCATION: Salvaged interior beadboard wall

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate None

1 Khaki

2 Dark gray brownish

3 Blue-gray

4 Medium gray

5 Medium gray

6 Blue-gray

7 Dark gray

8 White

9 White

10 White

11 White

12 White

13 White

14 White

15 White

16 White

17 White

18 White

19 White

20 White

21 White

22 White
Visible light, 100x 

*bold indicates a finish layer

SAMPLE NO: CALO.SALV.9

LOCATION: Salvaged interior door, unknown location

LAYER* COLOR (VL) COLOR (UV) NOTES

Substrate Wood

1 White

2 White

3 White

4 White

5 White

6 White

7 Green metallic

8 White
APPENDIX C.

MORTAR ANALYSIS REPORT

(TESTWELL, INC. 2008)
TESTWELL, INC. 

Building Conservation Associates, Inc.; Cape Lookout Lighthouse 

Report #: OPCL008/PGE-001 

Page 2 of 15 

 

1. Introduction 

On September 29, 2008, Testwell received two mortar samples from Ms. Dorothy Krotzer of Building Conservation 

Associates, Inc. reported to have been sampled from the Cape Lookout Lighthouse in North Carolina. The samples are 

identified as follows: 

CALO.Mortar.1: Watch level observation deck 

CALO.Mortar.2: Interior first floor space of the ground level, lower portion of the west wall. 

At the client’s request, comprehensive mortar analysis is performed on both samples. The comprehensive testing includes 

petrographic examination combined with chemical analysis to identify all binder and sand components and provide an 

estimate of the original binder to sand ratio. Additionally, a separation, gradation and description of the sand is requested 

with return of the recovered aggregate sample to the client. 

 

2. Methods of Examination 

The petrographic examination is conducted in accordance with the standard practices contained within ASTM C1324: 

Standard Test Method for Examination and Analysis of Hardened Masonry Mortar. Data collection is performed by a 

degreed geologist who by nature of his/her education is qualified to operate the analytical equipment employed. Analysis 

and interpretation is performed or directed by a supervising petrographer who satisfies the qualifications as specified in 

Section 3 of ASTM C856. 

Chemical analysis was conducted according to the procedures outlined in ASTM C1324: Standard Test Method for 

Examination and Analysis of Hardened Masonry Mortar. Water, carbon dioxide and aggregate weight percentages are 

determined gravimetrically. Oxide weight percentages are determined by atomic absorption spectroscopy. 
TESTWELL, INC. 

Building Conservation Associates, Inc.; Cape Lookout Lighthouse 

Report #: OPCL008/PGE-001 

Page 3 of 15 

3. Petrographic Findings 

SAMPLE ID CALO.Mortar.1 

GENERAL APPEARANCE 

Sample Type Several medium-sized, irregular mortar samples with a combined weight of 205.8 g. 

Surfaces Surfaces are not obvious in the irregular samples though some minor residues of adherent brick are observed. 

Hardness / Friability Moderately hard and non-friable. 

Appearance Freshly exposed surfaces have a dull luster and are grayish brown in color (Munsell color code approximately 10YR 

5/2). 

Other Details No cracks, efflorescence, or other secondary mineral deposits are detected in hand sample. No obvious binder grains 

are visible. 

AGGREGATE 

Lithology and Mode Siliceous natural sand. The aggregate consists predominantly of quartz with traces of carbonate shell fragments, 

feldspar, and amphibolite. 

Appearance The aggregate is a uniform, moderately bright lustered, sand with a light brownish gray color (Munsell color code 

approximately 10YR 6.5/1.5). Traces of coal dust are found in the sand recovery but these likely represent 

contaminants from the binder. 

Size and Gradation The sand is fine-grained with a nominal top size measured at the No. 16 sieve. The aggregate is narrowly graded with 

most material falling between the No. 30 and No. 100 sieve sizes. Fines are present in minor abundance. 

Shape Rounded to subrounded in shape. Subequant in aspect ratio on average. 

Distribution Homogeneous and randomly oriented. Individual grains are separated from one another with a significant amount of 

binder. There is a good filling of sand interstices and no significant point contacts between grains. 

Other No cracking, coatings, or chemical reactions are detected. 

