Prepared in cooperation with the 

 National Park Service and 

East Carolina University

Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, 

Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

North Carolina, 1960−2001

Scientific Investigations Report 2006−5309

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
COVER: A 1943 aerial photograph showing Old Drum Inlet. The inlet separates North and 

South Core Banks and exhibits spectacular ebb- and flood-tidal deltas. This inlet provides 

an excellent example of island building, as the flood-tidal delta adds width and sediment 

volume to the back side of the barrier island. This is a crucial process for island evolution 

as sea-level rises and storms cause ongoing ocean shoreline recession.
Department of Geology, East Carolina University, 

Greenville, NC 27858

 Telephone: 252-328-6015

 E-mail: riggss@ecu.edu 
Effect of Storms on Barrier Island 

Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout 

National Seashore, North Carolina, 

1960–2001

By Stanley R. Riggs and Dorothea V. Ames

Prepared in cooperation with the 

National Park Service and

East Carolina University

 

Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5309

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Mark D. Myers, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Riggs, S.R., and Ames, D.V., 2007, Effect of storms on barrier island dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5309, 73 p.
vi

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................3

Previous Core Banks Surveys ............................................................................................................3

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Surveys ....................................................................................3

Godfrey and Godfrey Survey......................................................................................................4

East Carolina University Geology Department Survey ..........................................................4

North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Data Sets ................................................4

Description of Core Banks............................................................................................................................4

The Barrier Islands...............................................................................................................................4

Inlet History............................................................................................................................................8

Ocracoke Inlet..............................................................................................................................9

Barden Inlet ..................................................................................................................................9

The Drum Inlets............................................................................................................................9

Ephemeral Inlets ........................................................................................................................10

North Carolina Storm History............................................................................................................10

Active Storm Period: 1940–1962 ..............................................................................................11

Low Storm Activity Period: 1963–1970....................................................................................12

Moderate Storm Activity Period: 1971–1990 .........................................................................12

Most Active Storm Period in Recorded N.C. History: 1991–2005.......................................12

Methods of Data Collection and Analysis ...............................................................................................13

Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics..........................................................................................19

Shoreline and Elevation Changes on Core Banks.........................................................................19

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Data Sets ...............................................................................19

Godfrey and Godfrey Data Sets...............................................................................................24

East Carolina University Data Sets .........................................................................................28

North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Data Sets ..............................................33

Patterns of Shoreline Change Along Core Banks .........................................................................35

Elevation Changes on Core Banks Through Time .........................................................................38

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................42

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................44

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................45

Appendixes ...................................................................................................................................................47
vii

Figures

1. A regional satellite image showing the location of the Core Banks study area in the 

North Carolina coastal system...................................................................................................5

2–4 Aerial photos of—

2. A four-part, georeferenced aerial photograph time series (A, 1940; B, 1962; C, 

1998; and D, 2003) showing the evolution of Old Drum Inlet, New Drum Inlet, and 

New-Old Drum Inlet, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina ...................6

3. A three-part aerial photograph time series (A, 1940; B, 1962; and C, 1983) showing 

the Portsmouth Village Overwash Plain with Whalebone and Swash Inlets on 

the southwestern part of the photographs, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, North Carolina...................................................................................................7

4. A five-part aerial photograph time series (A, 1866; B, 1933–1937; C, 1940; D, 1962; 

and E, 1998) showing Cape Lookout, Cape Lookout Bight, and Barden Inlet, 

North Carolina ......................................................................................................................8

5. Graph showing total number of hurricane strikes in North Carolina by decade for the 

period from 1900 to 1999 ............................................................................................................11

6. Diagrams showing the 77 profiles and associated topographic and bathymetric surveys 

done from 1960 to 1962 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on North Core 

Banks (A), and South Core Banks (B), Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

North Carolina .............................................................................................................................14

7. Diagrams showing the layout of reference markers (RMs) developed for the 

(A) 1960 to 1962 surveys and (B) 2001 survey of North and South Core Banks, Cape 

Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina and the methods used in 2001 to determine 

shoreline and elevation changes.............................................................................................15

8. Photographs showing relocated U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1960–1962 reference 

markers (RM) on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina ..........16

9. Diagram showing the 57 profiles located by the 2001 East Carolina University survey 

of the original 77 profiles established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on North 

and South Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina......................18

10. Schematic diagrams showing the method used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Godfrey and Godfrey, and East Carolina University to determine shoreline changes in 

their 1960 (A) 1961, 1962 (B) 1971, and 2001 (C), shoreline surveys, Core Banks, Cape 

Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina ..........................................................................19

11–16 Histograms showing—

11. Net shoreline change data for 77 profiles by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

between the 1960 and 1961 surveys (blue) and the 1961 and 1962 surveys (red), 

Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina ................................21

12. Average annual rate of shoreline change for the 77 profiles between the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers 1960 and 1961 surveys (blue) and the 1961 and 1962 

surveys (red), Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina.......22

13. Horizontal distance from the shoreline to the 6-, 12-, 18-, 24-, and 30-foot depth 

contours for alternate profiles from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1961

survey, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina ..................23

14. Horizontal distance from the shoreline seaward to the 6-, 12-, 18-, 24-, and 30-foot 

depth contours for alternate profiles from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

1961 survey, plotted opposite the long-term NCDCM 1946–1998 average annual 

shoreline erosion rates in feet per year for Core Banks, Cape Lookout National

Seashore, North Carolina.................................................................................................24
viii

15. Average rate of shoreline change between the USACE 1962 survey and Godfrey 

and Godfrey 1971 survey for Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

North Carolina ....................................................................................................................25

16. Average annual rate of shoreline erosion and accretion from the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers 1960–1962 survey data (red) and the Godfrey and 

Godfrey 1962–1971 survey data (blue), Core Banks, Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, North Carolina.................................................................................................26

17. Cross-sectional profile of South Core Banks at Codds Creek showing the shallow 

stratigraphic interpretation of the history of overwash fan deposition developed 

from a series of trenches dug across the island...................................................................27

18–23 Histograms showing—

18. Net shoreline change (red) and average annual rate of change (blue) from the 

East Carolina University 1960–2001 survey for each profile where the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reference markers were recovered, 

Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina ................................29

19. Average annual rate of shoreline change from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

1960–1962 surveys for the 77 USACE profiles and the East Carolina University 

1960–2001 survey for the 57 profiles where one or more of the U.S. Army Corps 

reference markers were recovered, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, North Carolina.................................................................................................30

20. Average annual rate of shoreline change from the Godfrey and Godfrey 

1962–1971 survey and the East Carolina University 1960–2001 survey, Core 

Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina..........................................31

21. Net increase in ground elevation at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reference 

markers based on changes between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1961 and 

East Carolina University 2001 surveys for each profile where U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers reference markers were recovered, Core Banks, Cape Lookout 

National Seashore, North Carolina.................................................................................32

22. Shoreline change data from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management 

1940–1992 and 1946–1998 data sets, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, North Carolina.................................................................................................34

23. Average annual rate of shoreline change from the long-term East Carolina 

University 1960–2001 data set and the long-term North Carolina Division of 

Coastal Management 1946–1998 data set, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, North Carolina.................................................................................................35

24. Aerial photographs showing specific features that are relevant to the dynamics of 

shoreline change, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina........37

25. Histogram showing elevation changes measured by the Godfrey and Godfrey 1970 

and East Carolina University 2001 surveys as compared to the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers survey when the reference markers were installed on 77 profiles, Core 

Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina...................................................39

26. A five-part, aerial photograph, time-slice sequence showing the Swash Inlet to 

Whalebone Inlet segment of North Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

North Carolina .............................................................................................................................40

27. Photographs showing changes with time on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina.................................................................................................................41

 
ix

Tables

1. Maximum and average annual rates of shoreline erosion and accretion for each of 

the shoreline survey data sets for North and South Core Banks combined, 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina................................................................22

2. Summary of the elevation data for 231 reference markers on 77 profiles from the 1961 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers survey for Core Banks, Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, North Carolina..........................................................................................................23

3. Summary of the elevation data for 141 reference markers on 69 profiles from the 1970 

Godfrey and Godfrey survey for Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

North Carolina .............................................................................................................................27

4. Summary of the elevation data for 83 reference markers on 57 profiles from the East 

Carolina University 2001 survey for Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

North Carolina .............................................................................................................................33

5. Maximum and average annual rates of shoreline erosion and accretion for each of the 

shoreline surveys or data sets for North and South Core Banks, Cape Lookout 

National Seashore, North Carolina..........................................................................................36

6. Summary of net ground elevation and percent change data for all reference markers 

from surveys by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Godfrey and Godfrey, and East 

Carolina University for Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

North Carolina .............................................................................................................................39

Appendixes

1. Summary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers survey data developed in the 

1960, 1961, and 1962 surveys on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

North Carolina .............................................................................................................................49

2. Summary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1961 survey data of the 

shoreface bathymetry for Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

North Carolina .............................................................................................................................57

3. Summary of the Godfrey and Godfrey 1970 survey data of elevation change along 69 

of the 77 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers profiles on Core Banks, Cape Lookout 

National Seashore, North Carolina..........................................................................................59

4. Summary of the Godfrey and Godfrey 1971 survey data of shoreline change 

along 39 of the 77 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers profiles on Core Banks, 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina................................................................63

5. Latitude and longitude locations for the recovered U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

reference markers that were located and surveyed in 2001 by East Carolina 

University for the present study on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

North Carolina .............................................................................................................................65

6. Summary of the East Carolina University survey data for 57 of the 77 U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers profiles located in the 2001 survey on Core Banks, Cape Lookout 

National Seashore, North Carolina..........................................................................................69

7. Summary of the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management shoreline recession 

data (1940–1992 and 1946–1998) for the average annual shoreline erosion rates on 

Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina .........................................77
x

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

square foot (ft2

) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

(NGVD 29).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84).

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

Conversion Factors and Datums

Abbreviations

CAHA Cape Hatteras National Seashore

CALO Cape Lookout National Seashore

ECU East Carolina University

G&G Godfrey and Godfrey

NCDCM North Carolina Division of Coastal Management

NPS U.S. National Park Service

NPS-GRI U.S. National Park Service-Geologic Resources Inventory

NCGS North Carolina Geological Survey

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

DOQQ Digital orthophoto quarter quadrangle

GIS Geographic Information Systems

MLW Mean low water

MSL Mean sea level

P Profile number (e.g., P17)

RM Reference marker number (e.g., RM-0)

Abstract

The effect of storms on long-term dynamics of barrier 

islands was evaluated on Core Banks, a series of barrier 

islands that extend from Cape Lookout to Okracoke Inlet 

in the Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. 

Shoreline and elevation changes were determined by 

comparing 77 profiles and associated reference markers 

established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on 

Core Banks from June 1960 to July 1962 to a follow-up survey 

by Godfrey and Godfrey (G&G) in 1971 and a survey by the 

Department of Geology at East Carolina University (ECU) in 

2001, in which 57 of the original 77 profiles were located.

Evaluation of the baseline data associated with the 

USACE study supplies an important record of barrier island 

response to two specific storm events—Hurricane Donna 

in September 1960 and the Ash Wednesday extra-tropical 

cyclone in March 1962. The 1962 USACE survey was 

followed by 9 years characterized by no major storms; this 

low-energy period was captured by the G&G survey in 1971. 

The G&G survey was followed by 22 years characterized 

by occasional small to moderate storms. Starting in 1993, 

however, and continuing through 1999, the North Carolina 

coast experienced a major increase in storm activity, with 

seven major hurricanes impacting Core Banks. 

Both the USACE 1960–1962 and G&G 1962–1971 

surveys produced short-term data sets that reflected very 

different sets of weather conditions. The ECU 2001 survey 

data were then compared with the USACE 1960 survey data to 

develop a long-term (41 years) data set for shoreline erosion 

on Core Banks. Those resulting long-term data were compared 

with the long-term (52 years) data sets by the North Carolina 

Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) from 1940–1992 

and 1946–1998; a strong positive correlation and very similar 

rates of average annual erosion resulted. However, the ECU 

and NCDCM long-term data sets did not correlate with either 

of the USACE and G&G short-term survey data and had very 

different average annual erosion rates.

The average annual long-term rate of shoreline erosion 

for all of Core Banks and for both the ECU 1960–2001 and 

the NCDCM 1946–1998 surveys was -5 feet per year (ft/yr). 

These long-term rates of shoreline recession are in strong 

contrast with the short-term, storm-dominated rates of shoreline erosion for all of Core Banks developed by the USACE 

1960–1961 and USACE 1961–1962 surveys, which have average annual erosion rates of -40 ft/yr and -26 ft/yr, respectively, 

and range from -226 feet (ft) to +153 ft. The combined shortterm, storm-dominated shoreline erosion rate for the USACE 

surveys (1960–1962) was -36 ft/yr. In contrast, the average 

annual short-term, non-stormy period G&G 1962–1971 survey 

demonstrated shoreline accretion for all of Core Banks with an 

average annual rate of +12 ft/yr. In general, North Core Banks 

has higher erosion and accretion rates than South Core Banks. 

In the 1961 survey, the USACE installed 231 reference 

markers (RM-0 is closest to the ocean and RM-2 is farthest 

from the ocean) along the 77 profiles, as well as 33 reference 

markers labeled RM-4, RM-6, and RM-8 in the wider portions 

of the islands. The G&G survey recovered a total of 141 

reference markers (61 percent), and the ECU survey recovered 

a total of 83 reference markers (36 percent) of the RM-0, 

RM-1, and RM-2 markers. The average ground elevation 

measured by the USACE in 1961 was RM-0 = +5.8 ft, RM-1 = 

+5.2 ft, and RM-2 = +4.8 ft. The G&G 1970 survey measured 

average ground elevations of RM-0 = +6.7 ft, RM-1 = +6.4 

ft, and RM-2 = +6.1 ft, and the average ground elevation 

measured by ECU in 2001 was RM-0 = +10.1 ft, RM-1 = 

+9.1 ft, and RM-2 = +8.5 ft. The latter numbers represent 

approximately an overall 72-percent increase in island 

elevation from 1961 to 2001. Based on aerial photographic 

time-slice analyses, it is hypothesized that this increase in 

island elevation occurred during the post-1962 period with 

storm overwash systematically raising the island elevation 

through time, which in turn led to decreased numbers of 

overwash events. The latter processes and responses in turn 

led to a substantial increase in vegetative growth on the barrier 

island, as well as submerged aquatic vegetation on the backbarrier sand shoals. 

Integration of the USACE, G&G, ECU, and NCDCM 

shoreline erosion data for Core Banks shows several important 

points about shoreline recession. 

Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics,

Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

North Carolina, 1960–2001

by Stanley R. Riggs and Dorothea V. Ames
2 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

(1) The ECU and NCDCM data sets demonstrate that there is 

an ongoing net, long-term, but small-scale shoreline recession 

associated with Core Banks; (2) the USACE short-term data 

sets demonstrate that processes associated with individual 

storm events or sets of events produce extremely large-scale 

changes that include both erosion and accretion; (3) the shortterm, non-stormy period data set of G&G demonstrates that if 

given enough time between storm events, barriers can rebuild 

to their pre-storm period conditions; and (4) the post-storm 

response generally tends to approach the pre-storm location, 

but rarely reaches it before the next storm or stormy period 

sets in. The result is the net long-term change documented 

by both the ECU 1960–2001 and NCDCM 1946–1998 Core 

Banks data sets that resulted in erosion rates ranging from 0 to 

-30 ft/yr with net annual average recession rates of -5 ft/yr. 

Analysis and comparison of these data sets supply 

important information for understanding the dynamics and 

responses of barrier island systems through time. In addition, 

the results of the present study on Core Banks supply essential 

process-response information that can be used to design and 

implement management plans for the Cape Lookout and Cape 

Hatteras National Seashores and for other seashores in the 

U.S. National Park Service system. 

Introduction

A program to study the coastal geology of North Carolina 

was begun in 2000 as a cooperative effort between the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), East Carolina University (ECU), 

and the North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS). The 

program, known as the Coastal Geology Research Cooperative 

Program, covers the coastal region from Currituck County 

and Currituck Sound, south to Cape Lookout and Core Sound. 

The region extends from the inner shelf, across the barrier 

islands, and through the shallow back-barrier estuarine system. 

Primary goals of the program are to investigate the roles that 

the underlying geologic framework, climate change, and sealevel fluctuations play in the dynamics of coastal evolution 

and behavior. Field data collection includes seismic, sidescan, 

ground-penetrating radar and swath bathymetry surveys; 

vibracoring in marine and estuarine waters and conventional 

core drilling on the barrier islands and mainland; geologic and 

aerial photographic mapping of stratigraphic, sedimentologic, 

geomorphic, and ecologic data; textural and geochemical 

analyses of the sediment facies and depositional environments; 

and microfaunal and age-date analyses of the Holocene and 

Pleistocene lithofacies. 

Concurrently, the Geologic Resources Division (GRD) 

and Inventory and Monitoring Program (I&M), both programs 

of the U.S. National Park Service (NPS), are required to 

develop digital geologic map coverage for use in Geographic 

Information Systems (GIS). Cape Hatteras (CAHA) and 

Cape Lookout (CALO) National Seashores are two natural 

resource units in North Carolina for which this coverage, 

called the Geologic Resources Inventory (GRI), is required. 

Both of these seashores consist of a series of offshore barrier 

islands that constitute a major portion of North Carolina’s 

Outer Banks. On April 3–5, 2000, the GRI team held a field 

trip and scoping meeting in Manteo, N.C., with members of 

the Coastal Geology Research Cooperative group to evaluate 

the two National Seashores. During the course of the meeting, 

NPS, USGS, ECU, and NCGS, along with other coastal 

experts, evaluated the parks and determined that existing 

geologic information was not suitable to meet future park 

needs nor to compile a GRI for these parks. 

Previous work on Core Banks included surveys by 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Godfrey 

and Godfrey (G&G). The USACE surveyed Core Banks 

three times from 1960 to 1962. The first survey was done 

in June 1960, but many reference markers were destroyed 

by Hurricane Donna on September 12, 1960. The missing 

reference markers were replaced and resurveyed from 

September to December 1961. Many reference markers again 

were destroyed, this time by the Ash Wednesday extratropical cyclone in March 1962. The USACE re-established 

the missing reference markers, added an additional set of 

reference markers along each profile, and resurveyed all 

reference markers for the third time from June to July 1962. In 

1970, G&G located 141 of the USACE reference markers and 

measured the change in elevation since they were installed. 

G&G also resurveyed the 1971 shoreline location along 39 of 

the original 77 USACE profiles. The G&G surveys took place 

during the summers of 1970 and 1971. 

According to Barnes (2001), no major storms directly 

impacted Core Banks between the USACE 1962 survey and 

the G&G surveys; however, Hurricane Ginger made landfall 

near Cape Lookout in October 1971. Based partly upon this 

storm, Dolan and Godfrey (1973) and Godfrey and Godfrey 

(1976) determined that storm overwash was a critical process 

for both island migration in response to rising sea level, as 

well as a major control of the plant community structure. 

Today, Core Banks is no longer dominated by overwash 

processes such as those that occurred during the pre-1971 

period. The islands are heavily vegetated, and there has been 

only partial island overwash in spite of seven hurricanes that 

made landfall in North Carolina during 1993–1999. Why has 

this major change taken place? Is this a response to a change 

in climate, sea level, sediment supply, human modification, 

NPS management policies, or some combination thereof? 

Dr. Michael Rikard, Resource Management Specialist for 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, stated that “relocating and 

resurveying the 1960 to 1962 Core Banks reference markers 

and evaluating the morphological and ecological changes that 

have occurred since the initial USACE surveys represents 

an important research priority for Cape Lookout National 

Seashore.” To evaluate the evolutionary changes happening on 

Core Banks since the USACE initial survey, and to generate 

2
Introduction 3

information needed for the GRI, NPS contracted with the ECU 

Geology Department, in concert with the USGS and NCGS to 

undertake the Core Banks study. The primary objective was to 

carry out an evaluation of barrier island processes operating 

over a 41-year time period based on changes along the 77 

permanent profiles established by the USACE on Core Banks 

between Cape Lookout and Ocracoke Inlet. The NPS research 

needs match the overall goals and objectives of the Coastal 

Geology Research Cooperative Program and represent an 

important component of the overall study of coastal systems in 

North Carolina.

Purpose and Scope

This report is a product of the Coastal Geology Research 

Cooperative Program and is designed to help meet the NPSGRI goal of obtaining digital geologic maps for the Core 

Banks part of the Cape Lookout National Seashore. The report 

describes the study by ECU and includes an evaluation of 

barrier island processes based on changes along 77 profiles 

and associated reference markers established by the USACE 

on Core Banks from June 1960 to July 1962. The study area 

extends from Cape Lookout to Ocracoke Inlet and includes 

both North and South Core Banks. The ECU Core Banks 

evaluation is built upon the initial surveys of the USACE 

(1964), the follow-up survey and ecological work by Godfrey 

and Godfrey (1976), and the ongoing study by the Department 

of Geology at ECU. The report includes results of the 2001 

ECU field survey and the analysis of changes that have 

occurred through time on Core Banks since the initial USACE 

survey in 1960. 

Previous Core Banks Surveys

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Surveys

In light of severe hurricane damage to coastal and tidal 

areas in the eastern and southern United States, the 84th 

Congress passed Public Law 71 on June 15, 1955 that gave the 

USACE the responsibility of undertaking the following studies 

on Portsmouth Island and Core Banks of North Carolina. 

1. Hurricane Study to (a) analyze hurricane damage and 

the cause factors, (b) appraise hurricane effects in terms of 

preventable damages, and (c) develop practical solutions.

2. Beach Erosion Control Study to determine the 

feasibility of developing practical and economical means of 

(a) maintaining the shoreline, (b) rebuilding badly eroded 

areas, and (c) preventing further degradation of the existing 

Outer Banks topography.

In response to Congress, the USACE carried out three 

important shoreline surveys between Cape Lookout and 

Ocracoke Inlet, Cape Lookout National Seashore, in 1960, 

1961, and 1962. In June 1960, the USACE established and 

surveyed 77 shore-perpendicular profiles along the length of 

Core Banks; however, many profiles established in the first 

survey were destroyed by Hurricane Donna on September 

12, 1960. The destroyed profiles were replaced, along with a 

series of reference markers established along the 77 profiles, 

and surveyed from September to December 1961. Both the 

profiles and reference markers were partially destroyed again 

by the Ash Wednesday extra-tropical cyclone in March 1962. 

The USACE replaced and resurveyed all destroyed profiles 

and reference markers for the third time from June to July 

1962. The relevant USACE data are presented in appendixes 

1 and 2. 

Results of these surveys were published in two parts 

in the USACE (1964) report that included the Hurricane 

Survey Report from Ocracoke Inlet to Beaufort Inlet, North 

Carolina and the Beach Erosion Report from Ocracoke Inlet 

to Cape Lookout. The USACE (1964) study recommended the 

following shore- and hurricane-protection plan for 51.4 miles 

(mi) of the Core Banks ocean shoreline.

1. The beach fill would have a constructed berm that is 

50 feet (ft) wide and 8 ft above mean sea level (MSL) and 

a dune with a crest width of 25 ft and elevation of 12 ft above 

MSL.

2. The dune crest would be topped by a 4-ft sand fence.

3. The shoreline would be stabilized by periodic 

nourishment.

4. An estimated construction cost was $5.8 million with 

an annual maintenance cost of $481,200.

5. An adjunct portion of this plan was to evaluate the 

possibility of stabilizing, deepening, and widening the channel 

of Drum Inlet. 

At the same time, the U.S. Congress (House Document 

408, 86th Congress, 2d session) and the USACE were 

recommending that the Ocracoke Inlet channel be dredged 

to 18 ft below MSL with a 400-ft width and provisions for 

construction of a jetty on the Ocracoke Island side to help 

maintain the channel. The USACE stated that these latter 

projects would have adverse erosion effects on the Portsmouth 

shoreline and therefore would require the proposed plan for 

the down-drift beaches of Core Banks be undertaken. 