BINDER MATRIX 

Hardened Binder Homogeneous hydraulic matrix with moderate to moderately high capillary porosity. 

Residual Hydraulic Binder Natural cement relicts are found in high abundance as variously sized grains with internal textures consistent with the 

calcination of an argillaceous, dolomitic limestone. 

Residual Lime Binder Relict lime grains are not identified. 

Residual Pozzolans None detected. 

Pigments None detected. 

AIR-VOID SYSTEM 

Estimated Air Content 12 - 15% 

Consolidation / Distribution The mortar is well consolidated and the air distribution is homogeneous. 

Size / Shape Voids are generally less than 1 mm in dimension. Voids are homogeneously distributed and mostly subspherical in 

shape. 

Secondary Deposits No significant secondary deposits are detected. 

AGGREGATE INTERFACES 

Details Sand grains are well coated with binder. Bonds are hard and aggregate grains not easily dislodged from the matrix. No

hydration variations, cracking or significant secondary mineral deposits are found at aggregate interfaces. 

SECONDARY REACTIONS 

Carbonation The outer several millimeters of the sample is fully carbonated along most edges while the interior is partially 

carbonated. 

Other A somewhat continuous veneer of paste exhibiting textures consistent with acidic leaching is found around most edges 

of the sample. No other secondary mineral deposits are detected. 

CRACKING 

Details No significant microscopic or macroscopic cracking is observed. 
TESTWELL, INC. 

Building Conservation Associates, Inc.; Cape Lookout Lighthouse 

Report #: OPCL008/PGE-001 

Page 4 of 15 

SAMPLE ID CALO.Mortar.2 

GENERAL APPEARANCE 

Sample Type Many small-sized, irregular mortar fragments with a combined weight of 70.6 g. Several small brick fragments are 

included in the sample. 

Surfaces Surfaces are not obvious in the irregular samples. 

Hardness / Friability Moderately soft and non-friable. 

Appearance Freshly exposed surfaces have a dull luster and are light gray in color (Munsell color code approximately 2.5Y 7/2).

Other Details No cracks, efflorescence, or other secondary mineral deposits are detected in hand sample. No obvious binder grains 

are visible. 

AGGREGATE 

Lithology and Mode Siliceous natural sand. The aggregate consists predominantly of quartz with traces of carbonate shell fragments, 

feldspar, and amphibolite. 

Appearance The aggregate is a uniform, moderately bright lustered, sand with a light brownish gray color (Munsell color code 

approximately 10YR 6.5/1.5). Traces of coal dust are found in the sand recovery but these likely represent 

contaminants from the binder. 

Size and Gradation The sand is fine-grained with a nominal top size measured at the No. 30 sieve. The aggregate is narrowly graded with 

most material falling between the No. 30 and No. 100 sieve sizes. Fines are present in minor abundance. 

Shape Rounded to subrounded in shape. Subequant in aspect ratio on average. 

Distribution Homogeneous and randomly oriented. Individual grains are separated from one another with a significant amount of 

binder. There is a good filling of sand interstices and no significant point contacts between grains. 

Other No cracking, coatings, or chemical reactions are detected. 

BINDER MATRIX 

Hardened Binder Homogeneous hydraulic matrix with moderate to moderately high capillary porosity. 

Residual Hydraulic Binder Natural cement relicts are found in high abundance as variously sized grains with internal textures consistent with the 

calcination of an argillaceous, dolomitic limestone. 

Residual Lime Binder Relict lime grains are not identified. 

Residual Pozzolans None detected. 

Pigments None detected. 

AIR-VOID SYSTEM 

Estimated Air Content 8 - 10% 

Consolidation / Distribution The mortar is well consolidated and the air distribution is homogeneous. 

Size / Shape Voids are generally less than 1 mm in dimension. Voids are homogeneously distributed and mostly subspherical in 

shape. 

Secondary Deposits Secondary carbonate is found in many of the air-voids. 

AGGREGATE INTERFACES 

Details Sand grains are well coated with binder. Bonds are moderate and aggregate grains relatively easy to dislodge from the 

matrix. No hydration variations, cracking or significant secondary mineral deposits are found at aggregate interfaces. 

SECONDARY REACTIONS 

Carbonation The cementitious paste is mostly carbonated throughout. 

Other No other secondary mineral deposits are detected. However, smaller air-voids tend to be filled with fine recrystallized 

carbonate while larger voids are lined by the same type of deposit. 

CRACKING 

Details No significant microscopic or macroscopic cracking is observed. 
TESTWELL, INC. 

Building Conservation Associates, Inc.; Cape Lookout Lighthouse 

Report #: OPCL008/PGE-001 

Page 5 of 15 

4. Aggregate Sieve Analysis 

Aggregate analysis is performed by digesting the mortar sample in an appropriate acid sufficient to dissolve the binder. 

Recovered fines are examined petrographically in order to determine whether they represent undigested binder components in 

which case the data are adjusted accordingly. Qualitative descriptions of the sands are given in the petrographic tables above

and the recovered samples are provided with this report. It should be understood that the sample size is significantly smaller

than would be required to perform a sieve analysis on fresh aggregate materials as per ASTM C136 and some small errors 

should be expected.

Table 4.1: Raw Data

SAMPLE ID CALO.Mortar.1 CALO.Mortar.2 

Sieve Retention (g) 

No. 4 0.00 0.00 

No. 8 0.00 0.00 

No. 16 0.06 0.00 

No. 30 1.08 0.16 

No. 50 15.17 3.93 

No. 100 26.89 7.08 

No. 200 1.28 0.30 

Pan 0.30 0.06 

Table 4.2: Cumulative Percent Passing

SAMPLE ID CALO.Mortar.1 CALO.Mortar.2 

Cumulative Passing 

No. 4 100.0 100.0 

No. 8 100.0 100.0 

No. 16 99.9 100.0 

No. 30 97.5 98.6 

No. 50 63.6 64.5 

No. 100 3.5 3.1 

No. 200 0.7 0.5 

Table 4.3: Cumulative Percent Retained

SAMPLE ID CALO.Mortar.1 CALO.Mortar.2 

Cumulative Retained 

No. 4 0.0 0.0 

No. 8 0.0 0.0 

No. 16 0.1 0.0 

No. 30 2.5 1.4 

No. 50 36.4 35.5 

No. 100 96.5 96.9 

No. 200 99.3 99.5 

Fineness Modulus 1.36 1.34 
TESTWELL, INC. 

Building Conservation Associates, Inc.; Cape Lookout Lighthouse 

Report #: OPCL008/PGE-001 

Page 6 of 15 

5. Chemical Analyses

Table 5.1: Chemical Analysis Results

SAMPLE ID CALO.Mortar.1 CALO.Mortar.2 

Component (wgt. %) 

SiO2 (acid soluble) 7.29 8.13 

CaO 11.01 15.74 

MgO 7.10 5.58 

Al2O3 1.19 1.35 

Fe2O3 1.06 0.72 

Modified insoluble residue 51.34 47.61 

LOI %, to 110°C (Free water) 4.45 2.59 

LOI %, 110°C-550°C (Combined water) 7.00 5.17 

LOI %, 550°C-950°C (Carbon dioxide) 6.64 10.62 

Measured Totals 97.07 97.52 

Notes: 

1) Our experience indicates that the normal acid insoluble residue performed on natural cement mortars results in significant overages due to the 

inclusion of amorphous silica from the cement binder included in the residue. This interference is overcome by treating the residue with a second 

alkaline digestion to remove this component.

Table 5.2: Estimated Original Cement Chemistries

SAMPLE ID CALO.Mortar.1 CALO.Mortar.2 

Component (wgt. %) 

SiO2 (acid soluble) 25.1 24.5 

CaO 37.8 47.4 

MgO 24.4 16.8 

Al2O3 4.08 4.07 

Fe2O3 3.64 2.18 

Other 5.0 5.0 

Total 100 100 

CaO/MgO Ratio 1.55 2.82 

Cementation Index 1.07 1.05 

Notes: 

1) As only one binder type was identified in each sample, it was possible to estimate the original chemistry of each by normalizing the measured oxide 

values to the percentage for which these oxides are estimated to be present in the original material (i.e., approximately 95%). The CaO/MgO ratio is 

calculated as a simple quotient. Cementation index is calculated by converting each measured oxide to its molecular equivalent weight to calcium, 

summing the hydraulic equivalents (SiO2, Al2O3, and Fe2O3) and dividing by the sum of the lime-type equivalents (CaO and MgO). This index may 

be used in assessing the nature of the binder.
TESTWELL, INC. 