No portion of the USACE plan was ever implemented; 

however, from 1961 through at least 1964, experimental 

dune-building studies were carried out by the State of North 

Carolina and the USACE over 4 mi of shore northeast of 

Old Drum Inlet. Subsequently, during the 1970s, NC State 

University carried out extensive sand fencing and grassplanting studies. Also, when Drum Inlet closed naturally in 

January 1971, the USACE artificially opened New Drum Inlet 

in December 1971 about 2.8 mi southwest of the Old Drum 

Inlet site. Then, in September 1999, Hurricane Dennis came 

ashore across Core Banks and reopened Old Drum Inlet, 

which is now called New-Old Drum Inlet.

3
4 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

Godfrey and Godfrey Survey

Godfrey and Godfrey were contracted by the National 

Park Service to resurvey the 1962 USACE profiles, as well as 

map the geomorphic features of Core Banks and determine 

the major plant communities and their distribution (1976). In 

1970, they located 141 of the original 231 reference markers 

installed by the USACE in 1962 and measured the change in 

elevation (appendix 3). In 1971, they used 39 of the original 

77 USACE profiles and surveyed the 1971 shoreline location. 

The G&G shoreline recession data for 1962–1971 are 

presented in appendix 4. 

East Carolina University Geology 

Department Survey

The 2001 ECU survey of Core Banks was conducted in 

partnership with the Coastal Geology Research Cooperative 

Program and is presented in this report. The ECU survey 

located 83 of the original 231 reference markers installed 

along 57 of the 77 USACE profiles. The latitude and longitude 

of the 83 reference markers are presented in appendix 5. 

The change in ground elevation since their installation was 

measured and is recorded in appendix 6. Reference markers 

along 57 of the original 77 USACE profiles were used to 

survey the 2001 shoreline location (appendix 6). Twenty 

profiles had no data recovered because the reference markers 

were either eroded by the sea, deeply buried in sand, or 

destroyed by people. Physical surveys were integrated 

with time-slice aerial photographic analysis to provide 

understanding and interpretations of horizontal and vertical 

landscape change and vegetation community succession 

through time. 

North Carolina Division of Coastal 

Management Data Sets

The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management 

(NCDCM) developed two long-term shoreline erosion data 

sets for the entire North Carolina ocean shoreline based on the 

“end-point” method of aerial photographic analysis (Benton 

and others, 1993; Benton and others, 1997). The Core Banks

portion of the two long-term shoreline erosion data sets, 

NCDCM 1940–1992 and 1946–1998, are summarized in 

appendix 7. This shoreline recession data set was obtained 

using a different method than the data sets based on the 

USACE, G&G, and ECU surveys described in this report. The 

NCDCM long-term data are used as a cross check for the ECU 

1960–2001 long-term data. Although they represent somewhat 

different time periods and different survey methods, the data 

produced similar results. 

Description of Core Banks

The Barrier Islands

Core Banks, located in Raleigh Bay, extends about 45 mi 

from Ocracoke Inlet on the northeast to Cape Lookout on the 

southwest and then 3.4 mi northwest to Cape Lookout Bight 

and Barden Inlet (fig. 1). Core Banks is separated from the 

mainland by the narrow and shallow waters of Core Sound 

(fig. 1), which are named for the Coree Indians. At the time 

of English settlement in 1585, the Coree Indians lived on the 

mainland and used the Banks extensively to obtain food. Core 

Banks were described by Holland (1968) as “a thin strip of 

land, hardly more than an overgrown sandbar with marsh grass 

and some low-growing bushes.” The USACE report (1964) 

described Core Banks as follows: “Most of the topography is 

unstable. Dunes form, only to be breached by storms; inlets 

open, migrate, and close; and both seasonal and long-term 

changes occur in the ocean shoreline.” 

The Banks form an arcuate coastal system that has a 

general northeast-southwest orientation and consists of North, 

Middle, and South Core Bank components (fig. 2). Middle 

Core Banks is a small island segment (about 2.5 mi) separated 

from the 20.3-mi long North Core Banks by New-Old Drum 

Inlet and the 22.2-mi long South Core Banks by New Drum 

Inlet (fig. 2). Both of these small inlets are open today, have 

an active tidal exchange, and have main channels that are up to 

10 ft deep and shallow bars adjacent to the berm crest on the 

adjoining islands that can be readily crossed during low tides. 

4
Description of Core Banks 5

Figure 1. A regional satellite image showing the location of the Core Banks study area in the North Carolina 

coastal system. 

5
6 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

Figure 2. A four-part, georeferenced aerial photograph time series (A, 1940; B, 1962; C, 1998; and D, 2003) showing the 

evolution of Old Drum Inlet, New Drum Inlet, and New-Old Drum Inlet, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. 

The red reference lines represent two fixed positions associated with each of the inlet locations through time. The 1940 and 

1962 panels show Old Drum Inlet that opened in a 1933 hurricane and built a flood-tide delta through time (see Cover Photo). 

The inner bar of Old Drum Inlet was dredged six times on an irregular basis beginning in 1939 until 1952. Notice the major 

dredge spoil island directly behind the throat of the inlet in 1940. The inlet narrowed significantly by 1957 and began a rapid 

southwestward migration as evidenced by the location of the channel relative to the remnant dredge spoil islands and the 

major development of a prograding spit on the northeast side of the inlet. The 1998 panel shows the Old Drum Inlet, which 

closed naturally in January 1971 with marsh now growing over much of the flood-tide delta sand shoals, and New Drum Inlet 

that was opened artificially by the USACE in December 1971. Notice the very extensive and beautifully developed flood-tide 

delta associated with New Drum Inlet. The 2003 post-Hurricane Isabel panel shows the southwest migration of New Drum 

Inlet and the New-Old Drum Inlet that was reopened by Hurricane Dennis in 1999.

A. B.

C. D.

6
Description of Core Banks 7

Portsmouth Village occupies the northern end of North 

Core Banks (fig. 1) and is adjacent to Ocracoke Inlet, the 

historically most stable and permanent of inlets within the 

northern Outer Banks. Portsmouth Village was a planned 

community authorized in 1753 by the Colonial Assembly and 

laid out with 0.5-acre lots with streets (Stick, 1958). The town 

was located on the Portsmouth side of Ocracoke Inlet, rather 

than the Ocracoke Village side, because the main inlet channel 

was along the inlet’s southwestern side. Portsmouth was to 

become the main trans-shipment point for goods coming into 

and going out of North Carolina. Southwest of Portsmouth, 

the island quickly narrows (fig. 3) and “assumes a character of 

isolation and sweet loneliness” (Holland, 1968).

South Core Banks is generally a very narrow ribbon of 

sand beach perched on the front of an extensive sequence of 

marsh platforms. At the southwestern end of the banks, the 

land widens quickly and hooks back on itself (fig. 4) “like 

a toggle hook on an old-time whaler’s lampoon” and forms 

a bight of well-protected water that has been safe refuge for 

“storm-bedeviled” ships (Holland, 1968). Cape Lookout Bight 

has been a safe harbor for ships throughout historic times 

including the Revolutionary and Civil wars, as well as World 

Wars I and II. Fort Hancock was built by a Frenchman near 

the lighthouse during the American Revolution to protect the 

Cape Lookout Bight harborage. During the 1700s and 1800s, 

the Bight also formed harborage for New England whalers and 

local fishermen working the Carolina coast. 

Figure 3. A three-part aerial photograph time series (A, 1940; B, 1962; and C, 1983) showing the Portsmouth Village Overwash 

Plain with Whalebone and Swash Inlets on the southwestern part of the photographs, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, North Carolina. The two small inlets were open and active in 1940, almost closed in 1962, and were closed in the 1983

aerial view. The X on each of the photos marks an incipient foredune that grew vertically and horizontally from 1940 through 1983 

as seen on the aerial photographs. 

A.

B.

C.
8 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

Cape Lookout is a prominent coastal landmark to 

the mariner with its infamous finger of shallow, shoreperpendicular sand shoal system (fig. 1). Cape Lookout Shoals 

extend south-southeast from the point of the Cape across the 

continental shelf for about 10 mi with local water depths of 

3 to 4 ft and less. This feature is one of the major reasons 

why the North Carolina coast is known as the “Graveyard 

of the Atlantic.” The 1590 map of coastal North Carolina 

by White and DeBry (Cumming, 1966), labeled the Cape 

Lookout as “promontorium tremendum” which translates 

to “horrible headland.”

Inlet History

Ocean shoreline erosion patterns are influenced and controlled by the location, duration, type, physical dynamics, and 

history of any inlet system that either opens or closes during 

a given time period. Due to its location and orientation on the 

southeast facing side of the Cape Hatteras to Cape Lookout 

coastal compartment (fig. 1), Core Banks is greatly exposed to 

storms. There is a long history and high probability of tropical 

cyclones (hurricanes) moving up the east coast along the Gulf 

Stream and coming ashore in this coastal compartment. 

The two main inlets that define the limits of Core Banks 

are Ocracoke Inlet on the northeast side of North Core Banks 

and Barden Inlet, or The Drain, on the west side of Cape 

Lookout (fig. 1). Ocracoke Inlet, separating Ocracoke Island 

from Portsmouth, was open when the Colonists arrived at 

Roanoke Island in 1584 and has been open ever since. It is the 

largest and most stable of the inlets north of Cape Lookout. 

Barden Inlet separates South Core Banks from Shackleford 

Banks (fig. 4). This inlet was originally open from about 1770 

to about 1860 when it closed causing South Core and Shackleford Banks to become a single island (Payne, 1985). Barden 

Inlet opened again in the hurricane of 1933, which came 

ashore in the Cape Lookout area. It opened as a very minor 

inlet with minimal flow (fig. 4B) and was eventually dredged 

in 1937 by the USACE to produce a major channel (fig. 4C). 

Figure 4. A five-part aerial photograph time series (A, 1866; B, 1933–1937; C, 1940; D, 1962; and E, 1998) showing Cape 

Lookout, Cape Lookout Bight, and Barden Inlet, North Carolina. (A) The 1866 topographic survey shows Shackleford Banks 

connected to Cape Lookout with no inlet. (B) This aerial photograph was taken sometime after 1933 when Barden Inlet 

opened in response to a hurricane as a small ephemeral inlet that was locally called “The Drain” and 1937 when the inlet 

was dredged for the first time. (C, D, and E) In 1937, the inlet was dredged producing the channel seen in the 1940 aerial 

photograph; it has been dredged irregularly ever since. By 1962, a distinct flood-tide delta had formed inside the inlet. Also, 

notice the change in geometry of the Cape after construction of a 4,800-foot long rock breakwater in 1914 in an effort to turn 

Cape Lookout Bight into a refuge harbor for ocean-going ships. 

8
Description of Core Banks 9

Ocracoke Inlet

In 1715 Ocracoke Inlet was designated an official port 

of entry for Port Bath and required official harbor pilots. 

This was the beginning of the ascendancy of Ocracoke Inlet 

to the position of the most important entry port for North 

Carolina. Based on the USACE (1964) study, the width of 

Ocracoke Inlet varied from a maximum of 10,400 ft in 1856 to 

a minimum of 4,100 ft in 1943 and 1946. The average width 

was 7,300 ft, based on 17 data points from 1830 to 1962. 

The area of the inlet below mean tide level averaged 103,570 

square feet (ft2

), based on 10 data points from 1830 to 1962, 

and ranged from 148,000 ft2

 to 48,000 ft2. The northeastern 

side of Ocracoke Inlet was in a slight erosional mode from 

1830 until 1865, when it began accreting and migrating to 

the southwest, which it generally did from 1865 to 1961. The 

southwestern side of Ocracoke Inlet has been more stable with 

only minor fluctuations in erosion and accretion until 1943. 

Between 1943 and 1961, the southwestern side generally 

eroded to the southwest. The channel thalweg depth, measured 

at a line drawn along the axis of the adjacent islands, averaged 

47 ft below mean low water (MLW) (based on 11 data points) 

and ranged from 30 to 62 ft below MLW. The greatest depths 

generally were when the inlet was narrowest (1943–1958) and 

during the 1960–1962 stormy period. 

Ocracoke Inlet has been maintained by dredging at 

various times in its past history (USACE, 1964). The USACE 

began an extensive dredging program for the main channel 

of Ocracoke Inlet in 1828 to 1835 and began construction 

of a jetty that was seriously damaged by a hurricane before 

construction was completed (Stick, 1958). The channel was 

finally reopened by dredging in 1895 to 1905, when dredging 

was again abandoned (Stick, 1958). Another dredging program 

was begun in 1942 and continued irregularly through at least 

1961 (USACE, 1964). 

Barden Inlet

South Core Banks was initially connected to Shackleford 

Banks. Core Banks extended southwest beyond Shackelford 

Banks to form Cape Lookout. A major sand spit extended 

northwest to form a protected embayment called the Cape 

Lookout Bight (fig. 4A). “Beginning in 1912, there was an 

effort to turn this into a harbor of refuge for ocean-going 

ships in time of storms, and at the same time connecting 

Cape Lookout with the railroad at Beaufort” (Stick, 1958). 

Sand fencing was constructed on the Cape in 1913 and 

construction began in 1914 on a 7,050-ft long rock breakwater 

to protect the harbor. Only 4,800 ft was completed before the 

breakwater construction was terminated and the whole project 

was discontinued due to the start of WW I. This jetty caused 

a major accretion of sand that elongated the spit towards 

Shackleford Banks and significantly increased the areal extent 

of Cape Lookout Bight (figs. 4B and 4C). According to the 

USACE (1964), the minimum depth in Cape Lookout Bight 

was 30 ft. 

Barden Inlet opened in the 1933 hurricane as a small and 

ephemeral inlet (figs. 4B and 4C) and was originally called 

Cape Inlet and The Drain (Stick, 1958). Barden Inlet separated 

Cape Lookout from Shackleford Banks. In 1937, the inlet 

was authorized to be dredged to a depth of 7 ft and has been 

irregularly dredged ever since (figs. 4C, 4D, and 4E).

The Drum Inlets

Old Drum Inlet initially opened in about 1899, separating 

North Core Banks from South Core Banks, and closed 

naturally in 1910. Old Drum Inlet (fig. 2A and 2B) was 

re-opened by a major hurricane that came ashore at Cape 

Lookout on September 16, 1933 and traveled just west of Core 

Banks into Pamlico Sound. The northeast winds, estimated 

to be about 125 miles per hour (mph), produced record high 

storm surges in the upper reaches of the Neuse and Pamlico 

Rivers, with low storm surge in Albemarle Sound as it moved 

northeastward towards the northern Outer Banks. As the 

storm passed, the northwest to southeast winds reversed the 

storm surge, which swept eastward, “overwashing Core Banks 

from west to east and opening Drum Inlet in the process” 

(Barnes, 2001). 

Old Drum Inlet had to be dredged at least six times on 

an irregular basis from 1939 to 1952 in order to help keep 

it open. It finally closed naturally in January 1971 (fig. 2C). 

In response, the USACE artificially opened New Drum Inlet 

in December 1971 about 2.5 mi to the southwest of the Old 

Drum Inlet site (fig. 2C). In September 1999, as the eye of 

Hurricane Dennis crossed Core Banks near Cape Lookout, Old 

Drum Inlet opened once again (fig. 2D). It is now called NewOld Drum Inlet and today is still an open and viable inlet. 

In 1938, Congress authorized the USACE to dredge and 

maintain Drum Inlet, which opened in 1933, with a 200-ft 

wide and 12-ft deep channel (Stick, 1958). Based on the 

USACE (1964) study, the width of Old Drum Inlet varied 

from a maximum of 2,100 ft in 1936 to a minimum of 300 

ft in 1956. The average width was 1,073 ft, based on 15 data 

points from 1935 to 1961. The area of the inlet below mean 

tide level averaged 7,088 ft2

, based on 8 data points from 1935 

to 1957, and ranged from 10,300 ft2

 to 5,400 ft2. Drum Inlet 

was relatively constant in width and fixed in place from the 

time it opened until 1955. By 1956, the inlet had narrowed 

and shallowed and by 1957 had begun a rapid southwestward 

migration (fig. 2A and 2B). Prior to 1957, the channel thalweg 

depth (measured along a line drawn along the axis of the 

adjacent islands) averaged 14.5 ft below MLW (based on 9 

data points) and ranged from 10.5 to 22.4 ft below MLW. By 

1957, the minimum depth was listed as less than 1.5 ft. Thus, 

the cross-sectional area of Old Drum Inlet was more than an 

order of magnitude smaller than Ocracoke Inlet with about 

one-third the channel depth.

9
10 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

Ephemeral Inlets

Numerous other smaller inlets that have opened and 

closed periodically during historic times in both South and 

North Core Banks include Cedar Inlet, Sand Island Inlet, 

New Inlet, Whalebone Inlet, and Swash Inlet (USACE, 1964; 

Fisher, 1962; Payne, 1985). On South Core Banks, Cedar Inlet 

was open from about 1725 to 1833, and possibly until 1865, 

and connected the Atlantic Ocean with Core Sound through 

Old Channel. New Inlet was located about 15.2 mi southwest 

of New Drum Inlet and was open from about 1830 to about 

1902. In the past, this latter inlet also was referred to as Old 

Drum Inlet, which is not to be confused with the Old Drum 

Inlet that separated North and South Core Banks prior to 1971 

and reopened as New-Old Drum Inlet in 1999. 

On North Core Banks, Sand Island Inlet was located 

12 mi southwest of Portsmouth Village and was open from 

about 1870 to at least 1961. Swash Inlet separated Portsmouth 

Island from Pilontary Island, and was located about 7.5 mi 

southwest of Portsmouth Village. This inlet was open from 

1585 through the early 18th century. Whalebone Inlet was 

located about 4.7 mi southwest of Portsmouth Village and to 

the southwestern side of the High Hills dunes (fig. 3). This 

inlet opened in 1865 and closed in the early 1900s. Swash and 

Whalebone Inlets reopened sometime around 1939 and were 

active but ephemeral inlets through 1962 (fig. 3). They were 

closed by 1983, and now are usually only open temporarily 

during major storms, when they act as overwash fans with 

very shallow channels that do not extend below MSL. These 

temporary features are referred to as overwash breaches rather 

than inlets, which, by definition, are required to have channels 

that extend well below MSL to remain open as viable inlets. 

North Carolina Storm History

North Carolina has a long history with tropical storms 

and hurricanes. Since the Colonists first landed on Roanoke 

Island in 1584, storms have played a major role in both 

the processes of change within the natural coastal system, 

as well as in the lives of people living in the coastal zone. 

Classification of tropical cyclone intensity began in 1886. 

Since then, 951 tropical cyclones were recorded in the Atlantic 

Ocean and Gulf of Mexico; approximately 166 or 17.5 percent 

of those tropical cyclones passed within 300 mi of North 

Carolina (www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/climates/hurricane.php). 

The geometry of North Carolina’s coastline, in concert with 

the proximal location of the warm water Gulf Stream, makes 

the North Carolina coast, and particularly the three capes, 

favorable targets for tropical cyclones. 

The actual number of hurricane strikes in North Carolina 

(fig. 5) is summarized by decade for the 20th century

(www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/climates/hurricane.php). Based 

on these data, a total of 64 hurricanes of category 1 or greater 

made landfall from 1900 to 1999 (average = 6.4 hurricanes/

decade). Some of these storms came ashore in South 

Carolina or southeastern North Carolina and traveled into 

the central and western part of the state with little impact on 

the northeastern coastal system. For the period of the present 

study (1960–2001), there is a strong pattern of increasing 

hurricane activity through time. The two decades just prior 

to the USACE surveys represent an active period followed 

immediately by a substantial decrease in storms during the 

1960s and 1970s. This was followed by two decades (1980s 

and 1990s) of high hurricane landfall activity. 

For the first 62 years of the 20th century, Core Banks 

experienced at least 36 hurricanes that directly affected 

its coastal system to some degree (USACE, 1964). Barnes 

(2001) described an additional 11 hurricanes that impacted 

Core Banks for the last 38 years of the 20th century. The 47 

hurricanes do not include extra-tropical storms (such as the 

Ash Wednesday nor’easter) that commonly occur along the 

North Carolina coast during the winter season. Because of 

poor records for Core Banks, the USACE used data recorded 

at Ocracoke Village and Atlantic Beach (fig. 1) to estimate the 

storm surge for the hurricanes impacting Core Banks during 

the first 62 years of the 20th century. These surges ranged 

from +3 to +10.6 ft above MSL.

Active Storm Period: 1940–1962

The 22-year period from 1940, when the first major aerial 

photography was done for the entire Core Banks, through 

the first two USACE Core Banks surveys in 1960 and 1961, 

represents a time of high storm activity (fig. 5). Seventeen 

hurricanes impacted the North Carolina coastal system during 

this period, including two in 1944 and three each in 1954 

and 1955 (USACE, 1964; Barnes, 2001). This stormy period 

culminated in Hurricane Donna in September 1960 and the 

Ash Wednesday storm of March 1962.

Hurricane Donna was the storm that occurred a few 

months after the first USACE Core Banks survey in 1960 

and destroyed many of the reference markers. Hurricane 

Donna was a category 3 storm that moved into North Carolina 

over Topsail Island with a +10.6-ft storm surge at Atlantic 

Beach (Barnes, 2001). The storm traveled northeast through 

Carteret County and Pamlico Sound, about 60 mi west of 

Core Banks. The winds were up to 120 mph along the Outer 

Banks; they first approached Core Banks from the south, and 

then slowly swung around to the southeast and finally the 

northeast (USACE, 1964; Barnes, 2001). Coastal communities 

throughout North Carolina received severe coastal erosion 

and extensive structural damage. Because Core Banks was 

on the eastern side of the storm, the Banks experienced 

severe flooding, overwash, and shoreline erosion. The second 

USACE survey took place at the end of the year (1961) 

following Hurricane Donna. 

10
Description of Core Banks 11

Figure 5. Total number of hurricane strikes in North Carolina by decade for the period from 1900 to 1999. 

(From www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/images/climate/hurricane_by_decade_big.jpg.)

11
12 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

The Ash Wednesday storm was an extra-tropical cyclone 

that pounded the North Carolina Outer Banks for 3 days from 

March 7 to 9, 1962. It lasted through a series of “near-record” 

spring high tides with northeast winds up to 60 mph at Cape 

Hatteras (Barnes, 2001). The dominant northeast and northwest winds associated with this storm produced a +4-ft storm 

surge in Pamlico Sound at Ocracoke Village (USACE, 1964); 

however, the wind was largely offshore along Core Banks, 

causing a set-down of the water level on the ocean side of the 

barrier. As a result, the erosion was not as dominant a process 

as it is with most hurricanes that produce onshore winds and 

storm surge. The final USACE survey was conducted during 

the summer following the Ash Wednesday storm.

Low Storm Activity Period: 1963–1970

According to Barnes (2001) there were no major storms 

that directly impacted Core Banks between the USACE 1962 

survey and the G&G 1971 survey. Barnes described this as 

a time when the coastal waters of NC remained relatively 

quiet as a “mysterious period of calm.” The initial G&G 1971 

survey was during the summers of 1970 and 1971 at the end of 

this quiescent period and prior to Hurricane Ginger.

Moderate Storm Activity Period: 1971–1990

Hurricane Ginger broke the calm as it crossed the North 

Carolina shoreline in the Cape Lookout area as a category 1 

storm on September 30, 1971, having spent several weeks 

developing in the Bermuda area, east of North Carolina 

(Barnes, 2001). This resulted in a strong wind field with large 

waves up to 14 ft high that pounded the Core Banks shoreline 

for many days before the storm made landfall. The storm 

came ashore with a surge of about 8 ft above MSL that drove 

water completely across Core Banks between Cape Lookout 

and Portsmouth (Dolan and Godfrey, 1973). Because of the 

nature of this storm, there was a significant geological impact 

on Core Banks (Dolan and Godfrey, 1973). Hurricane Ginger 

broke the quiescent period and occurred while Godfrey and 

Godfrey (1976) were in the middle of mapping overwash 

fans and vegetation communities; consequently, it was a very 

important event captured by their cross-island profile mapping. 

During the 19-year period from late 1971 to 1990, Barnes 

(2001; www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/climates/hurricane.php) 

recorded only four minor hurricanes that directly impacted the 

North Carolina coastal system.