Building Conservation Associates, Inc.; Cape Lookout Lighthouse 

Report #: OPCL008/PGE-001 

Page 7 of 15 

Table 5.3: Calculated Components

SAMPLE ID CALO.Mortar.1 CALO.Mortar.2 

Component 

Portland cement (wgt. %) Not detected Not detected 

Masonry cement (wgt. %) Not detected Not detected 

Natural cement (wgt. %) 36 41 

Lime expressed as dry hydrate (wgt. %) Not detected Not detected 

Hydraulic lime (wgt. %) Not detected Not detected 

Ground limestone (wgt. %) Not detected Not detected 

Pozzolans (wgt. %) Not detected Not detected 

Mineral Pigment (wgt. %) Not detected Not detected 

Sand (wgt. %) 64 59 

Binder : sand ratio (by volume) 1 : 1.6 1 : 1.3 

Notes: 

1) Cement weight is calculated by assuming all five oxides represent 95% of the binder portion and the total weight adjusted accordingly. The sand 

weight is taken directly from the modified insoluble residue. Both values are then normalized to 100%. Component volume ratios are calculated 

assuming typical bulk densities of 75 lb./cu. ft. and 80 lb./cu. ft. for natural cement and sand in damp, loose condition respectively. 
TESTWELL, INC. 

Building Conservation Associates, Inc.; Cape Lookout Lighthouse 

Report #: OPCL008/PGE-001 

Page 8 of 15 

6. Discussion and Conclusions

Both samples are determined to represent natural cement mortars. The identification is certain for Sample CALO.Mortar.1 

based on hand sample properties, microscopy, and chemistry. There was some question as to whether there could be a lime 

component in Sample CALO.Mortar.2 given the softness and friability as well as the higher calcium content measured 

chemically. However, there is no petrographic evidence to suggest that any lime was included in this mortar sample. 

The cement in both samples is identified petrographically as a natural cement produced by the low temperature calcination of 

an impure dolomitic or magnesian limestone. High magnesium values measured chemically clearly indicate a typical 

American rather than European cement. The exact provenance of the cement cannot be determined. However, the chemistry 

is at least consistent with cements produced in northwestern Georgia during the latter half of the nineteenth century. Given 

the proximity to North Carolina, this is a possible source. The binder chemistries are compared by normalizing the measured 

oxides to an equivalent value (Table 5.2). What is notable here is that the ratio of the hydraulic elements (silica, alumina, and 

iron) are quite similar. However, the calcium to magnesium ratio is higher in Sample CALO.Mortar.2 than Sample 

CALO.Mortar.1. This could be interpreted to represent a lime component in the former. It is possible to subtract enough 

calcium to explain a lime component of approximately one quarter of the cement by volume and still have a resultant 

chemistry typical of a natural cement. However, the resultant cement chemistries are no longer similar. Moreover, there is 

no petrographic evidence of a lime addition. The chemical disparity is considered by the author to represent some significant 

variation in the carbonate component of the cement rock and high chemical variation is typical of American natural cements. 

The petrographic evidence suggests that the cements are from a similar source and they may even represent the same vintage. 

This would indicate a cement of variable quality and may explain the softer quality of the binder in Sample CALO.Mortar.2. 

The sand in both samples is a fine-grained and bright-lustered aggregate characterized as a siliceous natural sand. The color 

is a uniform light brownish gray. Traces of dark colored coal dust in the recovered aggregate are interpreted to represent a 

contaminant from the binder. The sand consists predominantly of quartz with traces of fine shell fragments and heavy 

minerals. Grain shapes are soft being mostly rounded to subrounded. The gradation is narrow with a vast majority of 

material found between the No. 30 and No. 100 sieve sizes. The sand has a nominal top size at the No. 16 and No. 30 sieve 

for Samples CALO.Mortar.1 and CALO.Mortar.2 respectively. Nevertheless, the sands are considered virtually identical in 

both samples. The softness, narrow gradation, and mineralogy of the sand are all consistent with a well-sorted and mature 

beach sand. Details of the gradation may be found in Section 4 above. Recovered sand samples are provided with this 

report. 

Chemical analysis was performed on both samples in order to estimate material proportions and details of the calculations are 

given in the notes of Section 5 above. As discussed above, both samples are considered pure cement mortars and 

proportional estimations are given accordingly. The binder to sand ratios by volume are estimated at 1 : 1.6 and 1 : 1.3 for 

Samples CALO.Mortar.1 and CALO.Mortar.2 respectively. While these may be considered quite undersanded by 

contemporary standards, it should be understood that ratios between 1 : 1 and 1 : 2 are typical of and appropriate for 

nineteenth century natural cement mortars.

Both samples exhibit typical carbonation. Other minor chemical reactions are detected within no associated distress. 

Exterior portions of Sample CALO.Mortar.1 exhibit a thin veneer of weathered paste consistent in texture with minor acidic 

leaching of soluble cement phases. Sample CALO.Mortar.2 contains abundant calcium carbonate deposits in air-voids but no 

cracking nor evidence for significant paste deterioration.

TESTWELL, INC.

John J. Walsh 

Senior Petrographer/ Geologist 

Samples will be discarded 30 days after the final report date unless otherwise instructed. This report is the confidential property of the 

client and any unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited. The interpretations and conclusions presented in this report are based on 

the samples provided.
TESTWELL, INC. 

Building Conservation Associates, Inc.; Cape Lookout Lighthouse 

Report #: OPCL008/PGE-001 

Page 9 of 15 

Appendix I: Photographs and Photomicrographs

Microscopic examination is performed on an Olympus BX-51 polarized/reflected light microscope and a Bausch and Lomb 

Stereozoom 7 stereoscopic reflected light microscope. Both microscopes are fitted with an Olympus DP-11 digital camera. 

The overlays presented in the photomicrographs (e.g., text, scale bars, and arrows) are prepared as layers in Adobe Photoshop 

and converted to the jpeg format. Digital processing is limited to those functions normally performed during standard print 

photography processing. Photographs intended to be visually compared are taken under the same exposure conditions 

whenever possible. 

The following abbreviations may be found in the figure captions and overlays and these are defined as follows: 

cm centimeters PPL Plane polarized light 

mm millimeters XPL Crossed polarized light 

μm microns (1 micron = 1/1000 millimeter) 

mil 1/1000 inch 

Microscopical images are often confusing and non-intuitive to those not accustomed to the techniques employed. The 

following is offered as a brief explanation of the various views encountered in order that the reader may gain a better 

appreciation of what is being described. 

Reflected light images: These are simply magnified images of the surface as would be observed by the human eye. A 

variety of surface preparations may be employed including polished and fractured surfaces. The reader should note the 

included scale bars as minor deficiencies may seem much more significant when magnified. 

Plane polarized light images (PPL): This imaging technique is most often employed in order to discern textural 

relationships and microstructure. To employ this technique, samples are milled (anywhere from 20 to 30 microns depending 

on the purpose) so as to allow light to be transmitted through the material. In many cases, TLI also employs a technique 

whereby the material is impregnated with a low viscosity, blue-dyed epoxy. Anything appearing blue therefore represents 

some type of void space (e.g.; air voids, capillary pores, open cracks, etc.) Hydrated cement paste typically appears a light 

shade of brown in this view (with a blue hue when impregnated with the epoxy). With some exceptions, most aggregate 

materials are very light colored if not altogether white. Some particles will appear to stand out in higher relief than others. 

This is a function of the refractive power of different materials with respect to the mounting epoxy. 

Crossed polarized light images (XPL): This imaging technique is most often employed to distinguish components or 

highlight textural relationships between certain components not easily distinguished in plane polarized light. Using the same 

thin sections, this technique places the sample between two pieces of polarizing film in order to determine the crystal 

structure of the materials under consideration. Isotropic materials (e.g.; hydrated cement paste, pozzolans and other glasses,

many oxides, etc.) will not transmit light under crossed polars and therefore appear black. Non-isotropic crystals (e.g.; 

residual cement, calcium hydroxide, calcium carbonate, and most aggregate minerals) will appear colored. The colors are a 

function of the thickness, crystal structure, and orientation of the mineral. Many minerals will exhibit a range of colors due

to their orientation in the section. For example, quartz sand in the aggregate will appear black to white and every shade of 

gray in between. Color difference does not necessarily indicate a material difference. When no other prompt is given in the 

figure caption, the reader should appeal to general shapes and morphological characteristics when considering the 

components being illustrated. 