•	 Hurricane Ginger: September 30–October 1, 1971 

(category 1)

•	 Hurricane Diana: September 9–14, 1984 (category 1)

•	 Hurricane Gloria: September 26–27, 1985 (category 2)

•	 Hurricane Charley: August 17–18, 1986 (category 1)

The first two of these storms tracked across North 

Carolina on the westernmost side of the Pamlico Sound 

estuarine system. The third storm paralleled the coast and 

came directly over Cape Hatteras. The fourth hurricane was 

a weak category 1 storm that came ashore in the PortsmouthOcracoke area. A major nor’easter, the Lincoln Day Storm, 

occurred in February 1973. 

Most Active Storm Period in Recorded N.C. 

History: 1991–2005

This 14-year period had 13 hurricanes that directly 

impacted the North Carolina coastal system, along with 

several major nor’easters, including the Halloween Day Storm 

(what is now called the “Perfect Storm”) of October 1991. 

•	 Hurricane Bob: August 19, 1991 (category 3)

•	 Hurricane Emily: August 31, 1993 (category 3)

•	 Hurricane Gordon: November 1994 (category 1)

•	 Hurricane Bertha: July 12–13, 1996 (category 2)

•	 Hurricane Fran: September 5–6, 1996 (category 3)

•	 Hurricane Bonnie: August 26–28, 1998 (category 3)

•	 Hurricane Dennis: August 30–September 5, 1999 

(category 1) 

•	 Hurricane Floyd: September 16, 1999 (category 2)

•	 Hurricane Irene: October 17, 1999 (category 1)

•	 Hurricane Isabel: September 18, 2003 (category 2)

•	 Hurricane Alex: August 3, 2004 (category 1)

•	 Hurricane Charley: August 14, 2004 (category 1)

•	 Hurricane Ophelia: September 14–16, 2005 (category 1)

The first nine of these hurricanes occurred prior to the 

ECU 2001 survey with the results factored into the long-term 

erosion rates. All of these storms either came directly ashore 

with varying impacts on Core Banks or traveled along the 

shoreline just east of Core Banks. The latter shore-parallel 

storms (i.e., Bob, Emily, Gordon, Dennis, Irene, Alex, and 

Ophelia) built significant sea states and storm surges. Each 

storm had major impacts on Core Banks shoreline erosion 

with small, but variable amounts of overwash as it passed 

offshore. In contrast, Hurricane Isabel came directly onshore 

at North Core Banks with a 6- to 10-ft storm surge and 

produced overwash fans that were deposited across the entire 

island in many localities. 

12
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 13

Methods of Data Collection and 

Analysis

Core Banks covers portions of nine USGS topographic 

quadrangles: Cape Lookout, Horsepen Pt., Harkers Is., 

Davis, Styron Bay, Atlantic, Wainright Is., Portsmouth, and 

Ocracoke. The 1998 color infrared, digital orthophoto quarter 

quadrangles (DOQQs) were used as base maps for the present 

study. The DOQQ images are in North Carolina State Plane 

1983 (meter) coordinate system and MrSID format. Each 

DOQQ image covers the area of a quarter of a USGS 7.5-

minute topographic quadrangle with a spatial resolution of 

1 meter. Where needed, 7.5-minute topographic maps or other 

map bases were used to supplement the aerial photographic 

coverage. All line work was digitized and manipulated in 

the following software programs: MapInfo Professional 6.5, 

ArcView GIS 3.2a, ArcGIS 8.3, and Microsoft Excel 2000. 

The data are stored on CD-ROMs in the Geology Department 

at East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina. 

USACE (1964) established and surveyed 77 shoreperpendicular profiles (P) on North and South Core Banks 

numbered P1 (at Cape Lookout) through P77 (at Ocracoke 

Inlet) as indicated on figure 6. The profiles were spaced at 

3,000-ft intervals, except for profiles P1 and P77, which were 

about 2,400 ft from P2 and the Ocracoke Inlet shoreline, 

respectively. The odd-numbered profiles on North Core Banks 

and the even-numbered profiles on South Core Banks were 

short and only extended across the seaward portion of the 

barrier islands (fig. 6). The opposite-numbered profiles were 

long and extended into the estuary to -10-ft water depths and 

seaward into the ocean to depths of -30 ft below MSL (fig. 6). 

Each profile has three or more reference markers (RM) 

located 100 ft apart along the shore-perpendicular profile 

line (fig. 7). RM-0 is closest to the ocean and constitutes the 

baseline monument for all 77 profiles. Each reference marker 

consists of a 1.5-inch (in.) steel pipe with a threaded cap on 

top (fig. 8A) with the profile and reference marker numbers 

stamped in the top. Each reference marker was set at least 4 ft 

in the sand with about 8 in. of pipe rising above a 1- to 2-ft 

diameter concrete collar (fig. 8B). The top of the concrete 

also contains the profile and reference marker numbers and 

represents the sediment surface at the time of installation in 

1960–62 (fig. 8B). A 4 X 4-in. by 7-ft wooden marker post 

was initially installed 3 ft into the ground adjacent to each 

RM-0 with a 2 X 4-in. cross member below the sediment 

surface to resist withdrawal. Today, many of the pipes are 

deeply buried in sand, highly rusted (fig. 8B), or severely 

eroded (fig. 8C). Most of the original wooden guard posts are 

gone; Cape Lookout personnel have placed new wooden posts 

adjacent to many of the relocated reference markers (fig. 8C). 

USACE survey data on Core Banks for each profile and 

associated reference markers included elevation above MSL 

(based on the 1929 datum) and distance to the shoreline of 

the 1929 datum. Bathymetric profiles run into the estuary 

and seaward into the ocean also are based on the 1929 

datum. The initial USACE (1964) survey took place in June 

1960. Many reference markers from the first survey were 

destroyed by Hurricane Donna on September 12, 1960. The 

destroyed reference markers were replaced and resurveyed 

in September to December 1961, only to be destroyed by the 

Ash Wednesday extra-tropical cyclone in March 1962. The 

USACE re-established and resurveyed the reference markers 

for the third time during June to July 1962. At that time 

additional reference markers were installed landward of the 

surviving reference markers along the existing 76 profiles. 

Profile P1 was found to be unusable so a new profile, A1, was 

set 400 ft north of P1. 

A schematic diagram that shows the methods used by 

the USACE (1964) to determine the shoreline changes in 

their 1960, 1961, and 1962 surveys is shown in figure 7. The 

USACE datum was the 1929 MSL. In order to adequately 

determine the shoreline change through time, it was necessary 

for the G&G 1971 (Godfrey and Godfrey, 1976) and ECU 

2001 (this report) shoreline surveys to use the 1929 MSL 

datum as demonstrated in figure 7. However, because sea level 

has been steadily rising in coastal North Carolina since 1929 

(Riggs and Ames, 2003), the 1929 shoreline is now some 

distance seaward of the modern shoreline. The control is the 

known elevation of the reference markers surveyed by the 

USACE. Consequently, the procedure used by both the 1971 

and 2001 surveys involved level lines shot from a reference 

marker onto a stadia rod that was moved seaward down the 

beach face until the elevation on the stadia rod was equal to 

the elevation of the reference marker. The horizontal distance 

between the reference marker and the stadia rod represents the 

1971 and 2001 shorelines, respectively. 

As an integral part of the 1961 survey, the USACE ran 

a series of bathymetric profiles on both the Atlantic Ocean 

and Core Sound sides of the barrier islands (USACE, 1964). 

The shoreface bathymetric survey data for Core Banks is 

summarized in appendix 2. The USACE 1961 bathymetric 

survey data represent the horizontal distance obtained along 

alternate profiles (fig. 6) and measured from the MSL 

shoreline, based on the 1929 datum, out to the 6-, 12-, 18-, 

24-, and 30-ft submarine contours, respectively. 

The general procedure used in the ECU 2001 survey 

by Mr. Robert White with substantial help from Dr. Michael 

Rikard and other CALO personnel, was as follows.

13
14 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

Figure 6. The 77 profiles and associated topographic and bathymetric surveys done from 1960 to 1962 by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) on North Core Banks (A), and South Core Banks (B), Cape Lookout National Seashore, North 

Carolina. (From USACE,1964.)

A. B.

14
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 15

Figure 7. (A) One profile line with reference markers (RMs) developed for the 1960 to 1962 surveys of North and South 

Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. This panel also shows the method used by the USACE 

(1964) survey to measure the horizontal distance to the shoreline and vertical elevation change. (B) The same profile 

surveyed in 2001 and the method for determining net change in shoreline location and elevation.

15
16 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

1. The search to locate and recover as many reference 

markers as possible along the 77 profiles began from a known 

USACE profile with one or more exposed reference markers. 

2. Using the known 100-ft distance between reference 

markers and the known 3,000-ft distance between profiles, the 

theoretical locations of adjacent reference markers and profiles 

were determined using a Trimble ProXRS Global Positioning 

System (GPS) unit. 

3. If no reference markers were exposed, a ferrous iron 

“Ferro-Trak” metal detector was used to locate the existing 

buried reference markers along that profile. If it was obvious 

that the reference marker had been lost to erosion, the search 

shifted to the next landward reference marker along that 

profile.

4. Once a buried reference marker was located and 

uncovered, the horizontal location was determined by 

collecting 180 to 300 data points using the GPS unit with the 

antenna located on top of the reference marker, as indicated 

in figure 8D. The relevant data were transferred to a personal 

computer and differentially corrected by post-processing 

with software version 2.80 of GPS Pathfinder Office. The 

horizontal accuracy is better than +/- 1 meter. The location 

data are presented in appendix 5.

5. Work proceeded along the islands until all possible 

reference markers were located and their horizontal location 

mapped with the GPS unit. The locations were plotted along 

the 1998 DOQQ mosaic.

6. One or more reference markers were recovered from 

57 of the total 77 profiles (fig. 9). No locatable reference 

markers were found for 20 profiles due to one or more of the 

following reasons: (a) the reference markers were eroded by 

the sea either as the shoreline receded or by inlet dynamics, 

Figure 8. Relocated U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1960–1962 reference markers (RM) on Core Banks, Cape Lookout 

National Seashore, North Carolina. (A) Photograph taken in 2001 of the top of a reference marker that was not totally 

buried. (B) Photograph shows RM 32-1, which has been eroded, exposing the cement collar that was poured with 

the top at ground surface. Notice that the pipe above the concrete has totally rusted away. (C) Photograph taken in 

March 2004 near Drum Inlet on South Core Banks. Hurricane Isabel (9-18-2003) eroded the shoreline and exposed 

this reference marker on the active beach. (D) Photograph shows the ECU 2001 method for surveying the latitude and 

longitude of each relocated reference marker using a Trimble Global Positioning System unit.

16
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 17

(b) the reference markers were rusted away or buried too 

deeply for the metal detector to pick up, or (c) the reference 

markers were destroyed by human activity. 

7. The amount of elevation change was measured from 

the top of the metal pipe to the present sediment surface 

(appendix 6) and compared to the original elevation data as 

recorded by the USACE (appendix 1) to determine the amount 

of accretion if the reference marker was buried or deflation if 

the reference marker was exposed. 

8. At each relocated profile, the recovered reference 

marker closest to the ocean was used to gather the 2001 

shoreline change data. The procedure for measuring the 

distance from a surviving reference marker to the 2001 

shoreline based on the 1929 MSL datum is shown in figure 7. 

A TOPCON Marksman RL-50A rotating laser was used for 

the survey with a Level Sensor LS-50B mounted to a wooden 

Philadelphia Level Rod. 

9. The rotating laser was set up near the reference marker, 

the level rod was placed on the reference marker (of known 

elevation based on the 1929 datum), and the level sensor 

mounted on the rod was placed in line with the laser beam. 

The elevation of the level sensor on the level rod was recorded 

as the “instrument height.” With the level sensor still in 

place on the level rod, the level rod was extended and moved 

seaward along a straight line perpendicular to the shore until 

the laser beam hit the level sensor at the instrument height. 

The horizontal distance from the reference marker to that 

position was the distance to the 2001 shoreline based on the 

1929 MSL datum and is reported in appendix 6. 

10. The difference between the 2001 distance from 

the reference marker to the 1929 MSL and the distance as 

previously determined by the USACE in the 1960 survey, 

is the net change in shoreline that has occurred over the 

41-year time period. These data are listed in appendix 6. 

The net shoreline change that has occurred during the other 

time periods is the difference between the ECU 2001 survey 

distance and the distance obtained by the USACE 1961, 1962, 

and the G&G 1971 surveys, respectively.

11. The ECU survey data were tabulated, calculated 

for the different time periods (appendix 6), and statistically 

compared with the data sets of USACE 1960–1961, 1961–

1962, 1960–1962 (appendixes 1 and 2); G&G 1962–1971 

(appendixes 3 and 4); and NCDCM 1946–1992, and 

1946–1998 (appendix 7). Simple statistics (averages, etc.) 

and correlation coefficients were determined using statistical 

functions in Microsoft Excel 2000.

12. The net shoreline change and the average rate of 

change for each profile along Core Banks were graphed 

and plotted along the 1998 DOQQ mosaic for Core Banks 

to facilitate correlation of shoreline change with barrier 

island processes. 

13. The net elevation change was calculated for the 

different sets of the RM-0, RM-1, and RM-2 relocated 

reference markers.

14. The net shoreline change data were plotted against the 

USACE 1961 shoreface slope data (appendix 2) to determine 

the relationship of erosional processes to shoreface geometry.

The shoreline recession data used by NCDCM, as well 

as many other shoreline recession studies, are based on a 

different method from that used by USACE. NCDCM data 

(Benton and others, 1993; 1997) are based on differences 

between two end-point sets of georeferenced aerial 

photographs. The X located on the schematic drawings in 

figure 10 is the location of a theoretical wet-dry line and 

demonstrates the theoretical difference in results produced 

by the NCDCM method as compared to the USACE method. 

Thus, shoreline erosion data obtained by these two different 

methods should not be exactly the same; however, the two 

methods should approximate each other and show similar 

patterns of shoreline change through time.

The NCDCM developed two long-term shoreline erosion 

data sets for the entire North Carolina ocean shoreline based 

on the “end-point” method of aerial photographic analysis 

(Benton and others, 1993; 1997). This method uses sets of 

georeferenced aerial photographs and measures the location of 

the wet-dry line on the beach between the earliest and the most 

recent aerial photographs. The distance between the two wetdry lines is measured along previously established transects 

that are perpendicular to the shoreline. The total distance of 

change is then divided by the number of years between the 

two end points to obtain the average annual rate of shoreline 

change. 

The NCDCM procedures for data presentation subdivide 

the shoreline into segments with similar erosion rates. Each 

segment is at least 0.25-mi long and consists of grouped 

consecutive shoreline change rates that differ by 1 ft/yr or less. 

The erosion rate, or erosion factor, appears on each segment 

on the aerial photographs in the report. Segments that have 

accreted or eroded less than -2 ft/yr are automatically assigned 

an erosion factor of -2 ft/yr for regulatory purposes. The Core 

Banks portion of the two long-term shoreline erosion data 

sets, NCDCM 1940–1992 and 1946–1998, are summarized in 

appendix 7. The NCDCM long-term data were used primarily 

as a cross check for the ECU 1960–2001 long-term data. 

Although they represent somewhat different time periods and 

different survey methods, the data produced similar results. 

17
18 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

Figure 9. The 57 profiles located by the 2001 East Carolina University survey of the original 

77 profiles established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on North and South Core Banks, 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. Data are listed in appendix 5. Data are plotted 

along the 1998 DOQQ mosaic for Core Banks. The red circles show the 57 profiles with one or 

more reference markers that were relocated in the 2001 ECU survey. No reference markers 

were located along the 20 profiles marked with white circles.

18
Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics 19

Effect of Storms on Barrier Island 

Dynamics

Coastal storms have a substantial effect on the geomorphology of barrier islands and inlets on North Carolina’s Core 

Banks. Changes in shoreline geometry and island elevation 

were determined by comparing five survey data sets of 77 

shore-perpendicular profiles and associated reference markers, 

in concert with the analysis of georeferenced aerial photographs. The results document the historical pattern of shoreline and elevation changes through time and demonstrate the 

importance of storms in the evolution of barrier islands; these 

processes have significant implications for the coastal management of barrier islands.

Shoreline and Elevation Changes on Core Banks

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Data Sets

Data from the three surveys by the USACE are presented 

in appendix 1. Columns E, F, and G record the distances from 

the baseline reference marker (RM-0) to mean sea level (MSL 

1929 datum) along each profile for the 1960, 1961, and 1962 

surveys, respectively. Because the reference markers are 100 

ft apart, adding 100 to the distance measured for RM-0 yields 

the distance of RM-1 to the shoreline (MSL 1929 datum). 

Data from the 1961 survey also record the elevation at the top 

of the reference markers and at ground elevation (appendix 1, 

columns C and D). 

Figure 10. The method used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Godfrey and Godfrey, and East Carolina University 

to determine shoreline changes in their 1960 (A), 1961, 1962 (B), 1971, and 2001 (C) shoreline surveys, Core Banks, Cape 

Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. All these surveys used a mean sea level based on the 1929 datum. The X on 

the diagrams represents the wet-dry line that is used in many aerial photograph analyses of shoreline erosion, including 

the method used by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. Notice the potentially different results obtained by 

using the two different methods. 

19
20 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

A histogram plot (fig. 11) shows the net shoreline change 

data for the 77 profiles on Core Banks for the USACE 1960–

1961 survey (blue) and the USACE 1961–1962 survey (red). 

The initial survey was carried out in June 1960 with many of 

the reference markers being destroyed by Hurricane Donna 

on September 12, 1960. The reference markers were replaced 

and resurveyed in September to December 1961 only to be 

partially destroyed by the Ash Wednesday nor’easter in March 

1962. Thus, a third survey was undertaken in June to July 

1962. This plot shows the patterns of shoreline erosion and 

accretion associated with three surveys and two major storms. 

Comparison of these data sets demonstrates that profiles 

experiencing erosion in one storm, generally exhibit accretion 

during a second storm and vice versa. 

These data sets captured the impact of a major, but 

different kind of storm event (fig. 12). The 1960–1961 data set 

captured the severe erosional impact of Hurricane Donna, a 

category 3 cyclonic storm that moved through North Carolina 

about 60 mi west of Core Banks. The subsequent September 

to December 1961 resurvey by the USACE (1964) took place 

more than 1 year after Hurricane Donna. In spite of the long 

time period between the storm and resurvey, the shoreline 

change data along Core Banks ranged from a maximum 

erosion rate of -164 ft/yr to a maximum accretion rate of 

+112 ft/yr with an overall average annual erosion rate of 

-40 ft/yr for all of Core Banks (table 1). 

The 1961–1962 data set (fig. 13) captured the impact 

of the Ash Wednesday extra-tropical cyclone or nor’easter. 

The subsequent June–July 1962 resurvey by the USACE 

(1964) represents only a 3- to 4-month post-storm period. The 

shoreline response data ranged from a maximum erosion rate 

of -226 ft/yr to a maximum accretion rate of +153 ft/yr with 

an overall average annual erosion rate of -26 ft/yr for all of 

Core Banks (table 1). Larger maximum erosion and maximum 

accretion numbers are shown on figure 12; however, these 

large numbers are related to the opening and/or migration 

of inlet channels and spits and have been removed from the 

calculations concerning shoreline recession (tables 1 and 5).

The maximum erosion and accretion and average annual 

rate of erosion and accretion resulting from the two storms 

and determined by the three USACE surveys for Core Banks 

are summarized in table 1. The overall average annual erosion 

rate for this 3-year period (1960–1962) was -36 ft/yr with a 

net maximum erosion of -97 ft/yr and net maximum accretion 

of +45 ft/yr. Table 1 also summarizes the net impact of both 

these storm-dominated survey sets combined as a net shoreline 

change for the USACE 1960–1962 data set. The net average 

annual erosion rate for all of Core Banks is -36 ft/yr. This 

demonstrates a general smoothing out of the maximum erosion 

and accretion rate data to smaller numbers of -97 ft/yr and 

+45 ft/yr, respectively. 

Because there are no weather instruments on Core Banks 

or in the surrounding areas and no people live on these islands, 

absolute weather conditions during these two storms cannot 

be determined. However, these two types of storms produce 

very different coastal conditions, in terms of storm surge, 

wave setup, wind direction, wind velocity, and duration, and 

would probably cause the different responses displayed in the 

two data sets. For example, Hurricane Donna was a fast (1 

day), northward-moving category 3 hurricane that produced 

direct onshore winds along Core Banks with possibly a +10-ft 

storm surge. In comparison, the Ash Wednesday nor’easter 

was of long duration (3 days) through numerous high-tide 

cycles, with lower wind velocities (up to 60 mph) that were 

dominantly shore parallel and possible storm surges up to +4 ft 

above MSL. These storm differences probably are the cause 

for the inverse relationship of these two data sets.

The initial ground elevation data for all 264 reference 

markers installed and surveyed by the USACE in 1961 are 

listed in appendix 1 (column D). The USACE installed 77 

reference markers at RM-0, RM-1, and RM-2, respectively 

along each of the 77 profiles. In addition they installed 

33 reference markers that were labeled RM-4, RM-6, and 

RM-8 in a few wide portions of Core Banks (see appendix 1, 

column B). The ground elevation data for the USACE 1961 

survey are summarized in table 2.

During the USACE 1961 survey, the horizontal distances 

and water depths for all alternate profiles were measured from 

the shoreline seaward to the 6-, 12-, 18-, 24-, and 30-ft depth 

contours. Water depth was based on the 1929 MSL datum. The 

horizontal distance data from RM-0 on alternate profiles to the 

sequential bathymetric contours out to the 30-ft water depth 

contour are listed in appendix 2. The 1961 data are plotted as 

histograms in figure 13 along the 1998 DOQQ mosaic to allow 

comparison of shoreface slope with the shoreline erosion 

processes on Core Banks. 

The horizontal distance seaward from the shoreline of 

Core Banks to the 30-ft bathymetric contour surveyed in 1961 

by the USACE is plotted on figure 14. The lowest slope occurs 

along profiles P1 to P15 adjacent to Cape Lookout and along 

P74 to P77 adjacent to Ocracoke Inlet. Between these two end 

points, the slope increases to its steepest point between P19 

and P31, which is just southwest of New Drum Inlet. P31 is 

approximately where the major bend is in South Core Banks 

(see oblique aerial photograph; fig. 24A). This is also the area 

where the 6- and 12-ft bathymetric contours have steep slopes.

20
Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics 21

Figure 11. Net shoreline change data for 77 profiles between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers between the 1960 and 

1961 surveys (blue) and the 1961 and 1962 surveys (red), Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. 

Data are listed in appendix 1. These plots show the patterns of shoreline erosion and accretion associated with three 

surveys and two major storms. The initial survey was conducted in June 1960 with many of the reference markers 

destroyed by Hurricane Donna on September 12, 1960. The reference markers were replaced and resurveyed in September 

to December 1961 only to be partially destroyed by the Ash Wednesday nor’easter in March 1962. A third survey was 

conducted in June to July 1962. The data are plotted along the 1998 DOQQ mosaic for Core Banks. 

21
22 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

Figure 12. Average annual rate of shoreline change for the 77 profiles between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1960 

and 1961 surveys (blue) and the 1961 and 1962 surveys (red), Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. 

Data are listed in appendix 2. This plot shows the generally inverse pattern of shoreline erosion and accretion resulting 

from the two different types of storms. 

Table 1. Maximum and average annual rates of shoreline erosion and accretion for each of the shoreline survey data sets 

for North and South Core Banks combined, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. 

[The three U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) data sets represent short-term surveys that bracketed two major storms. The Godfrey and 

Godfrey (G&G) data set is the short-term, non-storm period that followed the USACE surveys. The East Carolina University (ECU) and North 

Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) data sets represent long-term shoreline erosion rates]

Data sets Average erosion

(ft/yr)

 Maximum erosion

(ft/yr) 

Maximum accretion

(ft/yr)

USACE 1960–611 -40 -164 +112

USACE 1961–621 -26 -226 +153

USACE 1960–621 -36 -97 +45

G&G 1962–71 +12 -11 +55

ECU 1960–2001 -5 -19 0

NCDCM 1946–982 -5 -30

1

The extremely high erosion and accretion numbers associated with the opening, migration, and closing of inlets on North Core Banks resulting 

from the two storms have been eliminated from this analysis (i.e., profiles P44, P45, P62, P66, P67, and P68). 

2

NCDCM data does not recognize accretion.

22
Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics 23

Table 2. Summary of the elevation data for 231 reference markers on 77 profiles from the 1961 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers survey 

for Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina.

[USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; see appendix 1 for data. All elevations are in relation to mean sea level (1929 datum)] 

Reference markers RM-0s RM-1s RM-2s All reference 

markers1

USACE 1961 Total number of reference markers 77 77 77 264

USACE 1961 Average ground elevation (in feet) +5.8 +5.2 +4.8 +5.0

USACE 1961 Maximum ground elevation (in feet) +9.2 +8.8 +11.6 +11.6

USACE 1961 Minimum ground elevation (in feet) +2.3 +2.1 +2.1 -1.3

1

Includes all reference markers from RM-0 through RM-2 plus all others through RM-8 that were established by the USACE in 1961.

Figure 13. Horizontal distance from the shoreline to the 6-, 12-, 18-, 24-, and 30-foot depth contours for all alternate 

profiles from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1961 survey, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. 

Data are listed in appendix 2. The data are plotted along the 1998 DOQQ mosaic to relate the shoreface slope to the general 

shoreline features and associated erosion rates on Core Banks. Water depth is based on the 1929 MSL datum. 

23
24 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

Godfrey and Godfrey Data Sets

The shoreline erosion data from the G&G 1971 survey 

are listed in appendix 4. The G&G 1971 survey only measured 

the horizontal shoreline change on 39 selected profiles (fig. 

15). Because the original G&G 1971 survey data are not 

available in the public domain, the G&G 1971 data were 

interpreted from a graphic plot (Godfrey and Godfrey, 1976, 

fig. 37). The interpreted data are presented as approximate 

erosion rates for 1962–1971 in figure 15. The overall error 

in interpreting the graphic plot to obtain a numerical data set 

(appendix 4) was statistically determined to be +/- 0.6 percent. 

The maximum and average annual rates of erosion and 

accretion from the G&G 1962–1971 survey are summarized in 

table 1. The average annual accretion rate for the 9-year period 

(1962–1971) was +12 ft/yr, with a maximum erosion of -11 ft/

yr and a maximum accretion of +55 ft/yr.

A histogram of shoreline change that compares the 

difference between the G&G 1971 survey data (blue) 

and the USACE 1960–1962 survey data (red) is shown in 

figure 16. The USACE 1960–1962 shoreline change data 

(USACE, 1964) are overwhelmingly dominated by erosion in 

response to Hurricane Donna in 1960 and the Ash Wednesday 

nor’easter in 1962. In comparison, the shoreline change 

data for the G&G 1962–1971 survey are overwhelmingly 

dominated by shoreline accretion. 

Statistical comparison between the G&G and the USACE 

survey data suggest very poor to no correlation. The G&G 

1962–1971 survey represents a time of low storm activity. 

According to Barnes (2001), low storm activity began after the 

Ash Wednesday Storm of 1962 and concluded when Hurricane 

Ginger came ashore in late 1971. These data suggest that 

1963–1970 was generally an accretionary period for Core 

Banks with an average annual accretion rate of +12 ft/yr 

(table 1). Thus, the Core Banks shoreline was generally 

accreting the beaches following the severe impacts of the 1960 

and 1962 storms that dominated the USACE surveys. 

Figure 14. Horizontal distance from the shoreline seaward to the 6-, 12-, 18-, 24-, and 30-foot depth contours for 

all alternate profiles from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1961 survey, plotted opposite the long-term NCDCM 

1946–1998 average annual shoreline erosion rates in feet/year, (bottom panel and right-hand axis) for Core Banks, 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. Water depth is based on the 1929 MSL datum.

24
Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics 25

Figure 15. The average rate of shoreline change between the USACE 1962 survey and the Godfrey and Godfrey 1971 

survey for Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. Data are listed in appendix 4. Because the original 

survey data of Godfrey and Godfrey are not available in the public domain, the data presented here are interpreted from a 

graphic plot (Godfrey and Godfrey,1976, fig. 37).

25
26 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

The elevation change data from the reference markers 

located by the G&G survey are listed in appendix 3. 

According to figure 20 in Godfrey and Godfrey (1976), 

the elevation data were obtained in 1970 and compared to 

the elevation data resulting from the 1960 USACE survey. 

Because the elevation data from the G&G survey are presented 

only as a graphic plot (Godfrey and Godfrey, 1976, fig. 

20), the numerical data presented here are approximations 

developed from these plots. The overall error in interpreting 

the graphic plot to obtain a numerical data set (appendix 

3) was statistically determined to be +/- 0.6 percent. The 

G&G 1970 survey located 141 reference markers on 69 of 

the original 77 profiles and measured the vertical change in 

elevation of the sediment relative to the USACE reference 

markers. Elevation change results are summarized in table 3.

The period of low storm activity from 1962 to 1971 

was broken shortly after the G&G 1971 summer survey was 

completed. Hurricane Ginger came ashore at Core Banks 

on September 30, 1971 with substantial shoreline recession 

and vertical accretion. The post-storm accretionary response 

suggested by the G&G 1962–1971 survey data, is strongly 

supported on a smaller time scale by a series of cross-island 

topographic profiles produced by Godfrey and Godfrey 

(1976). The topographic profile at Codds Creek on South 

Core Banks (fig. 17) shows the pre-Ginger geomorphic 

profile surveyed in August 1971, the post-Ginger profile from 

October 1971, and the later post-Ginger profile from July 

1972. Hurricane Ginger caused the upper beach face to recede 

landward about 127 ft. Ten months later, the upper beach face 

had accreted about 157 ft seaward with the shoreline building 

about 12 ft seaward of the original August 1971 shoreline.

Figure 16. Average annual rate of shoreline erosion and accretion from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1960–1962 

survey data (red) and the Godfrey and Godfrey 1962–1971 survey data (blue), Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

North Carolina. Data are listed in appendix 1 and appendix 4, respectively. The short-term data of the USACE 1960–1962 

survey reflects two very large storms with major shoreline changes that were dominantly erosional. In contrast, the 

G&G 1962–1971 survey was a period of little to no storm activity and thus the shoreline demonstrates a pattern of mostly 

accretion. The gaps in the G&G survey do not mean that these profiles were destroyed or lost, rather, their survey only 

measured 39 of the USACE profiles. Because the original survey data of Godfrey and Godfrey are not available in the public 

domain, the data presented here are interpreted from a graphic plot (Godfrey and Godfrey,1976, fig. 37).

26
Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics 27

Table 3. Summary of the elevation data for 141 reference markers on 69 profiles from the 1970 Godfrey and Godfrey survey for Core 

Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. 

[G&G, Godfrey and Godfrey. Number of reference markers and profiles in the G&G survey is out of the original 231 RM-0s, RM-1s, and RM-2s that the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers installed on 77 profiles. All elevations are in relation to mean sea level (1929 datum). See appendix 3 and fig. 20 (Godfrey and 

Godfrey, 1976) for data] 

Reference markers RM-0s RM-1s RM-2s All reference 

markers RMs1

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

G&G 1970 Total number of reference markers located 36 47 46 60 59 77 158 60

G&G 1970 Total number of reference markers not located 41 53 31 40 18 23 106 40

G&G 1970 Reference markers with accretion or no change 19 53 37 80 51 86 109 69

G&G 1970 Reference markers with deflation 17 47 9 18 8 14 49 31

G&G 1970 Average ground elevation (in feet) +6.7 +6.4 +6.1 +6.1

G&G 1970 Maximum ground elevation (in feet) +9.9 +10.0 +10.5 +10.5

G&G 1970 Minimum ground elevation (in feet) +3.6 +2.9 +3.0 +1.9

1

Includes all reference markers located by G&G in 1970 from RM-0 through RM-2 plus others through RM-8 of the 264 RMs established by the USACE 

in 1961 (see appendixes 1 and 3).

Figure 17. Cross-sectional profile of South Core Banks at Codds Creek showing the shallow stratigraphic interpretation 

of the history of overwash fan deposition developed from a series of trenches dug across the island (Godfrey and 

Godfrey, 1976). The initial topographic profile survey was in August 1971. Hurricane Ginger came ashore in October 1971 

and severely eroded the upper beach face of the beach profile. A third profile (July 1972) demonstrates the post-storm 

recovery—the upper beach face and shoreline is located seaward of the pre-Hurricane Ginger profile in August 1971. 

(Modified from Godfrey and Godfrey, 1976.)

27
28 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

East Carolina University Data Sets

Data from the ECU 2001 survey are presented in 

appendixes 5 and 6. All reference markers located in the 

ECU 2001 survey, along with their latitude and longitude are 

shown in appendix 5. Appendix 6, column I lists the ECU 

2001 survey data obtained for the recovered reference markers 

as part of the present study. Column J lists the net shoreline 

change between the USACE 1960 and ECU 2001 surveys 

based on the MSL 1929 datum. Column K lists the ECU 2001 

sediment surface height above or below the reference marker 

datum of the USACE. Column L lists the corrected height 

above the MSL 1929 datum. Column M lists the net change 

in surface elevation (accretion versus deflation) between the 

USACE 1961 and ECU 2001 surveys relative to the MSL 

1929 datum.

Figure 18 shows the net shoreline erosion in feet (red) 

and average annual rate of erosion in feet per year (blue) based 

on the ECU 1960–2001 survey (appendix 6). These data were 

developed for 57 profiles where the USACE (1964) reference 

markers were recovered and are plotted on the 1998 DOQQ 

aerial photograph mosaic as red circles (fig. 9). Profiles that 

were not located in the 2001 survey are marked with white 

circles. The maximum and average annual rates of erosion 

and accretion resulting from the ECU 1960–2001 survey are 

shown in table 1. The average annual erosion rate for the 

41-year period (1960–2001) was -5 ft/yr, with a maximum 

annual erosion rate of -19 ft/yr and a maximum annual 

accretion rate of 0 ft/yr (fig. 18).

Following the Godfrey and Godfrey survey of 1971, the 

North Carolina coastal area experienced a moderate degree of 

storminess through 1990 (Barnes, 2001) with four hurricanes 

and one major nor’easter storm that impacted the shoreline 

along Core Banks. This was followed by an intense period of 

storminess that began in 1991 with 13 minor hurricanes that 

impacted the net shoreline recession of the North Carolina 

Outer Banks; 9 of these storms occurred before the ECU 2001 

survey.

The relationship of the average annual shoreline change 

rates between the USACE 1960–1962 data set and the ECU 

1960–2001 data set is presented in figure 19. The correlation 

coefficient for these two data sets is +0.55 suggesting a 

positive correlation between the net short-term, erosiondominated USACE data and longer-term, erosion-dominated 

ECU data. The USACE short-term data set directly reflects 

the mitigating forces of two very different types of storm 

influences, whereas the long-term ECU data set consists of 

periods of low and high storm activity. Both the USACE 

1960–1962 and ECU 1960–2001 data sets are overwhelmingly 

dominated by shoreline erosion (fig. 19). 

The scale of the USACE and ECU data sets is very 

different. As indicated in table 1, the short-term USACE data 

(1960–1962) show average annual rates of shoreline change 

that range from -97 ft/yr erosion to +45 ft/yr accretion, with 

an average net change of -36 ft/yr. In comparison, the longterm ECU data (1960–2001) suggest average annual rates of 

shoreline change that range from 0 ft/yr to -19 ft/yr erosion, 

with an average net change rate of -5 ft/yr. In order to show 

these data on the same plot in figure 19, the long-term scale is 

different for each plot.

A histogram of the shoreline change data from the ECU 

1960–2001 data set and the G&G 1962–1971 survey demonstrates the difference between these two data sets (fig. 20). The 

ECU 1960–2001 data set is characterized by average annual 

rates of shoreline change that range from a low of 0 ft/yr to a 

high of -19 ft/yr, with an average annual net change of -5 ft/

yr. This is compared to the G&G 1962–1971 data set with 

an average annual rate of shoreline change that ranges from 

a maximum erosion rate of -11 ft/yr to a maximum accretion rate of +55 ft/yr, with an average annual net change of 

+12 ft/yr. The long-term, higher-storm period of the ECU 

1960–2001 data are dominated by erosion, whereas the shorter-term, low storm period of the G&G 1962–1971 data are 

dominated by accretion. The correlation coefficient between 

these two data sets is -0.68, which supports this interpretation. 

The net increase in elevation between the USACE 1961 

and the ECU 2001 surveys is shown in figure 21. Elevations 

at the top of each reference marker and at the ground surface 

were measured by the USACE in 1961 (appendix 1, columns 

C and D, respectively). The ECU 2001 survey measured the 

ground height above or below the top of each reference marker 

(appendix 6, column K). From these data, 2001 ground elevations were determined (appendix 6, column L). The difference 

between ground elevation in 2001 and 1961 is the net change 

in ground elevation and is shown in appendix 6 (column M). 

Figure 21 shows net elevation change for three reference 

markers (RM-0 = blue, RM-1 = red, and RM-2 = green) along 

profiles where they were located. The graph is plotted along 

the 1998 DOQQ mosaic to allow comparison of elevation 

change to processes occurring on Core Banks.

The fewest number of reference markers located by the 

ECU 2001 survey was for the ocean front row of markers; 15 

RM-0s were located, as compared to 33 RM-1s and 35 RM-2s 

(table 4). All located reference markers accreted sand; the 

greatest amount of accretion was closest to the ocean shoreline 

and generally decreased inland. The average ground elevation 

for the different sets of reference markers is as follows: RM-0 

= +10.1 ft, RM-1 = +9.1 ft, and RM-2 = +8.5 ft.

28
Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics 29

Figure 18. Net shoreline change (red) and average annual rate of change (blue) from the East Carolina University 

1960–2001 survey for each profile where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reference markers were recovered, Core Banks, 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. Data are listed in appendix 6. Profiles with USACE reference markers 

that were located in the ECU 2001 survey are marked with red circles. Profiles that were not located are marked with white 

circles. The data are plotted along the 1998 DOQQ mosaic for Core Banks.

29
30 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

Figure 19. Average annual rate of shoreline change from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1960–1962 surveys (blue) for 

the 77 USACE profiles and the East Carolina University 1960–2001 survey (red) for the 57 profiles where one or more of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reference markers were recovered, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North 

Carolina. Data are listed in appendix 1 and appendix 6, respectively. The short-term data of the USACE 1960–1962 survey 

reflect two very large storms with major shoreline changes and are plotted in feet per year. In contrast, the long-term 

data of the ECU 1960-2001 survey include extended periods of little to no storm activity. This caused erosion rates to be 

substantially decreased, and reflects the contrasting responses to different types and intensities of storms. Notice the two 

y-axes have different scales. 

30
Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics 31

Figure 20. Average annual rate of shoreline change from the Godfrey and Godfrey 1962–1971 survey (blue) and the East 

Carolina University 1960–2001 survey (red), Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. Data are listed 

in appendix 4 and appendix 6, respectively. The short-term data of the G&G 1962–1971 survey represents mainly accretion 

during a period of low storm activity following the two very large storms in 1960 and 1962. In contrast, the long-term data 

of the ECU 1962–2001 survey include both non-stormy and stormy periods and therefore, show small net rates of shoreline 

erosion. The G&G survey only included 39 selected profiles of the original 77 USACE profiles, whereas the ECU 1960–2001 

survey located 57 of the original 77 profiles.

31
32 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

Figure 21. Net increase in ground elevation at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) reference markers (RM-0 = blue, 

RM-1 = red, and RM-2 = green) based on changes between the USACE 1961 and East Carolina University 2001 surveys 

for each profile where USACE reference markers were recovered, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North 

Carolina. Data are listed in appendix 2 and appendix 6, respectively. Profiles with USACE reference markers that were 

located in the ECU 2001 survey are marked with red circles. Profiles that were not located are marked with white circles. 

Data are plotted along the 1998 DOQQ mosaic for Core Banks. 

32
Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics 33

Table 4. Summary of the elevation data for 83 reference markers on 57 profiles from the East Carolina University 2001 survey for 

Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina.

[ECU, East Carolina University. Number of reference markers and profiles in the ECU survey is out of the original 77 RM-0s, 77 RM-1s, and 77 RM-2s that 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers installed on 77 profiles. All elevations are in relation to mean sea level (1929 datum). See appendix 6 for data] 

Reference markers RM-0s RM-1s RM-2s ALL RMs1

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

ECU 2001 Total number of reference markers located 15 19 33 43 35 45 100 38

ECU 2001 Total number of reference markers not located 62 81 44 57 42 55 164 62

ECU 2001 Reference markers with accretion or no change 15 100 33 100 35 100 100 100

ECU 2001 Average ground elevation (in feet) +10.1 + 9.1 + 8.5 + 8.6

ECU 2001 Maximum ground elevation (in feet) +14.4 +12.1 +17.7 +17.7

ECU 2001 Minimum ground elevation (in feet) + 7.7 + 4.1 + 4.5 + 3.7

1

Includes all reference markers from RM-0 through RM-2 plus all others through RM-8 that were established by the USACE in 1961 (total RMs = 264) 

(see appendixes 1 and 6). 

North Carolina Division of Coastal Management 

Data Sets

Data for the average annual rate of shoreline erosion from 

the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM 

1940–1992 and NCDCM 1946–1998 data sets) for Core 

Banks (Benton and others, 1993; 1997; 2004) is summarized 

in appendix 7. NCDCM subdivided the coast into segments 

of similar erosion rates and labeled each segment with its 

long-term average annual erosion rate factor. To correlate the 

NCDCM data to the USACE profiles on Core Banks, the 77 

USACE profiles were superimposed on the appropriate coastal 

segments to obtain the NCDCM average annual erosion rate 

factor for each profile. The resulting two NCDCM data sets 

are plotted as histograms on figure 22. 

The maximum and average annual rates of erosion and 

accretion from the most recent NCDCM 1946–1998 survey 

are summarized in table 1. The average annual erosion rate 

for the 52-year period was -5 ft/yr, with a maximum annual 

erosion rate of -30 ft/yr and a minimum annual erosion rate of 

< -2 ft/yr (fig. 22). 

The NCDCM data set for 1946–1998 (52 years) is the 

longest data set in the present study. The average annual 

erosion rate for all of Core Banks in the NCDCM data set 

ranges from maximum erosion of -30 ft/yr to a minimum 

of <-2 ft/yr with an average annual erosion rate of -5 ft/yr 

(table 1). This compares well with the average annual erosion 

rate for the ECU data set, which ranges from a maximum 

erosion rate of -19 ft/yr to a minimum of 0 ft/yr and an 

average annual erosion rate of -5 ft/yr (table 1). All 57 of the 

77 profiles located by the ECU survey showed net long-term 

shoreline erosion (fig. 23), and it appears that the NCDCM 

data are similar. On the NCDCM maps, however, no segments 

have an average annual erosion rate of less than 

-2 ft/yr. This is based on the assumption that the entire 

shoreline is eroding. The NCDCM regulations for oceanfront 

development require using a minimum of -2 ft/yr erosion 

rate for house construction setback rules (Benton and others, 

1993; 1997). The close similarity between the ECU and 

NCDCM long-term data sets, using different survey methods, 

corroborates the general overall erosion rates for the North 

Carolina ocean shoreline.

Statistical comparison of the NCDCM 1946-1998 survey 

data with the ECU 1960-2001 long-term (41-year) data set 

(fig. 23), produces a moderately good positive correlation 

of +0.62. This correlation occurs even though the NCDCM 

data are based on different survey methods from those 

used by USACE and ECU and demonstrates that erosion 

dominated the Core Banks shoreline during the long-term time 

frame (fig. 23). 

33
34 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

Figure 22. Shoreline change data from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management 1940–1992 and 

1946–1998 data sets, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. Data are listed in appendix 

7. Data for the 1940–1992 period are from Benton and others (1993) and the 1946–1998 period are from Benton 

and others (1997). The straight line data at the -2 ft/yr level are based on the assumption that all shorelines are 

receding over the long term. This is the number used by NCDCM as the minimum rate of shoreline recession for 

their regulatory program.

34
Patterns of Shoreline Change Along Core Banks

The opening, migration, and closing of inlets plays an 

extremely important role in determining the erosion and 

accretion patterns of sediments in the adjacent shoreline 

segments. Three distinctive patterns are seen in all shoreline 

change data sets used in this study.

1. At the large scale of the entire Core Banks, erosion 

and accretion rates are greatest near Ocracoke Inlet and 

generally decrease southwestward towards the Cape Lookout 

Lighthouse. The rates then increase to intermediate levels 

towards Cape Lookout. Both Ocracoke Inlet and Cape 

Lookout play major but different roles in controlling the 

overall barrier island response.

2. The general cuspate pattern of Core Banks (fig. 1) is 

broken in the middle by the two small, but semi-permanent 

Drum Inlets (fig. 2). Erosional and accretional processes are 

generally high adjacent to New Drum and New-Old Drum 

Inlets and fluctuate as a direct function of inlet dynamics 

(opening, migration, and closing) in direct response to 

specific weather patterns and storm events (figs. 12, 15, 18, 

and 22).

3. Superimposed on top of the large-scale, cuspate 

erosion pattern is a series of smaller-scale features that 

are characterized by higher or lower erosion rates. 

These local features are related to one of several specific 

shoreline characteristics. 

A. Changes in shoreline and shoreface geometry often 

reflect changes in the geologic materials underlying 

the barrier island. Figures 24A and 24B are oblique 

aerial photographs that show significant bends in the 

shoreline near P34-P35 and P57-P58, respectively. 

Each of these areas represents the steepest shoreface 

profiles measured by the USACE survey (fig. 13). The 

P34-P35 area of South Core appears to be located on 

the axis of the Cape Lookout High, an upper Tertiary 

paleotopographic limestone ridge that separated the 

Onslow Embayment from the Aurora Embayment 

(Snyder and others, 1990). Preliminary analysis of 

nearshore, side-scan sonar and high-resolution seismic 

data suggest that this area may be dominated by hard 

bottoms that extend up into the shallow shoreface 

(E.R. Thieler, U.S. Geological Survey oral comm., 

2005). The P57-P58 area of North Core is probably 

characterized by peat outcrops of the back-barrier 

marsh platforms that have been overridden by the 

shoreline as the barrier island recedes (fig. 13). Both 

of these areas are characterized today by generally low 

rates of long-term erosion (fig. 23). 

B. Low and narrow barrier island segments are weak 

spots that are often characterized by major overwash 

events or the frequent opening and closing of ephemeral inlets such as Whalebone, Swash, and Sand 

Figure 23. Average annual rate of shoreline change from the long-term East Carolina University 1960–2001 data set 

(red) and the long-term North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (1946–1998 data set (blue), Core Banks, Cape 

Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. Data are listed in appendix 6 and appendix 7, respectively. Gaps in the ECU 

1960–2001 plot represent profiles where no reference markers were located. The straight line data at the -2 ft/yr level is 

based on the assumption that all shorelines are receding over the long term. This is the number used by NCDCM as the 

minimum rate of shoreline recession for their regulatory program. 

35
36 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

Inlets on North Core Banks (fig. 3). These areas need 

overwash and inlets to build both elevation and width 

to the barrier island and adjacent back-barrier areas. 

As these ephemeral inlets open and close, the adjacent 

areas are characterized by periods of major erosion or 

accretion, respectively (figs. 12 and 23).

The average annual shoreline erosion and accretion data 

for all data sets used in the present study are summarized 

in table 5 for North and South Core Banks. The average 

annual rates of erosion are substantially higher for North Core 

Banks relative to South Core Banks in most data sets, by a 

factor from 2 to 5. In general, the highest rates of erosion are 

on North Core Banks near P69 (fig. 23) at the southwestern 

end of the Portsmouth Overwash Plain and northeast of 

Whalebone Inlet. The erosion rates rapidly decrease to the 

northeast towards the road to Portsmouth Village (X on figs. 3 

and 24C), where the shoreline becomes strongly accretionary 

in response to wave refraction around the Ocracoke Inlet ebbtide delta (Hayes, 1976). 