Chemical treatments: Many chemical techniques (etches and stains typically) are used to isolate and enhance a variety of 

materials and structures. These techniques will often produce strongly colored images that distinguish components or 

chemical conditions. 
TESTWELL, INC. 

Building Conservation Associates, Inc.; Cape Lookout Lighthouse 

Report #: OPCL008/PGE-001 

Page 10 of 15 

Figure 1: Mortar samples CALO.Mortar.1 (top) and CALO.Mortar.2 (bottom) received by Testwell for comprehensive analysis. 
TESTWELL, INC. 

Building Conservation Associates, Inc.; Cape Lookout Lighthouse 

Report #: OPCL008/PGE-001 

Page 11 of 15 

Figure 2: PPL photomicrographs illustrating the microtexture of mortar samples CALO.Mortar.1 (top) and CALO.Mortar.2 (bottom). 

Relatively rounded and narrowly graded sand grains (S) are well distributed throughout the binder matrix (BM). The cementitious matrix 

has a moderate capillary porosity as indicated by the blue-dyed epoxy used in the sample preparation. Air-voids (AV) are shown for 

sample CALO.Mortar.1 and these are abundant. Voids are nearly as abundant in sample CALO.Mortar.2 but are mostly filled with 

secondary calcium carbonate rendering them nearly invisible at this scale (see Figure 6). 
TESTWELL, INC. 

Building Conservation Associates, Inc.; Cape Lookout Lighthouse 

Report #: OPCL008/PGE-001 

Page 12 of 15 

Figure 3: Photographs of sand separated from mortar samples CALO.Mortar.1 (top) and CALO.Mortar.2 (bottom). The sands are 

virtually identical appearing as uniform, fine-grained, and light-colored sands. The trace dark grains are identified as coal dust that likely 

represent a minor contaminant from the cement. 
TESTWELL, INC. 

Building Conservation Associates, Inc.; Cape Lookout Lighthouse 

Report #: OPCL008/PGE-001 

Page 13 of 15 

Figure 4: Photographs of the graded sand separated from mortar samples CALO.Mortar.1 (top) and CALO.Mortar.2 (bottom). The sands 

are both narrowly graded with a vast majority of material found between the No. 30 and No. 100 sieves. 
TESTWELL, INC. 

Building Conservation Associates, Inc.; Cape Lookout Lighthouse 

Report #: OPCL008/PGE-001 

Page 14 of 15 

Figure 5: PPL photomicrographs illustrating natural cement grains in mortar samples CALO.Mortar.1 (top) and CALO.Mortar.2 

(bottom). The yellow arrows indicate original dolomite crystals now lined with iron-bearing cement phases. The red arrows represent 

quartz silt grains that have not combined during cement calcination. These textures are typical of nineteenth century American natural 

cements. No residual lime binder is detected petrographically in either sample. 
TESTWELL, INC. 

Building Conservation Associates, Inc.; Cape Lookout Lighthouse 

Report #: OPCL008/PGE-001 

Page 15 of 15 

Figure 6: XPL photomicrographs illustrating minor secondary chemical reactions. (Top) Sample CALO.Mortar.1 exhibits a rind of 

weathered paste (WP). The golden color of the paste below is due to normal carbonation. The dark color within the rind indicates 

dissolution of this secondary carbonate along with other acid-soluble phases. The weathered paste is consistent in texture with that affected 

by acidic solution. (Bottom) The arrows indicate air-voids in Sample CALO.Mortar.2 that are filled with secondary calcium carbonate. 

These are visible in hand sample as fine white spots that should not be confused with lime inclusions.
APPENDIX D.

BRICK ANALYSIS REPORT

(CTL GROUP 2008)






As the nation’s principal conservation agency,

the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public

lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water

resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and

biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national

parks and historical places; and providing for

the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy

and mineral resources and works to ensure

that their development is in the best interests

of all our people by encouraging stewardship

and citizen participation in their care. The

department also has a major responsibility for

American Indian reservation communities

and for people who live in island territories

under U.S. administration. 

NPS D-87 December 2008