High erosion rates occur near the two Drum Inlets that 

separate North Core Banks from South Core Banks. The 

average annual rates of erosion decrease southwest of the 

two Drum Inlets to the generally lowest erosion rates in the 

P5–P20 part of South Core Banks (fig. 23). Within this area 

of lowest erosion rates, many of the RM-0, RM-1, and RM-2 

reference markers that were recovered by the ECU 2001 

survey were buried by 3 to 5 ft of sand (fig. 25). Towards 

Cape Lookout, southwest of P5, the shoreface slope decreases 

dramatically as the shoreline approaches Cape Lookout Shoals 

(fig. 12) and the erosion rates generally increase to intermediate levels (fig. 23) in response to the severe waves around the 

Cape and associated Cape Lookout Shoals (fig. 1).

None of the reference markers associated with the last 

three profiles adjacent to Ocracoke Inlet (P75–P77) were 

recovered in the ECU 2001 survey. It is believed that this end 

of Portsmouth Island is accretionary in both the horizontal 

and vertical directions. This accretion is in direct response 

to the wave refraction around the ebb-tide delta of Ocracoke 

Inlet—the resulting depositional pattern is generally called the 

“drumstick effect” (Hayes, 1976) and can be seen in figure 

3. Deposition of the massive field of foredunes that formed 

along the eastern edge of the Portsmouth Overwash Plain (fig. 

24C) would have buried the reference markers beneath a thick 

sequence of new dune sand. Based on aerial photograph timeslice analysis of the Portsmouth area (figs. 3B and 3C) and 

the 2001 oblique aerial photograph (fig. 24C), these foredunes 

have been accreting since the 1962 Ash Wednesday storm.

To the southwest of P74, the shoreline changes from 

accretional to erosional; the rate of erosion increases rapidly 

to a maximum around P71 and then declines to a minimum 

erosion rate around P59 (fig. 23). This erosional minimum is 

in the general location of a series of smaller, ephemeral inlets 

in North Core Banks, including Whalebone and Swash Inlets 

(fig. 3). The moderate amounts of accretion near P62 and 

erosion near P68 are associated with the ephemeral Swash 

and Whalebone Inlets, respectively (fig. 23). The erosion rate 

generally increases in the area near P59 to a maximum rate 

in the area near P51. The rate then decreases in the area near 

P43, which is the site of New-Old Drum Inlet, characterized 

by very low recession rates (fig. 23). 

The two Drum Inlets play a major role in the patterns of 

shoreline erosion and accretion in the central Core Banks area 

(fig. 2). New Drum Inlet (fig. 24A) was opened in December 

1971 by the USACE, and Old Drum Inlet, which closed 

naturally in January 1971, was reopened by Hurricane Dennis 

Table 5. Maximum and average annual rates of shoreline erosion and accretion for each of the shoreline surveys or 

data sets for North and South Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. 

[USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; G&G, Godfrey and Godfrey; ECU, East Carolina University; NCDCM, North Carolina Division of 

Coastal Management; ft/yr, feet per year]

Surveys 

or data sets 

Averaged rates of erosion and accretion 

North Core Banks South Core Banks

Average

(ft/yr)

Maximum 

erosion

(ft/yr) 

Maximum 

accretion 

(ft/yr)

Average

 (ft/yr)

Maximum 

erosion

(ft/yr)

Maximum 

accretion

(ft/yr)

USACE 1960–611 -65 -164 +60 -23 -88 +112

USACE 1961–621 -36 -226 +153 -17 -146 +120

USACE 1960–621 -52 -125 +123 -21 -80 +45

G&G 1962–71 +20 +5 +55 +4 -11 +36

ECU 1960–2001 -8 -19 -1 -3 -9 -1

NCDCM 1946–98 -5 -12 <-2 -5 -30 <-2

1

The extremely high erosion and accretion numbers associated with the opening, migration, and closing of inlets on North Core Banks 

resulting from the two storms have been eliminated from this analysis (i.e., profiles P44, P45, P62, P66, P67, and P68). 

36
Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics 37

Figure 24. Specific features that are relevant to 

the dynamics of shoreline change, Core Banks, 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. 

(A) This false-color infrared aerial photograph was 

taken in 1977 looking southwest at New Drum Inlet, 

which separates North Core Banks from South Core 

Banks. Notice the significant bend in the shoreline 

a few miles beyond New Drum Inlet. This bend is 

an island segment that has experienced very low 

rates of shoreline change through time and probably 

reflects the interaction of the underlying geologic 

framework and shoreface composition. Photograph 

is by Duncan Heron of Duke University. (B) This aerial 

photograph was taken in 1977 looking southwest at 

the end of the Portsmouth Overwash Plain, which 

has been terminated by the ephemeral Whalebone 

Inlet. Notice the bend in the shoreline just beyond 

Whalebone Inlet where the back-barrier marsh 

platform peat is cropping out on the shoreface. This 

is a segment of shoreline with low erosion rates that 

are probably due to the presence of underlying peat 

deposits in the shoreface. Photograph is by Duncan 

Heron of Duke University. (C) This aerial photograph 

was taken in 2001 looking northeast at the same area 

marked by an X in Figure 3 (1940, 1962, and 1983). 

Notice how high and wide the foredune complex and 

how extensive the vegetation have become through 

time on both the dunes and associated overwash 

plain. This sand accretion has deeply buried the 

reference markers in the dunes and associated 

overwash plain. Photograph is by William Birkemeier 

of the USACE Field Research Facility.

37
38 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

in 1999 as New-Old Drum Inlet (fig. 2). However, because 

all reference markers for profiles P34 through P41 were 

apparently eroded, it is impossible to reconstruct the details 

of inlet change. Based on the NCDCM long-term data sets, 

the areas near P34–P42 (fig. 23) show high average annual 

rates of erosion, with rates up to -17 ft/yr. At P39 (fig. 23), the 

average annual erosion rate was calculated from the NCDCM 

1946-1998 data set to be -30 ft/yr, in direct response to the 

migration of the New Drum Inlet channel. Also, the large net 

accretion (+153 ft/yr) mapped at P45 by the USACE 1962 

survey (fig. 18) resulted from the southwestern migration of 

the Old Drum Inlet channel and associated spit (fig. 2), which 

was in direct response to the 1962 Ash Wednesday nor’easter 

storm (USACE, 1964). 

Elevation Changes on Core Banks Through Time

The original ground elevation at each USACE reference 

marker, as surveyed during the 1961 survey, is shown in 

column D (appendix 1). In 1970, Godfrey and Godfrey 

(1976) located 141 reference markers (36 RM-0, 46 RM-1, 

and 59 RM-2) along 69 of the original USACE profiles (table 

3). Of the 90 missing markers, 53 percent were those closest 

to the ocean (RM-0), and 23 percent were 200 ft from the 

ocean (RM-2). Of those recovered, 107 showed an accretion 

of sediment, with the number of markers and the amount of 

accretion increasing away from the ocean. The remaining 

34 markers showed deflation, which was greatest nearest the 

ocean. The actual ground elevation changes were small, with 

average elevations of +6.7 ft for RM-0s, +6.4 ft for RM-1s, 

and +6.1 ft for RM-2s, as compared to the original USACE 

1961 elevations (table 6). 

The ECU 2001 survey located 83 reference markers (15 

RM-0s, 33 RM-1s, and 35 RM-2s) along 57 of the original 

USACE profiles (table 4). Of the 148 missing markers, 

81 percent were those closest to the ocean (RM-0), and 

55 percent were farthest from the ocean (RM-2). In addition, 

17 RM-4 through RM-8 markers also were located for a total 

of 100 (38 percent) of the 264 original USACE reference 

markers. Of all reference markers recovered, 100 percent 

either demonstrated no change since 1961 or accreted 

sediment. The average ground elevation for all recovered 

markers was +10.1 ft for RM-0s, +9.1 ft for RM-1s, and 

+8.5 ft for RM-2s, as compared to the original USACE 1961 

elevations (table 6). 

Because so many reference markers have been lost to 

shoreline erosion through time, only a general pattern of 

elevation change can be determined. The average ground 

elevations at the recovered RM-0, RM-1, and RM-2 sites in 

the G&G 1970 and ECU 2001 surveys, relative to the USACE 

1961 ground elevation, are compared in figure 25 and table 6. 

The increase in ground elevation is approximately 26 percent 

from 1961 to 1970 and approximately 41 percent from 

1970 to 2001. The net increase in island elevation from the 

1961 survey to the 2001 survey resulted in approximately a 

72-percent increase in island elevation through time. 

The result of numerous storms is not only the systematic 

recession of the shoreline, but also major overwash events that 

move sand onto and across the island; this process is critical 

for island building and migration. This substantial increase 

in elevation is hypothesized to reflect the vertical accretion 

resulting from the deposition of frequent storm-driven, crossisland overwash fans through time. This can only happen 

on an undeveloped barrier island with a general absence 

of constructed barrier dune ridges, maintained roads, and 

structural developments along the oceanfront.

The berm crest and associated dunes are the highest point 

on an overwash-dominated barrier island with a gradual slope 

down the overwash plain to the estuary (fig. 20). As shoreline 

recession proceeded, the high berm crest migrated further 

landward on the barrier island, eroding many of the RM-0s. 

As the berm crest migrated, overwash processes moved 

sand across the island as overwash fans. This systematically 

added elevation to the back barrier and buried the remaining 

RM-1 and RM-2 markers (fig. 10). Most recovered reference 

markers were buried by either dune sands or overwash fans. 

This resulted in a general increase in island elevation further 

inland through time, as shown in the schematic cross sections 

in figure 10. 

The elevation change data (table 6) supports another 

major change in the character of Core Banks through time. 

Aerial photographic time-slice analysis suggests that Core 

Banks is no longer dominated by the high frequency of 

overwash processes that apparently occurred during the pre1963 period. Time-slice analysis of Core Banks from 1940 to 

1998 shows an increase in vegetative growth during the post1970 period (White and Riggs, 2002; White and others, 2002; 

Ames and others, 2003). Higher island elevations resulting 

from increased overwash deposition through time would 

eventually decrease the vulnerability to overwash and initiate 

increased vegetative growth on Core Banks. The time-slice 

analysis in figure 26 strongly suggests that at least up to the 

Ash Wednesday storm in 1962, overwash was the dominant 

process. Then, with the increase in major storm activity during 

the 1971–2001 period, a few extensive overwash events (e.g., 

Hurricane Gordon in 1994 and Hurricane Isabel in 2003) 

substantially increased the average elevation of Core Banks 

and led to further increases in the amount of vegetation. 

A five-part, aerial photograph, time-slice sequence of 

the Swash Inlet to Whalebone Inlet segment of North Core 

Banks is shown in figure 26. The 1940, 1943, and 1962 aerial 

photographs show overwash-dominated barrier islands with 

only minor levels of vegetative growth that are restricted to 

an older intertidal sequence of back-barrier platform marshes 

with extensive active subaerial and submerged sand bodies. 

The 1983 and 1998 aerial photographs show increasing 

amounts of subaerial, intertidal, and submerged aquatic 

vegetation with diminishing amounts of both subaerial and 

submerged bare sand. The 1983 time slice shows the transition 

stage from the 1940 to 1962 low, slightly vegetated, and 

38
Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics 39

overwash-dominated character of Core Banks to the post1971 period of increasing elevation with the resultant increase 

in vegetative growth that is beginning to take over in the 

subaerial and submerged aquatic habitats. The 1998 time slice 

shows that most of the subaerial and intertidal habitats are 

heavily vegetated, with subaerial vegetation on the overwash 

plain and marsh vegetation on the intertidal marsh platforms. 

Approximately half of the submerged sand shoal habitat 

contains a dense growth of submerged aquatic vegetation (very 

dark color) in the lower swales between the higher sand shoals 

(light tan) that are semi-stabilized by micro-algal mats.

Today, Core Banks is modestly vegetated, and overwash 

occurs during some of the larger storm events such as 

Hurricane Isabel (fig. 2D). The data presented in this report 

suggest that the increased vegetation has taken place in direct 

response to storm activity and the associated overwash that 

has substantially increased island elevation since the 1961 

USACE survey. It is also possible, however, that the changes 

in vegetation were partially in response to a change in climate, 

sea level, human modification, NPS management policies, or 

some combination thereof (fig. 27).

Table 6. Summary of net ground elevation and percent change data for all reference markers from surveys by the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Godfrey and Godfrey, and East Carolina University for Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina.

[Data are shown for the original 231 RM-0s, RM-1s, and RM-2s installed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) along 77 profiles in 1961, the 141 

reference markers located by the Godfrey and Godfrey (G&G) 1970 survey, and the 83 reference markers located by the East Carolina University (ECU) 

2001 survey. All elevations are in relation to mean sea level (1929 datum). ft, feet]

Reference markers RM-0s RM-1s RM-2s ALL RMs1

USACE 1961 Average ground elevation (in feet)

1961 to 1970 Percent increase in elevation

+5.8 

16

+5.2 

23

+4.8 

27 

+5.0

26

G&G 1970 Average ground elevation (in feet)

1970 to 2001 Percent increase in elevation

+6.7 

51

+6.4 

42

+6.1 

39

+6.1

41

ECU 2001 Average ground elevation (in feet)

1961 to 2001 Percent increase in elevation

+10.1 

74

+9.1 

75

+8.5 

77

+8.6

72

1

Includes all reference markers from RM-0 through RM-2 plus all others through RM-8 that were established by the USACE in 1961 (total RMs = 264) 

and located by the G&G 1970 and ECU 2001 surveys (see appendixes 1, 3, and 6). 

Figure 25. Elevation changes measured by the Godfrey and Godfrey 1970 and East Carolina University 2001 surveys as 

compared to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers survey when the reference markers were installed on 77 profiles, Core 

Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. The G&G survey located 141 reference markers along 69 profiles 

and the ECU survey located 83 reference markers along 57 profiles. 

39
40 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

Figure 26. A five-part, aerial photograph, 

time-slice sequence showing the Swash Inlet 

to Whalebone Inlet segment of North Core 

Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

North Carolina. The 1940, 1943, and 1962 aerial 

photographs contain minor levels of vegetative 

cover that are restricted to an older intertidal 

sequence of back-barrier platform marshes with 

extensive active subaerial and submerged sand 

bodies. The 1983 and 1998 aerial photographs 

show increasing amounts of subaerial, intertidal, and submerged aquatic vegetation with 

diminishing amounts of both subaerial and 

submerged bare sand. (Panel 1940) Swash Inlet 

(left) and Whalebone Inlet (right) reopened 

sometime prior to 1940 (around 1939 according 

to Fisher, 1962 and Payne, 1985) and were 

active, but ephemeral inlets through 1962 in 

an early stage of building back-barrier floodtide deltas. (Panel 1943) Major overwash has 

occurred, the flood-tide deltas are almost totally 

sanded in with many minor channels (late-stage 

development), and both inlets are barely open. 

(Panel 1962) The Ash Wednesday nor’easter 

resulted in major overwash fans across the 

berm crest, the inlet channels have been 

reopened in the more southerly location, and the 

flood-tide delta sand lobes have been spread 

out and re-channeled. (Panel 1983) This time 

slice shows the transition stage from the 1940 

to 1962 low, slightly vegetated, and overwashdominated character of Core Banks to the post1971 period of increasing island elevation, with 

the resultant increase in vegetative cover that 

is beginning to take over in the subaerial and 

submerged aquatic habitats. (Panel 1998) Most 

of the subaerial and intertidal habitats are 

heavily vegetated, with subaerial vegetation on 

the overwash plain and marsh vegetation on 

the intertidal marsh platforms. Approximately 

half of the submerged sand shoal habitat now 

contains a dense growth of submerged aquatic 

vegetation (very dark color) in the lower swales 

between the higher sand shoals (light tan) that 

are semi-stabilized by micro-algal mats.

40
Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics 41

Figure 27. Changes with time on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. 

(A) A 1898 ground photograph on South Core Banks, looking west from the beach towards the 

Cape Lookout Lighthouse and the estuarine shoreline. The lighthouse is situated on the estuarine 

side of an extensive overwash plain. Notice the very low, flat, and poorly vegetated character of 

the overwash plain. Photograph is from the Cape Lookout National Seashore. (B) A 2003 oblique 

aerial photograph shows the same area taken from the estuarine side looking towards the southeast across the overwash plain. Notice that the plain is heavily grassed with Spartina patens. The 

pine trees (dark green patches) were planted in the 1950s and 1960s. Photograph is by O.H. Pilkey 

of Duke University. 

41
42 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

Summary and Conclusions

A research program to study the origin and evolution 

of North Carolina’s coastal system was begun in 2000 as 

a cooperative effort between the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), East Carolina University (ECU), and the North 

Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS). A primary goal of 

the program was to investigate the roles that the underlying 

geologic framework, climate change, and sea-level fluctuation 

play in the dynamics of short-term coastal behavior and 

long-term coastal evolution. Concurrent programs by the 

National Park Service (NPS) to develop a Geologic Resources 

Inventory for the Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout National 

Seashores brought the groups together. One objective of the 

combined program was to evaluate barrier island dynamics 

along a natural section of the North Carolina coast known as 

Core Banks during a 41-year time period (1960–2001). This 

barrier island segment includes North and South Core Banks, 

extends for 51 miles from Ocracoke Inlet to Cape Lookout, 

and is part of Cape Lookout National Seashore. 

Shoreline changes were evaluated by comparing the 

results of four surveys previously conducted along Core 

Banks with a 2001 survey by East Carolina University. The 

first survey was done by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE), who installed and surveyed 77 profiles and 

associated reference markers in June 1960 between Cape 

Lookout and Ocracoke Inlet. On September 12, 1960, 

Hurricane Donna destroyed many of the surveyed reference 

markers. From September to December of 1961, the USACE 

replaced the destroyed reference markers and resurveyed all 

control points, including a survey of estuarine and nearshore 

bathymetry associated with specific profiles. Another 

storm, the Ash Wednesday nor’easter of March 7–9, 1962, 

destroyed many of the reference markers again. Consequently, 

the USACE replaced the destroyed reference markers and 

resurveyed the entire data set for the third time from June to 

July, 1962. Based on these surveys, the short-term average 

annual rate of shoreline erosion for all of Core Banks during 

this storm-dominated period was -40 feet per year (ft/yr) for 

1960–1961 and -26 ft/yr for 1961–1962, with ranges from 

-226 feet (ft) to +153 ft at specific locations. The combined 

(1960–1962) short-term rate of shoreline erosion was -36 ft/yr.

In 1970, Godfrey and Godfrey (G&G) located and 

measured ground elevations on one or more of the USACE 

reference markers along 55 of the original 77 profiles. In 

the summer of 1971, after 9 years of minimal storm activity, 

G&G surveyed the shoreline change from reference markers 

along 39 of the original USACE profiles. The short-term 

(9 year), non-stormy period was characterized by net shoreline 

accretion. Based on the G&G survey, the average annual rate 

of accretion for all of Core Banks from 1962–1971 was +12 

ft/yr, with ranges from -11 ft/yr to +55 ft/yr. The maximum 

accretion recorded during the low-storm period of the G&G 

survey was at the two ends of Core Banks, directly adjacent 

to Cape Lookout and Ocracoke Inlet, where average annual 

accretion rates were +36 ft/yr and +55 ft/yr, respectively. 

On September 30 to October 1, 1971, Hurricane Ginger 

came ashore to begin a 19-year period (1971–1990) of 

moderate storm activity. This was followed by an 13-year 

period that represented the most active storm period in 

recorded North Carolina history (1991–2005). During the 

summer of 2001, personnel from ECU, along with personnel 

from Cape Lookout National Seashore, located and resurveyed 

reference markers on 57 of the original 77 USACE profiles. 

The ECU 2001 survey used the initial USACE 1960 survey 

data to obtain an average annual long-term (41 years) shoreline 

erosion rate for all of Core Banks. The 1960–2001 (ECU) data 

resulted in an average annual shoreline recession rate of -5 

ft/yr, with ranges from -19 ft/yr to 0 ft/yr. The highest erosion 

rates were midway between Whalebone Inlet and Portsmouth 

Village. The ECU 1960–2001 survey data were compared to 

the long-term (1946–1998) shoreline erosion data of North 

Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) that 

were derived using different methods. The NCDCM (52-year) 

data resulted in an average annual shoreline recession rate of 

-5 ft/yr for all of Core Banks, which is the same long-term rate 

as the ECU long-term data set. 

Shoreline change data of the USACE, G&G, and ECU 

surveys were compared for North and South Core Banks 

through time. North Core Banks had substantially higher average annual rates of erosion and accretion compared to South 

Core Banks. Data from the USACE survey (1960–1962)

showed erosion rates of -52 ft/yr for North Core Banks compared to -21 ft/yr for South Core Banks. Data from the G&G 

survey (1962–1971) showed accretion rates of +20 ft/yr for 

North Core Banks compared to +4 ft/yr for South Core Banks. 

Data from the ECU survey (1960–2001) showed erosion rates 

of -8 ft/yr for North Core Banks compared to -3 ft/yr for South 

Core Banks. 

By 1962, the USACE had installed a total of 264 

reference markers identified as RM-0 on the oceanside and 

RM-2 on the inland side along all 77 profiles between Cape 

Lookout and Ocracoke Inlet. They also installed RM-4, RM-6, 

and RM-8 markers on a few profiles in wider island segments. 

Of the 231 reference markers installed in the RM-0, RM-1, 

and RM-2 series, the G&G 1970 survey recovered a total of 

141 reference markers (61 percent); however, only 36 (47 

percent) of the 77 oceanside RM-0s were recovered. The 

ECU 2001 survey recovered a total of 83 reference markers 

(36 percent); however, only 15 (19 percent) of the original 77 

oceanside RM-0s were recovered. 

Changes in ground elevation were determined by measuring the amount of accretion or erosion of sediment on each 

reference marker relative to the ground elevation measured 

by the 1961 USACE survey. The average increase in ground 

elevation from the USACE 1961 survey to the G&G 1970 

survey was: RM-0 = +0.9 ft, RM-1 =+1.2 ft, and RM-2 = 

+1.3 ft. In comparison, the average increase in ground elevation from the USACE 1961 survey to the ECU 2001 survey 

was RM-0 = +4.3 ft, RM-1 = +3.9 ft, and RM-2 = +3.7 ft. 

42
Summary and Conclusions 43

The ECU survey represents approximately a 72-percent net 

increase in barrier island elevation during the 40-year period, 

with all recovered reference markers displaying either major 

sediment accretion or little to no change.

The period of low storm activity (1962–1970) was 

characterized by minimal overwash events with minor vertical 

accretion; however, during the period of moderate to high 

storm activity (1971–2005), frequent overwash events led to 

a major increase in island elevation. This increased elevation 

led to a major increase in vegetative growth throughout most 

of the barrier island ecosystems. Thus, the processes of storm 

overwash are important in maintaining and building island 

elevation when allowed to occur unhindered. 

As expected, the greatest amounts of both erosion and 

accretion occurred in direct association with individual 

storms and the resulting inlet dynamics during the USACE 

1960–1962 surveys. Shoreline recession up to -260 ft and 

accretion up to +525 ft occurred in direct response to either the 

opening, closing, or lateral migration of the channel and spit 

associated with Old Drum, New Drum, and New-Old Drum 

Inlets, as well as the periodic opening and closing of the more 

ephemeral Whalebone and Swash Inlets. 

Based on the USACE original bathymetric survey to 

30-ft water depths, offshore slope geometry may reflect, 

and possibly even be responsible for the dynamics occurring 

on the adjacent barrier island segment. The lowest slope 

occurs along profiles adjacent to Cape Lookout and adjacent 

to Ocracoke Inlet. Between these two end points, the slope 

increases to its steepest point just southwest of New Drum 

Inlet. This is approximately where a significant bend occurs 

in South Core Banks and also the area where the 6- and 12-ft 

bathymetric contours have the greatest slopes, suggesting that 

some sort of indurated stratigraphic units may be controlling 

the substrate geometry. Further study is needed to investigate 

the development and changes of the ocean shoreline and its 

role in affecting the island.

The storm type (tropical storms, hurricanes, nor’easters), 

the directional path of the storm relative to the coastal system, 

and the frequency and pattern of successive storm events, 

can produce different erosion and accretion patterns along 

any given shoreline. Integrating the USACE, G&G, ECU, 

NCDCM shoreline erosion surveys for Core Banks demonstrate these important points about shoreline recession. 

1. The ECU and NCDCM data sets demonstrate that 

there is an ongoing net, long-term, but small-scale shoreline 

recession associated with the North Carolina barrier islands. 

2. The USACE and G&G short-term data sets 

demonstrate that processes associated with individual storm 

events or sets of events, as well as the absence of events, 

can produce extremely large-scale changes that include both 

erosion and accretion, respectively. 

3. The short-term, non-stormy period data set of G&G 

demonstrates that if given enough time between storm events, 

barriers can rebuild to their pre-storm period conditions. 

However, the post-storm shoreline response rarely gets there 

before the next storm or stormy period sets in. 

4. The result is a net long-term change documented by 

the ECU 1960–2001 and NCDCM 1946–1998 Core Banks 

data sets that resulted in net annual average erosion rates of 

-5 ft/yr.

5. This results in a long-term net recession that is of a 

substantially smaller scale than that of individual storm events. 

In other words, the shoreline tends to develop a net response 

similar to the “two steps forward and one step backward” 

scenario. 

6. Thus, long-term, small-scale shoreline erosion data are 

an average that does not reflect the impact of storm events. 

To more accurately reflect shoreline dynamics, erosion data 

should include ranges of maximum and minimum change.

7. Long-term survey data demonstrate a general increase 

in island width, elevation, and consequent vegetation on Core 

Banks over the past four decades. Aerial photographic timeslice analysis corroborates the survey data.

A. Aerial photographic evidence suggests that the islands 

were dominated by active overwash processes during the very stormy pre-1963 history, as indicated by 

vast areas of nonvegetated sand flats and fan deltas 

containing well-developed and active drainage systems 

across the barrier islands. During this stormy period, 

the overwash processes were actively building island 

width. The drainage systems flowed off the overwash 

plains and through major overwash tidal channels 

that occurred between extensive estuarine platform 

marshes. Where the tidal channels discharged into the 

estuary, major fan deltas formed.

B. Survey data, field mapping, and aerial photographic 

evidence demonstrate that the post-1963 period 

has been dominated by increasing island elevation 

through time. The increased elevation has in turn led 

to a decrease in the frequency and extent of overwash events and an increase in the growth of vegetation through time. The decrease in overwash events 

allowed the submerged fan-delta lobes to become 

stabilized by submerged aquatic vegetation and algae, 

while the intertidal portion of the fan-deltas evolved 

into low marshes. The post-1963 overwash plains 

formed stair-stepped ramps—the lower zone evolved 

into high marshes, the intermediate zone developed 

shrub-scrub communities, and the upper, oceanward 

part of the overwash ramp became dominated by scattered, ephemeral dune fields. 

C. These results indicate that the back-barrier environments of Core Banks have experienced a substantial 

increase in marsh wetlands and growth of submerged 

aquatic vegetation over the past four decades in 

response to natural barrier island evolutionary processes. This is a critical finding in light of the fact 

that most estuarine shorelines in North Carolina that 

are dominated by wetland marshes are experiencing 

severe shoreline erosion and wetland loss.

43
44 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

This study provides a basis for comparison of the 

effects of barrier island dynamics on a coastal system that 

is fairly natural and only slightly modified—Cape Lookout 

National Seashore—with an adjacent coastal system that 

has been modified by human influences—Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore. The re-evaluation of USACE and G&G 

survey data on Core Banks, together with the ECU survey, 

represents an important component in understanding the 

dynamics of high energy, barrier island systems. It is 

imperative that the natural processes and responses driving 

the evolution of barrier islands be understood for the longterm management of these dynamic coastal systems in light 

of global climate change and sea level rise. The design and 

implementation of appropriate management plans is crucial 

for Cape Lookout and Cape Hatteras National Seashores, as 

well as other seashores in the National Park Service system 

and the future of our valuable coastal resources.

Acknowledgments

This manuscript is a product of the North Carolina 

Coastal Geology Cooperative Program, a 7-year, multi-institutional effort of East Carolina University (ECU), the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), and North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS). Primary funding is through the USGS 

Coastal and Marine Geology Program (Woods Hole, Mass.) 

Cooperative Agreements 01ERAG0010 and 02ERAG0044. 

Supplementary support is from the U.S. National Park 

Service (P521001A704), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(1448-40181-02-G-082), Environmental Defense, and East 

Carolina University. 

Special thanks are extended to the following who 

personally dedicated a significant amount of time and effort 

to this project on Core Banks. Dr. Michael Rikard, Resource 

Management Specialist, and Jeff Cordes, Biologist at Cape 

Lookout National Seashore, provided extensive help with the 

field logistics of working on Core Banks and with locating 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) survey markers. 

Robert White, research technician at ECU, was responsible 

for locating and surveying the x, y, and z location of all 

USACE reference markers recovered during the ECU 

2001 survey. Ronald Crowson, geologist for Geo Solutions 

Limited Inc., provided ground-penetrating radar survey 

equipment and operating time to help run the surveys on Core 

Banks. David Nichols and Barry Erwin, boat operators and 

seismic technicians for the USGS, provided their services and 

equipment to run the high-resolution seismic profiles in Core 

Sound. James Watson, research technician and boat captain in 

the ECU Geology Department, provided many months of hard 

work on the North Carolina waterways and critical expertise 

in equipment operation and maintenance through many years 

of field research. Greg Williams, Lynn Jack, and Tom Jarrett 

(formerly) of the USACE, Wilmington District Office, were 

helpful in recovering old survey data and supplying aerial 

photographs.

Personal thanks go to the faculty, staff, and students of 

the Geology Department at ECU, who carried out various 

supporting studies during 2000–2007 on barrier island 

dynamics and helped develop the scientific understanding 

of this complex system. The authors have participated in 

an extensive research program concerning the origin and 

evolution of the North Carolina estuarine system for the late 

Pleistocene and Holocene (the last 20,000 years of earth 

history). This program has included the following faculty 

researchers whose work has added greatly to our overall 

understanding of coastal dynamics: Dr. Stephen J. Culver, Dr. 

David J. Mallinson, Dr. D. Reide Corbett, and Dr. J.P. Walsh 

of ECU; Mr. Charles W. Hoffman and Dr. Kathleen Farrell of 

the North Carolina Geological Survey; Dr. E. Robert Thieler, 

David Foster, and Erika Hammar-Klose of the U.S. Geological 

Survey; Dr. John Wehmiller of the University of Delaware; 

and Dr. Jesse McNinch of Virginia Institute of Marine 

Science. The never-ending hard work of the following ECU 

graduate students is greatly acknowledged: K.E. Burdette, 

C.A. Grand Pre, M.Hale, J. Jomp, P.R. Parham, M.P. Ricardo, 

J. Rosenberger, M. Sims, C.G. Smith, and D. Twamley. 

Many other faculty, staff, students, individuals, and agencies 

supplied key support, information, and resources over the 

years that have allowed this long-term project to succeed—we 

extend our greatest thanks to all of you.

44
References Cited 45

References Cited

Ames, D.A., Riggs, S.R., and White, R.M., 2003, Time-slice 

analysis of geomorphic—Ecologic systems and decadalscale barrier island evolution, North Carolina Outer Banks: 

Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 

35, no. 6, paper 18-11.

Barnes, J., 2001, North Carolina’s hurricane history (3d ed.): 

Chapel Hill, N.C., University of North Carolina Press, 

319 p.

Benton, S.B., Bellis, C.J., Overton, M.F., Fisher, J.S., Hench, 

J.L., and Dolan, R., 1993, North Carolina long term annual 

rates of shoreline change: North Carolina Division of 

Coastal Management Publication, 16 p. and 17 maps.

Benton, S.B., Bellis, C.J., Overton, M.F., Fisher, J.S., Hench, 

J.L., and Dolan, R., 1997, North Carolina long term annual 

rate of shoreline change—Methods report, 1992 update: 

North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Publication, 60 maps. 

Benton, S.B., Bellis, C.J., Knisel, J.M., Overton, M.F., Fisher, 

J.S., 2004, North Carolina 1998 long-term average annual 

erosion rate update—Methods report: North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, N.C. Coastal Resources Commission Information Item. 

Cumming, W.P., 1966, North Carolina in maps: North Carolina Dept. of Archives and History, 36 p., +15 map reproductions.

Dolan, R., and Godfrey, P., 1973, Effects of Hurricane Ginger 

on the barrier islands of North Carolina: Geological Society 

of America Bulletin, v. 84, p. 1329–1334. 

Fisher, J.J., 1962, Geomorphic expression of former inlets 

along the Outer Banks of North Carolina: Unpublished M.S. 

thesis, Dept. of Geology, University of North Carolina, 

Chapel Hill, 120 p.

Godfrey, P.J., and Godfrey, M.M., 1976, Barrier island ecology of Cape Lookout National Seashore and vicinity, North 

Carolina: National Park Service Monograph Series 9, 160 p.

Hayes, M.O., 1976, Terrigenous clastic depositional environments, in Hayes, M.O., and Kana, T.W., eds., A field 

course for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists: Univ. of South Carolina, Coastal Resources Division, 

Columbia, S.C., Technical Report 11–CRD, p. I–1 to I–131. 

Holland, F.R., 1968, A survey history of Cape Lookout 

National Seashore: U.S. National Park Service, Division of 

History Publication, 50 p., plus plates.

Payne, R.L., 1985, Place names of the Outer Banks: Washington, N.C., Thomas A. Williams, Publisher, 198 p.

Riggs, S.R., and Ames, D.V., 2003, Drowning the North Carolina coast—Sea-level rise and estuarine dynamics: North 

Carolina Sea Grant College Publication UNC-SG-04-03, 

153 p. 

Savage, R.P., and Woodhouse, W.W., 1968, Creation and 

stabilization of coastal barrier dunes: 11th Conference on 

Coastal Engineering, Proceedings, p. 671–700.

Snyder, S.W., Hine, A.C., and Riggs, S.R., 1990, The seismic 

stratigraphic record of shifting Gulf Stream flow paths in 

response to Miocene glacioeustacy—Implications for phosphogenesis along the North Carolina continental margin, 

in Burnett, W.C., and Riggs, S.R., eds., Phosphate deposits 

of the world—Neogene to modern phosphates: Cambridge, 

England, Cambridge University Press, v. 3, p. 396-423.

Stick, D., 1958, The Outer Banks of North Carolina, 1584–

1958: Chapel Hill, N.C., University of North Carolina Press, 

352 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1964, Ocracoke Inlet to 

Beaufort Inlet, North Carolina—Combined hurricane survey 

interim report—Ocracoke Inlet to Beaufort Inlet, and beach 

erosion report on cooperative study of Ocracoke Inlet to 

Cape Lookout: Wilmington, N.C., U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 28 p., plus 8 appendixes.

White, R.M., and Riggs, S.R., 2002, Coastal wetland formation since 1940—Core Banks, Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, NC: Raleigh, N.C., Water Resources Research 

Institute Annual Conference, Abstracts, p. 8.

White, R.M., Riggs, S.R., Mallinson, D.A., and Ames, 

D.V., 2002, Process-response, time-slice, geomorphic and 

ecologic mapping of Core Banks, Cape Lookout National 

Seashore, N.C.: Geological Society of America, Abstracts 

with Programs, v. 34, no. 6, paper 200–9. 

45

Appendixes 1–7

Appendix 1. Summary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) data developed in the 

1960, 1961, and 1962 surveys on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

North Carolina. Data are summarized directly from the USACE report produced 

in 1964, and miscellaneous files and field notebooks located at the USACE 

Wilmington (N.C.) District Office.......................................................................................48

Appendix 2. Summary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 1964) 1961 survey data 

of the shoreface bathymetry for Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

North Carolina. The 1961 bathymetric survey data are the horizontal distances 

obtained along alternate profiles and measured from mean sea level shoreline, 

based upon the 1929 datum, out to the 6-, 12-, 18-, 24-, and 30-foot bathymetric 

contours, respectively ........................................................................................................56

Appendix 3. Summary of the 1970 survey of Godfrey and Godfrey (1976) concerning change 

in surface elevation relative to the reference markers recovered on 69 of the 

77 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers profiles established on Core Banks, Cape 

Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. Because the actual survey data do 

not exist in the public domain, the data presented here are interpreted from a 

graph in figure 20 in Godfrey and Godfrey (1976)...........................................................57

Appendix 4. Summary of the 1971 Godfrey and Godfrey (1976) shoreline change survey data 

for 39 selected profiles of the 77 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers profiles established 

on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. Because the 

survey data do not exist in the public domain, the data presented here are interpreted from a graph in figure 37 in Godfrey and Godfrey (1976)..................................61

Appendix 5. Latitude and longitude for the recovered U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1964) 

reference markers and that were resurveyed in 2001 by East Carolina University 

for the present study on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North 

Carolina. The reference marker designations are as follows: 1-0 represents 

profile P1, and reference marker RM-0, 2-2 represents profile P2 and reference 

marker RM-2.........................................................................................................................62

Appendix 6. Summary of the East Carolina University survey data developed for 57 of the 

77 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers profiles located in the 2001 survey on Core 

Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina............................................65

Appendix 7. Summary of the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) data 

for the average annual shoreline erosion rates on Core Banks, Cape Lookout 

National Seashore, North Carolina. The two data sets include the 1940 to 1992 

period (Benton and others, 1993) and the 1946 to 1998 period (Benton and others, 

1997). These data are plotted on a 1998 NCDCM aerial photograph mosaic for the 

entire North Carolina coast. NCDCM subdivided the coast into segments of similar 

erosion rates and labeled each segment with the average annual erosion rate. 

Refer to text for a description of the methodology. The 77 U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers profiles for Core Banks were superimposed on the appropriate segments to obtain the NCDCM average annual erosion rate for each profile..............73
Appendix 1. Summary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) data developed in the 1960, 1961, and 1962 surveys on Core 

Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[ft, feet; MSL, mean sea level; --, no data; In 1960–1962, USACE constructed 77 profiles (P); each had 3 or more reference markers (RM) that were 100 ft 

apart and perpendicular to the shore. RM-0 is closest to the ocean. The zero reference markers (RM-0) constitute the baseline. Profile 1 is located at Cape 

Lookout, profile 77 is located at Ocracoke Inlet. All profiles are 3,000 ft apart, except 1 and 2, and 76 and 77, which are 2,400 ft apart]

(A)

Profile 

number

(B)

Reference 

marker 

number

(C)

1961 and 1962 

elevation at top of 

reference marker

(ft)

(D)

Sept.–Dec. 1961 

ground elevation at 

reference marker

(ft)

(E)

June 1960 distance 

(ft) from reference 

marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

(F)

Sept.–Dec. 1961

distance (ft) from reference marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

(G)

June–July 1962

distance (ft) from reference marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

1 1-0 6.83 6.10 -- 240 190

1-1 7.00 4.80 100 340 290

 1-2 5.33 4.80 200 440 390

2 2-0 8.32 7.60 275 200 130

 2-1 8.81 7.50 375 300 230

 2-2 13.20 11.60 475 400 430

3 3-0 7.54 6.90 310 200 195

 3-1 6.41 5.60 410 300 295

 3-2 5.91 4.90 510 400 395

4 4-0 7.85 7.20 260 260 265

 4-1 6.55 5.90 360 360 365

 4-2 6.09 5.10 460 460 465

5 5-0 6.94 6.30 310 220 220

 5-1 6.53 5.70 410 320 320

 5-2 6.06 5.50 510 420 420

 5-4 5.12 4.20 710 620 620

6 6-0 6.19 5.50 430 380 440

 6-1 6.03 5.30 530 480 540

 6-2 7.10 6.50 630 580 640

7 7-0 7.66 7.00 440 410 445

 7-1 7.48 6.80 540 510 545

 7-2 7.43 6.60 640 610 645

8 8-0 7.02 6.40 330 260 280

 8-1 6.55 6.00 430 360 380

 8-2 6.44 5.70 530 460 480

9 9-0 6.79 6.10 165 210 100

 9-1 7.66 6.90 265 310 200

 9-2 6.95 6.20 365 410 300

10 10-0 8.64 8.10 255 240 215

 10-1 7.77 6.90 355 340 315

 10-2 6.82 5.90 455 440 415

11 11-0 6.83 6.20 445 445 445

 11-1 6.83 6.20 545 545 555

 11-2 5.66 4.80 645 645 655

48 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001
Appendix 1 49

Appendix 1. Summary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) data developed in the 1960, 1961, and 1962 surveys on Core 

Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[ft, feet; MSL, mean sea level; --, no data; In 1960–1962, USACE constructed 77 profiles (P); each had 3 or more reference markers (RM) that were 100 ft 

apart and perpendicular to the shore. RM-0 is closest to the ocean. The zero reference markers (RM-0) constitute the baseline. Profile 1 is located at Cape 

Lookout, profile 77 is located at Ocracoke Inlet. All profiles are 3,000 ft apart, except 1 and 2, and 76 and 77, which are 2,400 ft apart]

(A)

Profile 

number

(B)

Reference 

marker 

number

(C)

1961 and 1962 

elevation at top of 

reference marker

(ft)

(D)

Sept.–Dec. 1961 

ground elevation at 

reference marker

(ft)

(E)

June 1960 distance 

(ft) from reference 

marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

(F)

Sept.–Dec. 1961

distance (ft) from reference marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

(G)

June–July 1962

distance (ft) from reference marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

12 12-0 7.19 6.70 390 380 380

 12-1 6.71 6.10 490 480 480

 12-2 6.70 6.00 590 580 580

13 13-0 6.71 6.20 430 380 395

 13-1 6.23 5.60 530 480 495

 13-2 6.31 5.30 630 580 595

14 14-0 6.16 5.60 490 385 415

 14-1 5.22 4.50 590 485 515

 14-2 4.69 3.90 690 585 615

15 15-0 6.16 5.60 465 420 395

 15-1 5.42 4.70 565 520 495

 15-2 4.74 4.00 665 620 595

16 16-0 7.07 6.20 465 500 400

 16-1 6.17 5.50 565 600 500

 16-2 5.90 5.30 665 700 600

17 17-0 7.27 6.60 395 345 310

 17-1 6.43 5.60 495 445 410

 17-2 6.05 6.20 595 545 510

18 18-0 7.56 6.90 375 290 270

 18-1 6.75 6.10 475 390 370

 18-2 6.46 5.70 575 490 470

19 19-0 7.35 6.70 440 335 380

 19-1 6.75 6.00 540 435 480

 19-2 6.62 5.70 640 535 580

20 20-0 8.29 365 350 290

 20-1 7.62 6.90 465 450 390

 20-2 6.77 6.20 565 550 490

21 21-0 8.28 7.80 285 280 305

 21-1 7.36 6.70 385 380 405

 21-2 6.55 5.80 485 480 605

22 22-0 8.25 7.60 345 355 305

 22-1 7.71 8.80 445 455 405

 22-2 8.38 7.80 -- 555 505
Appendix 1. Summary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) data developed in the 1960, 1961, and 1962 surveys on Core 

Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[ft, feet; MSL, mean sea level; --, no data; In 1960–1962, USACE constructed 77 profiles (P); each had 3 or more reference markers (RM) that were 100 ft 

apart and perpendicular to the shore. RM-0 is closest to the ocean. The zero reference markers (RM-0) constitute the baseline. Profile 1 is located at Cape 

Lookout, profile 77 is located at Ocracoke Inlet. All profiles are 3,000 ft apart, except 1 and 2, and 76 and 77, which are 2,400 ft apart]

(A)

Profile 

number

(B)

Reference 

marker 

number

(C)

1961 and 1962 

elevation at top of 

reference marker

(ft)

(D)

Sept.–Dec. 1961 

ground elevation at 

reference marker

(ft)

(E)

June 1960 distance 

(ft) from reference 

marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

(F)

Sept.–Dec. 1961

distance (ft) from reference marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

(G)

June–July 1962

distance (ft) from reference marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

23 23-0 7.22 6.60 330 375 350

 23-1 5.88 5.60 430 475 450

 23-2 5.40 5.00 530 575 550

24 24-0 7.07 6.60 365 415 375

 24-1 6.34 5.80 465 515 475

 24-2 5.64 5.20 565 615 575

25 25-0 6.29 6 430 430 460

 25-1 5.61 4.9 530 530 560

 25-2 5.1 4.3 630 630 660

26 26-0 6.79 5.90 465 395 485

 26-1 6.02 5.50 565 495 585

 26-2 5.82 5.10 665 595 685

27 27-0 6.33 5.80 480 425 320

 27-1 5.71 4.90 580 525 420

 27-2 5.12 4.60 680 625 520

28 28-0 7.85 5.80 375 465 360

 28-1 6.94 6.30 475 565 460

 28-2 6.15 5.40 575 665 560

29 29-0 7.50 7.34 465 460 440

 29-1 6.67 5.90 565 560 540

 29-2 5.95 5.10 665 760 640

30 30-0 8.90 8.30 300 300 255

 30-1 7.79 7.10 400 400 355

 30-2 6.82 6.10 500 500 455

31 31-0 8.83 8.24 315 205 255

 31-1 7.84 7.10 415 305 355

 31-2 6.92 6.20 515 405 455

32 32-0 9.95 9.20 340 265 275

 32-1 8.75 7.90 440 365 375

 32-2 8.05 7.30 540 465 475

33 33-0 8.23 7.60 400 315 300

 33-1 6.95 6.20 500 415 400

 33-2 6.30 5.40 600 515 500

34 34-0 8.25 7.60 395 340 410

 34-1 7.24 6.50 495 440 510

 34-2 6.43 5.90 595 540 610

50 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001
Appendix 1 51

Appendix 1. Summary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) data developed in the 1960, 1961, and 1962 surveys on Core 

Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[ft, feet; MSL, mean sea level; --, no data; In 1960–1962, USACE constructed 77 profiles (P); each had 3 or more reference markers (RM) that were 100 ft 

apart and perpendicular to the shore. RM-0 is closest to the ocean. The zero reference markers (RM-0) constitute the baseline. Profile 1 is located at Cape 

Lookout, profile 77 is located at Ocracoke Inlet. All profiles are 3,000 ft apart, except 1 and 2, and 76 and 77, which are 2,400 ft apart]

(A)

Profile 

number

(B)

Reference 

marker 

number

(C)

1961 and 1962 

elevation at top of 

reference marker

(ft)

(D)

Sept.–Dec. 1961 

ground elevation at 

reference marker

(ft)

(E)

June 1960 distance 

(ft) from reference 

marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

(F)

Sept.–Dec. 1961

distance (ft) from reference marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

(G)

June–July 1962

distance (ft) from reference marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

35 35-0 8.18 -- 480 445 450

 35-1 7.17 6.40 580 545 550

 35-2 6.49 5.60 680 645 650

36 36-0 8.38 7.80 420 380 380

 36-1 7.48 6.90 520 480 480

 36-2 7.04 6.30 620 580 580

37 37-0 8.15 7.20 375 390 365

 37-1 7.37 6.70 475 490 465

 37-2 6.71 5.80 575 590 565

38 38-0 8.19 7.50 370 355 380

 38-1 6.79 6.70 470 455 480

 38-2 6.36 5.90 570 555 580

39 39-0 8.16 7.60 320 270 250

 39-1 7.08 6.30 420 370 650

 39-2 6.31 5.60 520 470 450

 39-4 6.23 4.50 720 670 650

40 40-0 8.86 8.20 310 220 150

 40-1 7.78 7.00 410 320 250

 40-2 7.03 6.50 510 420 350

 40-4 6.66 4.30 710 620 550

41 41-0 8.38 7.60 270 280 185

 41-1 7.35 6.10 370 380 285

 41-2 6.32 5.60 470 480 385

 41-4 6.96 4.40 670 680 585

 41-6 4.01 4.60 870 880 785

42 42-0 7.23 6.60 320 250 235

 42-1 6.52 5.80 420 350 335

 42-2 5.66 4.90 520 450 435

 42-4 5.36 3.90 720 650 635

 42-6 4.32 4.10 920 850 835

43 43-0 6.36 5.70 390 365 220

 43-1 5.58 4.90 490 465 320

 43-2 5.00 4.20 590 565 420

44 44-0 4.23 3.70 770 600 595

 44-1 3.97 3.20 870 700 695

 44-2 3.88 3.10 970 800 795
Appendix 1. Summary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) data developed in the 1960, 1961, and 1962 surveys on Core 

Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[ft, feet; MSL, mean sea level; --, no data; In 1960–1962, USACE constructed 77 profiles (P); each had 3 or more reference markers (RM) that were 100 ft 

apart and perpendicular to the shore. RM-0 is closest to the ocean. The zero reference markers (RM-0) constitute the baseline. Profile 1 is located at Cape 

Lookout, profile 77 is located at Ocracoke Inlet. All profiles are 3,000 ft apart, except 1 and 2, and 76 and 77, which are 2,400 ft apart]

(A)

Profile 

number

(B)

Reference 

marker 

number

(C)

1961 and 1962 

elevation at top of 

reference marker

(ft)

(D)

Sept.–Dec. 1961 

ground elevation at 

reference marker

(ft)

(E)

June 1960 distance 

(ft) from reference 

marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

(F)

Sept.–Dec. 1961

distance (ft) from reference marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

(G)

June–July 1962

distance (ft) from reference marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

45 45-0 4.65 3.90 380 230 625

 45-1 3.86 3.20 480 330 725

 45-2 3.43 2.80 580 430 825

46 46-0 6.66 6.00 400 245 270

 46-1 5.51 4.80 500 345 370

 46-2 5.56 4.80 600 445 470

47 47-0 7.13 6.30 400 285 290

 47-1 7.86 7.30 500 385 390

 47-2 6.07 5.10 600 485 490

48 48-0 6.61 5.90 375 390 220

 48-1 6.95 6.10 475 490 320

 48-2 6.32 5.40 575 590 420

49 49-0 -- 5.90 240 130 200

 49-1 5.72 5.00 340 230 300

49-2 4.79 4.10 440 430 400

 49-4 4.81 3.00 640 630 600

50 50-0 5.64 4.80 280 355 240

 50-1 4.81 4.20 380 455 340

 50-2 4.45 3.80 480 555 440

51 51-0 5.03 4.20 520 440 400

 51-1 4.50 3.60 620 540 500

 51-2 4.09 3.30 720 640 600

52 52-0 4.51 3.90 490 395 410

 52-1 4.29 3.40 590 495 510

 52-2 3.67 2.60 690 595 610

53 53-0 5.11 4.50 400 410 350

 53-1 4.45 3.70 500 510 450

 53-2 4.22 3.20 600 610 550

54 54-0 5.30 4.50 440 405 320

 54-1 4.12 3.50 540 505 420

 54-2 3.83 2.80 640 605 520

 54-4 4.37 2.20 840 805 720

52 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001
Appendix 1 53

Appendix 1. Summary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) data developed in the 1960, 1961, and 1962 surveys on Core 

Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[ft, feet; MSL, mean sea level; --, no data; In 1960–1962, USACE constructed 77 profiles (P); each had 3 or more reference markers (RM) that were 100 ft 

apart and perpendicular to the shore. RM-0 is closest to the ocean. The zero reference markers (RM-0) constitute the baseline. Profile 1 is located at Cape 

Lookout, profile 77 is located at Ocracoke Inlet. All profiles are 3,000 ft apart, except 1 and 2, and 76 and 77, which are 2,400 ft apart]

(A)

Profile 

number

(B)

Reference 

marker 

number

(C)

1961 and 1962 

elevation at top of 

reference marker

(ft)

(D)

Sept.–Dec. 1961 

ground elevation at 

reference marker

(ft)

(E)

June 1960 distance 

(ft) from reference 

marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

(F)

Sept.–Dec. 1961

distance (ft) from reference marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

(G)

June–July 1962

distance (ft) from reference marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

55 55-0 5.30 4.60 455 400 330

 55-1 4.50 4.00 555 500 430

 55-2 4.22 3.40 655 600 530

 55-4 4.09 2.30 855 800 730

 55-6 3.53 1.80 955 1,000 930

56 56-0 6.35 5.60 400 340 330

 56-1 5.72 5.00 500 440 430

 56-2 4.82 4.00 600 540 530

57 57-0 6.76 6.00 445 370 310

 57-1 5.28 4.50 545 470 410

 57-2 4.99 4.50 645 570 510

58 58-0 6.92 6.10 400 325 335

 58-1 6.08 5.30 500 425 435

 58-2 8.44 8.00 600 525 535

 58-4 5.50 4.10 800 725 735

59 59-0 5.74 5.10 425 315 395

 59-1 5.04 4.30 525 415 495

 59-2 5.03 4.00 625 515 595

60 60-0 5.08 4.40 430 440 360

 60-1 4.61 3.90 530 540 460

 60-2 4.38 3.40 630 640 560

61 61-0 5.19 4.30 460 385 405

 61-1 4.38 3.60 560 485 505

 61-2 4.44 3.50 660 585 605

62 62-0 4.51 3.45 620 445 560

 62-1 4.23 3.20 720 545 660

 62-2 3.75 2.90 820 645 760

 62-4 3.43 2.60 1,020 845 960

63 63-0 4.19 3.30 625 560 435

 63-1 4.03 3.00 725 660 534

 63-2 3.71 2.90 825 760 635

64 64-0 5.20 4.50 500 455 405

 64-1 4.76 4.10 600 555 505

 64-2 4.14 3.40 700 655 605

 64-4 4.53 2.30 900 855 805
Appendix 1. Summary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) data developed in the 1960, 1961, and 1962 surveys on Core 

Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[ft, feet; MSL, mean sea level; --, no data; In 1960–1962, USACE constructed 77 profiles (P); each had 3 or more reference markers (RM) that were 100 ft 

apart and perpendicular to the shore. RM-0 is closest to the ocean. The zero reference markers (RM-0) constitute the baseline. Profile 1 is located at Cape 

Lookout, profile 77 is located at Ocracoke Inlet. All profiles are 3,000 ft apart, except 1 and 2, and 76 and 77, which are 2,400 ft apart]

(A)

Profile 

number

(B)

Reference 

marker 

number

(C)

1961 and 1962 

elevation at top of 

reference marker

(ft)

(D)

Sept.–Dec. 1961 

ground elevation at 

reference marker

(ft)

(E)

June 1960 distance 

(ft) from reference 

marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

(F)

Sept.–Dec. 1961

distance (ft) from reference marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

(G)

June–July 1962

distance (ft) from reference marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

65 65-0 5.47 4.70 580 455 430

 65-1 4.76 4.20 680 555 530

 65-2 4.20 3.30 780 655 630

 65-4 4.52 2.50 980 855 830

66 66-0 4.84 3.90 700 495 450

 66-1 4.19 3.50 800 595 550

 66-2 3.81 3.10 900 695 650

 66-4 4.11 2.50 1,100 895 850

67 67-0 4.74 3.60 655 565 460

 67-1 4.39 3.50 755 665 560

 67-2 3.82 3.10 855 765 660

 67-4 3.81 1.70 1,055 965 860

68 68-0 3.86 2.80 710 660 465

 68-1 4.35 3.20 810 760 565

 68-2 4.36 3.20 910 860 665

 68-4 3.21 2.70 1,110 1,060 865

 68-6 3.00 0.60 1,320 1,260 1,065

 68-8 2.46 -1.30 1,520 1,460 1,265

69 69-0 5.60 4.60 580 425 430

 69-1 5.42 4.30 680 525 530

 69-2 4.72 3.50 780 625 630

70 70-0 6.07 4.50 500 310 335

 70-1 4.87 3.70 600 410 435

 70-2 4.45 3.30 700 510 535

 70-4 4.23 2.00 900 710 735

71 71-0 4.67 3.40 400 300 300

 71-1 5.40 4.30 500 400 400

 71-2 5.30 4.10 600 500 500

 71-4 4.78 3.10 800 700 700

 71-6 3.98 2.70 1,000 900 900

 71-8 3.63 -- 1,200 1,100 1,100

72 72-0 5.77 4.60 340 185 190

 72-1 5.98 4.90 440 285 290

 72-2 5.20 4.30 540 385 390

 72-4 5.24 3.30 740 585 590

 72-6 4.55 -- 940 785 790

 72-8 4.09 -- 1,140 985 990

54 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001
Appendix 1 55

Appendix 1. Summary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) data developed in the 1960, 1961, and 1962 surveys on Core 

Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[ft, feet; MSL, mean sea level; --, no data; In 1960–1962, USACE constructed 77 profiles (P); each had 3 or more reference markers (RM) that were 100 ft 

apart and perpendicular to the shore. RM-0 is closest to the ocean. The zero reference markers (RM-0) constitute the baseline. Profile 1 is located at Cape 

Lookout, profile 77 is located at Ocracoke Inlet. All profiles are 3,000 ft apart, except 1 and 2, and 76 and 77, which are 2,400 ft apart]

(A)

Profile 

number

(B)

Reference 

marker 

number

(C)

1961 and 1962 

elevation at top of 

reference marker

(ft)

(D)

Sept.–Dec. 1961 

ground elevation at 

reference marker

(ft)

(E)

June 1960 distance 

(ft) from reference 

marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

(F)

Sept.–Dec. 1961

distance (ft) from reference marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

(G)

June–July 1962

distance (ft) from reference marker to MSL

(1929 datum)

73 73-0 6.43 5.10 330 175 180

 73-1 6.08 5.10 430 275 280

 73-2 5.18 4.20 530 375 380

 73-4 3.95 2.70 730 575 580

 73-6 3.89 -- 930 775 780

 73-8 3.67 -- 1,130 975 980

74 74-0 6.21 5.00 400 270 220

 74-1 5.61 4.50 500 370 320

 74-2 4.90 3.70 600 470 420

74-4 4.82 3.00 800 670 620

 74-6 4.33 -- 1,000 870 820

75 75-0 5.10 3.90 555 500 480

 75-1 4.44 3.40 655 600 580

 75-2 4.05 3.20 755 700 680

76 76-0 4.38 2.90 800 745 760

 76-1 3.94 2.70 900 845 860

 76-2 3.59 2.70 1,000 945 960

77 77-0 3.50 2.30 750 820 770

 77-1 3.36 2.10 850 920 870

 77-2 3.20 2.10 950 1,020 970

76 76-0 4.38 2.90 800 745 760

 76-1 3.94 2.70 900 845 860

 76-2 3.59 2.70 1,000 945 960

77 77-0 3.50 2.30 750 820 770

 77-1 3.36 2.10 850 920 870

 77-2 3.20 2.10 950 1,020 970
Appendix 2. Summary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 1964) 1961 survey data of the shoreface bathymetry for Core 

Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina.

[ft, feet; MSL, mean sea level; USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers]

Profile number Horizontal distance (ft) from the MSL shoreline (1929 datum) to bathymetric contours of the USACE 1961 survey

-6 ft -12 ft -18 ft -24 ft -30 ft

1 105 955 1,725 4,325 6,235

3 50 620 1,060 2,720 5,120

5 240 530 1,200 1,860 5,770

7 70 570 840 1,020 5,590

9 130 610 810 1,620 3,790

11 230 540 950 1,640 2,800

13 70 550 750 1,240 2,060

15 160 610 950 1,570 2,770

17 160 720 1,200 1,960 2,780

19 190 640 1,090 1,790 2,450

21 170 700 1,060 1,670 2,500

23 100 550 960 1,770 2,030

25 70 210 990 1,260 2,500

27 140 730 970 1,560 2,380

29 190 440 950 1,260 1,830

31 40 800 1,020 1,210 1,790

33 140 640 990 1,530 2,360

35 140 190 1,030 1,290 2,010

37 120 200 1,020 1,330 1,870

39 100 200 1,020 1,390 2,280

41 150 210 1,090 1,520 2,460

43 220 360 1,190 1,720 2,800

46 240 450 1,370 2,110 2,720

48 280 360 1,410 1,940 2,870

50 290 440 1,270 1,990 3,030

52 360 570 1,450 1,940 2,830

54 350 470 1,360 1,880 2,130

56 190 470 1,340 1,820 2,650

58 320 480 920 1,870 2,410

60 250 450 820 1,860 2,380

62 400 640 1,480 2,120 2,760

64 90 370 870 1,860 2,430

66 350 520 1,420 2,030 2,850

68 470 720 1,880 2,380 3,040

70 480 680 1,560 1,970 2,690

72 260 710 1,530 2,500 2,980

74 310 730 970 2,350 3,490

76 680 1,070 2,700 4,540 6,780

56 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001
Appendix 3 57

Appendix 3. Summary of the 1970 survey of Godfrey and 

Godfrey (1976) concerning change in surface elevation relative to 

the reference markers recovered on 69 of the 77 U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers profiles established on Core Banks, Cape Lookout 

National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[ft, feet; G&G, Godfrey and Godfrey; --, no data]

Reference marker 

number

Change in surface elevation between 

1960 and 1970 (ft) (from G&G fig. 20)

 1A-0 --

 1A-1 1.22

 1A-2 0.79

 2-0 --

 2-1 --

 2-2 --

 3-0 --

 3-1 1.01

 3-2 1.14

 4-0 --

 4-1 --

 4-2 1.02

 5-0 --

 5-1 --

 5-2 --

 5-4 --

 6-0 0.49

 6-1 --

 6-2 0.73

 7-0 2.63

 7-1 0.84

 7-2 1.06

 8-0 0.62

 8-1 0.65

 8-2 0.84

 9-0 --

 9-1 0.56

 9-2 0.82

 10-0 --

 10-1 --

 10-2 1.18

Appendix 3. Summary of the 1970 survey of Godfrey and 

Godfrey (1976) concerning change in surface elevation relative to 

the reference markers recovered on 69 of the 77 U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers profiles established on Core Banks, Cape Lookout 

National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[ft, feet; G&G, Godfrey and Godfrey; --, no data]

Reference marker 

number

Change in surface elevation between 

1960 and 1970 (ft) (from G&G fig. 20)

 11-0 --

 11-1 --

 11-2 --

 12-0 --

 12-1 1.59

 12-2 2.60

 13-0 --

 13-1 2.07

 13-2 1.80

 14-0 0.36

 14-1 0.95

 14-2 1.58

 15-0 0.10

 15-1 --

 15-2 1.26

 16-0 0.84

 16-1 1.00

 16-2 1.91

 17-0 0.28

 17-1 --

 17-2 -0.05

 18-0 --

 18-1 --

 18-2 --

 19-0 0.98

 19-1 0.95

 19-2 1.28

 20-0 --

 20-1 --

 20-2 0.67
Appendix 3. Summary of the 1970 survey of Godfrey and 

Godfrey (1976) concerning change in surface elevation relative to 

the reference markers recovered on 69 of the 77 U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers profiles established on Core Banks, Cape Lookout 

National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[ft, feet; G&G, Godfrey and Godfrey; --, no data]

Reference marker 

number

Change in surface elevation between 

1960 and 1970 (ft) (from G&G fig. 20)

 21-0 0.48

 21-1 1.12

 21-2 1.34

 22-0 --

 22-1 -1.12

 22-2 0.71

 23-0 0.55

 23-1 0.64

 23-2 0.92

 24-0 0.60

 24-1 0.70

 24-2 0.77

 25-0 --

 25-1 --

 25-2 2.28

 26-0 --

 26-1 --

 26-2 --

 27-0 --

 27-1 1.27

 27-2 2.00

 28-0 --

 28-1 --

 28-2 --

 29-0 --

 29-1 --

 29-2 --

 30-0 0.67

 30-1 0.95

 30-2 0.92

 31-0 0.92

 31-1 1.20

 31-2 1.08

Appendix 3. Summary of the 1970 survey of Godfrey and 

Godfrey (1976) concerning change in surface elevation relative to 

the reference markers recovered on 69 of the 77 U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers profiles established on Core Banks, Cape Lookout 

National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[ft, feet; G&G, Godfrey and Godfrey; --, no data]

Reference marker 

number

Change in surface elevation between 

1960 and 1970 (ft) (from G&G fig. 20)

 32-0 0.75

 32-1 1.05

 32-2 1.08

 33-0 1.48

 33-1 1.70

 33-2 1.59

 34-0 0.85

 34-1 1.10

 34-2 1.05

 35-0 --

 35-1 1.03

 35-2 1.12

 36-0 ---

 36-1 1.17

 36-2 1.56

 37-0 0.95

 37-1 2.41

 37-2 1.57

 38-0 0.53

 38-1 0.88

 38-2 1.18

 39-0 --

 39-1 --

 39-2 1.33

 39-4 --

 40-0 --

 40-1 0.45

 40-2 2.50

 40-4 --

 41-0 --

 41-1 --

 41-2 --

 41-4 --

 41-6 --

58 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001
Appendix 3 59

Appendix 3. Summary of the 1970 survey of Godfrey and 

Godfrey (1976) concerning change in surface elevation relative to 

the reference markers recovered on 69 of the 77 U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers profiles established on Core Banks, Cape Lookout 

National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[ft, feet; G&G, Godfrey and Godfrey; --, no data]

Reference marker 

number

Change in surface elevation between 

1960 and 1970 (ft) (from G&G fig. 20)

 42-0 --

 42-1 --

 42-2 -1.34

 42-4 2.31

 42-6 0.68

 43-0 --

 43-1 --

 43-2 1.69

 44-0 --

 44-1 --

 44-2 --

 45-0 --

 45-1 --

 45-2 --

 46-0 -0.46

 46-1 0.87

 46-2 0.40

 47-0 -1.60

 47-1 -0.29

 47-2 1.63

 48-0 0.61

 48-1 3.87

 48-2 1.58

 49-0 --

 49-1 --

49-2 1.35

 49-4 2.63

 50-0 --

 50-1 0.71

 50-2 0.95

 51-0 1.65

 51-1 1.33

 51-2 1.25

Appendix 3. Summary of the 1970 survey of Godfrey and 

Godfrey (1976) concerning change in surface elevation relative to 

the reference markers recovered on 69 of the 77 U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers profiles established on Core Banks, Cape Lookout 

National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[ft, feet; G&G, Godfrey and Godfrey; --, no data]

Reference marker 

number

Change in surface elevation between 

1960 and 1970 (ft) (from G&G fig. 20)

 52-0 --

 52-1 --

 52-2 --

 53-0 1.43

 53-1 0.95

 53-2 1.38

 54-0 --

 54-1 --

 54-2 --

 54-4 --

 55-0 --

 55-1 --

 55-2 --

 55-4 --

 55-6 --

 56-0 0.23

 56-1 1.38

 56-2 1.48

 57-0 -0.09

 57-1 1.11

 57-2 1.08

 58-0 0.43

 58-1 0.78

 58-2 --

 58-4 --

 59-0 0.71

 59-1 0.74

 59-2 1.62

 60-0 0.29

 60-1 0.38

 60-2 0.75

 61-0 -0.09

 61-1 --

 61-2 5.01
60 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

Appendix 3. Summary of the 1970 survey of Godfrey and 

Godfrey (1976) concerning change in surface elevation relative to 

the reference markers recovered on 69 of the 77 U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers profiles established on Core Banks, Cape Lookout 

National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[ft, feet; G&G, Godfrey and Godfrey; --, no data]

Reference marker 

number

Change in surface elevation between 

1960 and 1970 (ft) (from G&G fig. 20)

 62-0 --

 62-1 --

 62-2 --

 62-4 --

 63-0 0.40

 63-1 1.03

 63-2 0.88

 64-0 --

 64-1 --

 64-2 0.97

 64-4 1.48

 65-0 --

 65-1 -0.29

 65-2 0.74

 65-4 1.30

 66-0 --

 66-1 -0.56

 66-2 -0.08

 66-4 0.92

 67-0 --

 67-1 0.10

 67-2 0.10

 67-4 1.45

 68-0 --

 68-1 --

 68-2 --

 68-4 -0.77

 68-6 3.06

 68-8 --

 69-0 --

 69-1 --

 69-2 0.47

69-4 --

Appendix 3. Summary of the 1970 survey of Godfrey and 

Godfrey (1976) concerning change in surface elevation relative to 

the reference markers recovered on 69 of the 77 U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers profiles established on Core Banks, Cape Lookout 

National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[ft, feet; G&G, Godfrey and Godfrey; --, no data]

Reference marker 

number

Change in surface elevation between 

1960 and 1970 (ft) (from G&G fig. 20)

 70-0 1.57

 70-1 --

 70-2 7.19

 70-4 1.74

 71-0 --

 71-1 --

 71-2 --

 71-4 --

 71-6 --

 71-8 --

 72-0 --

 72-1 --

 72-2 --

 72-4 0.40

 72-6 --

 72-8 --

 73-0 --

 73-1 --

 73-2 --

 73-4 0.89

 73-6 --

 73-8 3.34

 74-0 --

 74-1 --

 74-2 0.41

 74-4 1.00

 74-6 --

 75-0 0.61

 75-1 1.07

 75-2 1.05

 76-0 1.48

 76-1 1.44

 76-2 1.71

 77-0 1.33

 77-1 1.36

 77-2 1.20
Appendix 4 61

Appendix 4. Summary of the 1971 Godfrey and Godfrey (1976) 

shoreline change survey data for 39 selected profiles of the 

77 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers profiles established on Core 

Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina. 

[ft, feet; ft/yr, feet per year; USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; G&G, 

Godfrey and Godfrey]

USACE profile 

number

G&G 1962–1971 net 

shoreline change (ft)

G&G 1962–1971 rate of 

shoreline change (ft/yr)

1 328 36

3 -43 -5

5 144 16

7 10 1

9 194 22

10 10 1

13 39 4

15 20 2

19 26 3

21 -62 -7

22 26 3

25 -39 -4

27 118 13

29 -20 -2

31 16 2

33 7 1

35 -98 -11

37 -82 -9

39 89 10

40 115 13

42 154 17

43 236 26

47 79 9

48 131 15

50 95 11

51 98 11

53 131 15

56 85 9

57 49 5

59 85 9

61 148 16

63 184 20

65 180 20

66 203 23

69 197 22

71 453 50

73 322 36

75 62 7

77 492 55
62 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

Appendix 5. Latitude and longitude for the recovered U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (1964) reference markers and that were 

resurveyed in 2001 by East Carolina University for the present 

study on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North 

Carolina.—Continued

[1-0 represents profile P1, and reference marker RM-0; 2-2 represents profile 

P2, and reference marker RM-2]

Reference markers recovered in 2001

Reference marker Latitude north 

decimal degrees

Longitude west 

decimal degrees

1-0 34.902950 -76.250433

2-2 34.597683 -76.533583

3-2 34.605600 -76.530533

4-1 34.613050 -76.526217

4-2 34.613150 -76.526567

5-2 34.620733 -76.522583

5-4 34.621000 -76.523150

6-0 34.627800 -76.517383

6-1 34.627950 -76.517700

6-2 34.628067 -76.517983

7-0 34.635117 -76.512783

7-1 34.635233 -76.513050

7-2 34.635383 -76.513367

8-1 34.642567 -76.508467

8-2 34.642700 -76.508767

9-1 34.649867 -76.503867

9-2 34.650000 -76.504150

10-1 34.657200 -76.499233

10-2 34.657317 -76.499500

11-0 34.664383 -76.494317

11-1 34.664533 -76.494567

11-2 34.664683 -76.494850

12-0 34.671183 -76.488667

12-1 34.671333 -76.488933

12-2 34.671533 -76.489233

13-0 34.678000 -76.483033

13-1 34.678200 -76.483233

13-2 34.678300 -76.483583

Appendix 5. Latitude and longitude for the recovered U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (1964) reference markers and that were 

resurveyed in 2001 by East Carolina University for the present 

study on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North 

Carolina.—Continued

[1-0 represents profile P1, and reference marker RM-0; 2-2 represents profile 

P2, and reference marker RM-2]

Reference markers recovered in 2001

Reference marker Latitude north 

decimal degrees

Longitude west 

decimal degrees

14-0 34.684783 -76.477400

14-1 34.684950 -76.477683

14-2 34.685117 -76.477983

15-0 34.691600 -76.471750

15-1 34.691767 -76.472067

15-2 34.691900 -76.472333

16-0 34.698417 -76.466133

16-1 34.698550 -76.466417

16-2 34.698750 -76.466700

17-1 34.705217 -76.460567

17-2 34.705350 -76.460767

18-2 34.711983 -76.454833

19-1 34.718450 -76.448650

19-2 34.718617 -76.448917

21-1 34.731717 -76.436783

21-2 34.731900 -76.437067

22-2 34.738517 -76.431167

23-2 34.745167 -76.425217

24-2 34.751800 -76.419283

25-2 34.758500 -76.413433

27-1 34.771533 -76.401233

27-2 34.771717 -76.401500

28-1 34.778183 -76.395283

28-2 34.778400 -76.395550

29-0 34.784483 -76.388383

29-1 34.784833 -76.389317

29-2 34.785017 -76.389583
Appendix 5 63

Appendix 5. Latitude and longitude for the recovered U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (1964) reference markers and that were 

resurveyed in 2001 by East Carolina University for the present 

study on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North 

Carolina.—Continued

[1-0 represents profile P1, and reference marker RM-0; 2-2 represents profile 

P2, and reference marker RM-2]

Reference markers recovered in 2001

Reference marker Latitude north 

decimal degrees

Longitude west 

decimal degrees

30-1 34.791000 -76.382717

30-2 34.791200 -76.382967

31-1 34.797183 -76.376083

31-2 34.797400 -76.376367

32-1 34.803383 -76.369467

32-2 34.803533 -76.369733

33-1 34.809550 -76.362867

33-2 34.809717 -76.363100

34-2 34.815900 -76.356483

42-4 34.864917 -76.302950

42-6 34.865267 -76.303433

43-0 34.870133 -76.295117

46-1 34.886467 -76.272767

47-1 34.891767 -76.265167

47-2 34.892000 -76.265350

49-1 34.902767 -76.250217

49-2 34.902967 -76.250450

49-4 34.903350 -76.250900

50-2 34.908817 -76.243367

51-1 34.914300 -76.235867

51-2 34.914533 -76.236133

52-1 34.920333 -76.229017

52-2 34.920533 -76.229267

53-0 34.925950 -76.221717

53-1 34.926183 -76.221983

53-2 34.926350 -76.222217

Appendix 5. Latitude and longitude for the recovered U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (1964) reference markers and that were 

resurveyed in 2001 by East Carolina University for the present 

study on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North 

Carolina.—Continued

[1-0 represents profile P1, and reference marker RM-0; 2-2 represents profile 

P2, and reference marker RM-2]

Reference markers recovered in 2001

Reference marker Latitude north 

decimal degrees

Longitude west 

decimal degrees

54-1 34.932033 -76.214917

54-2 34.932200 -76.215167

54-4 34.932617 -76.215633

55-2 34.938083 -76.208133

55-4 34.938450 -76.208600

55-6 34.938883 -76.209067

56-1 34.943717 -76.200817

56-2 34.943917 -76.201050

58-0 34.955200 -76.186467

58-1 34.955400 -76.186717

58-4 34.955983 -76.187417

59-0 34.961033 -76.179400

59-1 34.961250 -76.179650

59-2 34.961450 -76.179883

60-0 34.966667 -76.172083

60-1 34.966867 -76.172317

60-2 34.967067 -76.172550

61-0 34.972283 -76.164767

61-1 34.972500 -76.165000

61-2 34.972683 -76.165217

62-0 34.978700 -76.158350

63-0 34.983533 -76.150083

63-1 34.983817 -76.150367

63-2 34.983933 -76.150583

64-0 34.989183 -76.142767

64-1 34.989367 -76.143017

64-2 34.989567 -76.143233

64-4 34.989967 -76.143717
64 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

Appendix 5. Latitude and longitude for the recovered U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (1964) reference markers and that were 

resurveyed in 2001 by East Carolina University for the present 

study on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North 

Carolina.—Continued

[1-0 represents profile P1, and reference marker RM-0; 2-2 represents profile 

P2, and reference marker RM-2]

Reference markers recovered in 2001

Reference marker Latitude north 

decimal degrees

Longitude west 

decimal degrees

65-1 34.994983 -76.135700

65-2 34.995200 -76.135917

65-4 34.995583 -76.136383

66-1 35.000583 -76.128367

66-2 35.000800 -76.128600

66-4 35.001183 -76.129050

68-4 35.012450 -76.114367

69-1 35.017150 -76.105933

69-2 35.017300 -76.106117

70-4 35.022933 -76.098800

71-4 35.028183 -76.091017

71-6 35.028583 -76.091467

71-8 35.028983 -76.091967

72-0 35.034233 -76.084133

73-4 35.038600 -76.075500

73-6 35.039000 -76.075950

73-8 35.039450 -76.076367

74-4 35.043800 -76.067767

74-6 35.044250 -76.068200
Appendix 6 65

Appendix 6. Summary of the East Carolina University survey data developed for 57 of the 77 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers profiles 

located in the 2001 survey on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; RM, reference marker; ft, feet; MSL, mean sea level; NL, not located; --, no data. Columns A through G are located 

in appendix 1]

(H) USACE 

reference 

marker 

(I) 2001 distance 

measured (ft) from 

located RM-X to 

MSL (1929 datum)

(J) Erosion (ft) from 

1960 through 2001 

(columns E–I)

(K) 2001 ground elevation 

(ft) above or below top of 

USACE reference marker 

(L) 2001 ground 

elevation (ft) above 

MSL (1929 datum) 

(columns C+K)

(M) Change in surface 

elevation between 

1961 and 2001 (ft above 

MSL 1929 datum)

(columns L–D)

 1-0 NL -- -- -- --

 1-1 NL -- -- -- --

 1-2 NL -- -- -- --

 2-0 NL -- -- -- --

 2-1 NL -- -- -- --

 2-2 292 183 4.5 17.7 6.10

 3-0 NL -- -- -- --

 3-1 NL -- -- -- --

 3-2 NL -- -- -- --

 4-0 NL -- -- -- --

 4-1 155 205 -- -- --

 4-2 255 205 -- -- --

 5-0 NL -- -- -- --

 5-1 NL -- -- -- --

 5-2 210 300 4.6 10.7 5.16

 5-4 410 300 3.5 8.6 4.42

 6-0 343 87 3.8 10.0 4.49

 6-1 443 87 2.9 8.9 3.63

 6-2 543 87 1.3 8.4 1.90

 7-0 305 135 3.1 10.8 3.76

 7-1 405 135 3.4 10.9 4.08

 7-2 505 135 2 9.4 2.83

 8-0 NL -- -- -- --

 8-1 351 79 4.8 11.4 5.35

 8-2 451 79 3.5 9.9 4.24

 9-0 NL -- -- -- --

 9-1 242 23 3.6 11.3 4.36

 9-2 342 23 3.1 10.1 3.85

 10-0 NL -- -- -- --

 10-1 214 141 3.9 11.7 4.77

 10-2 314 141 3.1 9.9 4.02
66 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

Appendix 6. Summary of the East Carolina University survey data developed for 57 of the 77 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers profiles 

located in the 2001 survey on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; RM, reference marker; ft, feet; MSL, mean sea level; NL, not located; --, no data. Columns A through G are located 

in appendix 1]

(H) USACE 

reference 

marker 

(I) 2001 distance 

measured (ft) from 

located RM-X to 

MSL (1929 datum)

(J) Erosion (ft) from 

1960 through 2001 

(columns E–I)

(K) 2001 ground elevation 

(ft) above or below top of 

USACE reference marker 

(L) 2001 ground 

elevation (ft) above 

MSL (1929 datum) 

(columns C+K)

(M) Change in surface 

elevation between 

1961 and 2001 (ft above 

MSL 1929 datum)

(columns L–D)

 11-0 390 55 4.7 11.5 5.33

 11-1 490 55 4 10.8 4.63

 11-2 590 55 2.8 8.5 3.66

 12-0 352 38 4.6 11.8 5.09

 12-1 452 38 3.2 9.9 3.81

 12-2 552 38 3 9.7 3.70

 13-0 394 36 2.2 8.9 2.71

 13-1 494 36 2 8.2 2.63

 13-2 594 36 2 8.3 3.01

 14-0 420 70 3.1 9.3 3.66

 14-1 520 70 2.5 7.7 3.22

 14-2 620 70 1.2 5.9 1.99

 15-0 420 45 4.5 10.7 5.06

 15-1 520 45 4 9.4 4.72

 15-2 620 45 3.6 8.3 4.34

 16-0 380 85 3.7 10.8 4.57

 16-1 480 85 2.2 8.4 2.87

 16-2 580 85 2 7.9 2.60

 17-0 NL -- -- -- --

 17-1 355 140 2.9 9.3 3.73

 17-2 455 140 2.5 8.6 2.35

 18-0 NL -- -- -- --

 18-1 NL -- -- -- --

 18-2 200 375 3.2 9.7 3.96

 19-0 NL -- -- -- --

 19-1 414 126 1.6 8.4 2.35

 19-2 514 126 1 7.6 1.92

 20-0 NL -- -- -- --

 20-1 NL -- -- -- --

 20-2 NL -- -- -- --

 21-0 NL -- -- -- --

 21-1 270 115 3.3 10.7 3.96

 21-2 370 115 2.4 9.0 3.15
Appendix 6 67

Appendix 6. Summary of the East Carolina University survey data developed for 57 of the 77 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers profiles 

located in the 2001 survey on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; RM, reference marker; ft, feet; MSL, mean sea level; NL, not located; --, no data. Columns A through G are located 

in appendix 1]

(H) USACE 

reference 

marker 

(I) 2001 distance 

measured (ft) from 

located RM-X to 

MSL (1929 datum)

(J) Erosion (ft) from 

1960 through 2001 

(columns E–I)

(K) 2001 ground elevation 

(ft) above or below top of 

USACE reference marker 

(L) 2001 ground 

elevation (ft) above 

MSL (1929 datum) 

(columns C+K)

(M) Change in surface 

elevation between 

1961 and 2001 (ft above 

MSL 1929 datum)

(columns L–D)

 22-0 NL -- -- -- --

 22-1 355 90 2.8 10.5 1.71

 22-2 NL -- -- -- --

 23-0 NL -- -- -- --

 23-1 NL -- -- -- --

 23-2 290 240 3.2 8.6 3.60

 24-0 NL -- -- -- --

 24-1 NL -- -- -- --

 24-2 300 265 1.6 7.2 2.04

 25-0 NL -- -- -- --

 25-1 NL -- -- -- --

 25-2 420 210 2.1 7.2 2.90

 26-0 NL -- -- -- --

 26-1 NL -- -- -- --

 26-2 NL -- -- -- --

 27-0 NL -- -- -- --

 27-1 450 130 1.4 7.1 2.21

 27-2 550 130 2.6 7.7 3.12

 28-0 NL -- -- -- --

 28-1 360 115 -- -- --

 28-2 460 115 3.25 9.4 4.00

 29-0 440 25 6.9 14.4 7.06

 29-1 540 25 4.65 11.3 5.42

 29-2 640 25 2.1 8.1 2.95

 30-0 NL -- -- -- --

 30-1 310 90 2.82 10.6 3.51

 30-2 410 90 3.35 10.2 4.07

 31-0 NL -- -- -- --

 31-1 290 125 3.86 11.7 4.60

 31-2 390 125 5.65 12.6 6.37

 32-0 NL -- -- -- --

 32-1 330 110 2.5 11.3 3.35

 32-2 430 110 2.24 10.3 2.99
68 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

Appendix 6. Summary of the East Carolina University survey data developed for 57 of the 77 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers profiles 

located in the 2001 survey on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; RM, reference marker; ft, feet; MSL, mean sea level; NL, not located; --, no data. Columns A through G are located 

in appendix 1]

(H) USACE 

reference 

marker 

(I) 2001 distance 

measured (ft) from 

located RM-X to 

MSL (1929 datum)

(J) Erosion (ft) from 

1960 through 2001 

(columns E–I)

(K) 2001 ground elevation 

(ft) above or below top of 

USACE reference marker 

(L) 2001 ground 

elevation (ft) above 

MSL (1929 datum) 

(columns C+K)

(M) Change in surface 

elevation between 

1961 and 2001 (ft above 

MSL 1929 datum)

(columns L–D)

 33-0 NL -- -- -- --

 33-1 200 300 3.6 10.6 4.35

 33-2 300 300 2.2 8.5 3.10

 34-0 NL -- -- -- --

 34-1 NL -- -- -- --

 34-2 NL -- -- -- --

 35-0 NL -- -- -- --

 35-1 NL -- -- -- --

 35-2 NL -- -- -- --

 36-0 NL -- -- -- --

 36-1 NL -- -- -- --

 36-2 NL -- -- -- --

 37-0 NL -- -- -- --

 37-1 NL -- -- -- --

 37-2 NL -- -- -- --

 38-0 NL -- -- -- --

 38-1 NL -- -- -- --

 38-2 NL -- -- -- --

 39-0 NL -- -- -- --

 39-1 NL -- -- -- --

 39-2 NL -- -- -- --

 39-4 NL -- -- -- --

 40-0 NL -- -- -- --

 40-1 NL -- -- -- --

 40-2 NL -- -- -- --

 40-4 NL -- -- -- --

 41-0 NL -- -- -- --

 41-1 NL -- -- -- --

 41-2 NL -- -- -- --

 41-4 NL -- -- -- --

 41-6 NL -- -- -- --
Appendix 6 69

Appendix 6. Summary of the East Carolina University survey data developed for 57 of the 77 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers profiles 

located in the 2001 survey on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; RM, reference marker; ft, feet; MSL, mean sea level; NL, not located; --, no data. Columns A through G are located 

in appendix 1]

(H) USACE 

reference 

marker 

(I) 2001 distance 

measured (ft) from 

located RM-X to 

MSL (1929 datum)

(J) Erosion (ft) from 

1960 through 2001 

(columns E–I)

(K) 2001 ground elevation 

(ft) above or below top of 

USACE reference marker 

(L) 2001 ground 

elevation (ft) above 

MSL (1929 datum) 

(columns C+K)

(M) Change in surface 

elevation between 

1961 and 2001 (ft above 

MSL 1929 datum)

(columns L–D)

 42-0 NL -- -- -- --

 42-1 NL -- -- -- --

 42-2 NL -- -- -- --

 42-4 200 520 2.9 8.3 4.36

 42-6 400 520 0.8 5.1 1.02

 43-0 210 180 4.49 10.9 5.15

 43-1 NL -- -- -- --

 43-2 NL -- -- -- --

 44-0 NL -- -- -- --

 44-1 NL -- -- -- --

 44-2 NL -- -- -- --

 45-0 NL -- -- -- --

 45-1 NL -- -- -- --

 45-2 NL -- -- -- --

 46-0 NL -- -- -- --

 46-1 204 296 3.4 8.9 4.11

 46-2 NL -- -- -- --

 47-0 NL -- -- -- --

 47-1 180 320 4.2 12.1 4.76

 47-2 280 320 1.45 7.5 2.42

 48-0 NL -- -- -- --

 48-1 NL -- -- -- --

 48-2 NL -- -- -- --

 49-0 NL -- -- -- --

 49-1 190 150 1.5 7.2 2.22

 49-2 290 150 0.9 5.7 1.59

 49-4 490 150 -- -- --

 50-0 NL -- -- -- --

 50-1 NL -- -- -- --

 50-2 355 125 0.5 5.0 1.15

 51-0 NL -- -- -- --

 51-1 253 367 0.6 5.1 1.50

 51-2 353 367 0.4 4.5 1.19
70 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

Appendix 6. Summary of the East Carolina University survey data developed for 57 of the 77 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers profiles 

located in the 2001 survey on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; RM, reference marker; ft, feet; MSL, mean sea level; NL, not located; --, no data. Columns A through G are located 

in appendix 1]

(H) USACE 

reference 

marker 

(I) 2001 distance 

measured (ft) from 

located RM-X to 

MSL (1929 datum)

(J) Erosion (ft) from 

1960 through 2001 

(columns E–I)

(K) 2001 ground elevation 

(ft) above or below top of 

USACE reference marker 

(L) 2001 ground 

elevation (ft) above 

MSL (1929 datum) 

(columns C+K)

(M) Change in surface 

elevation between 

1961 and 2001 (ft above 

MSL 1929 datum)

(columns L–D)

 52-0 NL -- -- -- --

 52-1 335 255 0.4 4.7 1.29

 52-2 435 255 1.2 4.9 2.27

 53-0 300 100 4.2 9.3 4.81

 53-1 400 100 3.4 7.9 4.15

 53-2 500 100 3.2 7.4 4.22

 54-0 NL -- -- -- --

 54-1 263 277 3.4 7.5 4.02

 54-2 363 277 3.2 7.0 4.23

 54-4 NL 277 -- -- --

 55-0 NL -- -- -- --

 55-1 NL -- -- -- --

 55-2 255 400 2.8 7.0 3.62

 55-4 455 400 0.4 4.5 2.19

 55-6 NL -- -- -- --

 56-0 NL -- -- -- --

 56-1 233 267 1.9 7.6 2.62

 56-2 333 267 3.5 8.3 4.32

 57-0 NL -- -- -- --

 57-1 NL -- -- -- --

 57-2 NL -- -- -- --

 58-0 NL -- -- -- --

 58-1 340 160 4.2 10.3 4.98

 58-2 NL -- -- -- --

 58-4 640 160 0.7 6.2 2.10

 59-0 360 65 4.4 10.1 5.04

 59-1 460 65 3.8 8.8 4.54

 59-2 NL -- -- -- --

 60-0 360 70 3.9 9.0 4.58

 60-1 460 70 4.2 8.8 4.91

 60-2 560 70 2.9 7.3 3.88

 61-0 430 30 4.1 9.3 4.99

 61-1 530 30 3.4 7.8 4.18

 61-2 NL -- -- -- --
Appendix 6 71

Appendix 6. Summary of the East Carolina University survey data developed for 57 of the 77 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers profiles 

located in the 2001 survey on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; RM, reference marker; ft, feet; MSL, mean sea level; NL, not located; --, no data. Columns A through G are located 

in appendix 1]

(H) USACE 

reference 

marker 

(I) 2001 distance 

measured (ft) from 

located RM-X to 

MSL (1929 datum)

(J) Erosion (ft) from 

1960 through 2001 

(columns E–I)

(K) 2001 ground elevation 

(ft) above or below top of 

USACE reference marker 

(L) 2001 ground 

elevation (ft) above 

MSL (1929 datum) 

(columns C+K)

(M) Change in surface 

elevation between 

1961 and 2001 (ft above 

MSL 1929 datum)

(columns L–D)

 62-0 NL -- -- -- --

 62-1 495 225 -- -- --

 62-2 NL -- -- -- --

 62-4 NL -- -- -- --

 63-0 422 203 3.5 7.7 4.39

 63-1 NL -- -- -- --

 63-2 NL -- -- -- --

 64-0 NL -- -- -- --

 64-1 421 179 2 6.8 2.66

 64-2 NL -- -- -- --

 64-4 NL -- -- -- --

 65-0 NL -- -- -- --

 65-1 390 290.0 3.5 8.3 4.06

 65-2 NL -- -- -- --

 65-4 NL -- -- -- --

 66-0 NL -- -- -- --

 66-1 451 349 4.5 8.7 5.19

 66-2 551 349 3.2 7.0 3.91

 66-4 751 349 2.6 6.7 4.21

 67-0 NL -- -- -- --

 67-1 NL -- -- -- --

 67-2 NL -- -- -- --

 67-4 NL -- -- -- --

 68-0 NL -- -- -- --

 68-1 NL -- -- -- --

 68-2 NL -- -- -- --

 68-4 458 652 2.2 5.4 2.71

 68-6 NL -- -- -- --

 68-8 NL -- -- -- --

 69-0 NL -- -- -- --

 69-1 352 328 5.1 10.5 6.22

 69-2 452 328 0 4.7 1.22
72 Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001

Appendix 6. Summary of the East Carolina University survey data developed for 57 of the 77 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers profiles 

located in the 2001 survey on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina.—Continued

[USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; RM, reference marker; ft, feet; MSL, mean sea level; NL, not located; --, no data. Columns A through G are located 

in appendix 1]

(H) USACE 

reference 

marker 

(I) 2001 distance 

measured (ft) from 

located RM-X to 

MSL (1929 datum)

(J) Erosion (ft) from 

1960 through 2001 

(columns E–I)

(K) 2001 ground elevation 

(ft) above or below top of 

USACE reference marker 

(L) 2001 ground 

elevation (ft) above 

MSL (1929 datum) 

(columns C+K)

(M) Change in surface 

elevation between 

1961 and 2001 (ft above 

MSL 1929 datum)

(columns L–D)

 70-0 NL -- -- -- --

 70-1 NL -- -- -- --

 70-2 NL -- -- -- --

 70-4 621 279 2.9 7.1 5.13

 71-0 NL -- -- -- --

 71-1 NL -- -- -- --

 71-2 NL -- -- -- --

 71-4 32 768 4.6 9.4 6.28

 71-6 232 768 1.8 5.8 3.08

 71-8 432 768 0.8 4.4 4.43

 72-0 NL -- -- -- --

 72-1 NL -- -- -- --

 72-2 NL -- -- -- --

 72-4 118 622.0 0.7 5.9 2.64

 72-6 NL -- -- -- --

 72-8 NL -- -- -- --

 73-0 NL -- -- -- --

 73-1 NL -- -- -- --

 73-2 NL -- -- -- --

 73-4 NL -- -- -- --

 73-6 304 626.0 1.8 5.7 5.69

 73-8 504 626.0 0 3.7 3.67

 74-0 NL -- -- -- --

 74-1 NL -- -- -- --

 74-2 NL -- -- -- --

 74-4 194 606 0 4.8 1.82

 74-6 394 606 1.1 5.4 5.43

 75-0 NL -- -- -- --

 75-1 NL -- -- -- --

 75-2 NL -- -- -- --

 76-0 NL -- -- -- --

 76-1 NL -- -- -- --

 76-2 NL -- -- -- --

 77-0 NL -- -- -- --

 77-1 NL -- -- -- --

 77-2 NL -- -- -- --
Appendix 7 73

Appendix 7. Summary of the North Carolina Division of Coastal 

Management (NCDCM) data for the average annual shoreline 

erosion rates on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

North Carolina.—Continued

[USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; NCDCM, North Carolina Division 

of Coastal Management; ft/yr, feet per year; --, no data]

USACE profile 

number

NCDCM 1946–1998

average annual

erosion rate (ft/yr)

NCDCM 1940–1992 

average annual

erosion rate (ft/yr)

1 -6 -7

2 -6 -8

3 -6 -8

4 -4 -5

5 -2 -5

6 -2 -2

7 -2 -2

8 -2 -2

9 -2 -2

10 -2 -2

11 -3 -2

12 -3 -2

13 -3 -2

14 -3.5 -2

15 -2 -2

16 -2 -2

17 -2 -2

18 -2 -2

19 -2 -2

20 -3 -3

21 -4 -3

22 -3 -2

23 -3 -2

24 -2.5 -2

25 -2 -2

26 -3 -2

27 -4 -2

28 -5 -4

29 -4 -2

30 -3 -3

31 -3 -3

32 -4 -2

33 -5 -2

34 -7 -4.5

35 -10.5 -4.5

36 -14 -7.5

37 -16 -11.5

38 -16.5 -14.5

39 -30 -14.5

40 -13.5 -17

Appendix 7. Summary of the North Carolina Division of Coastal 

Management (NCDCM) data for the average annual shoreline 

erosion rates on Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, 

North Carolina.—Continued

[USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; NCDCM, North Carolina Division 

of Coastal Management; ft/yr, feet per year; --, no data]

USACE profile 

number

NCDCM 1946–1998

average annual

erosion rate (ft/yr)

NCDCM 1940–1992 

average annual

erosion rate (ft/yr)

41 -6.5 -12

42 -6 -8

43 -3 -4

44 -2 -4

45 -2 -2

46 -5.5 -2

47 -4 -4

48 -3 -4

49 -4 -5

50 -5 -4

51 -5 -4

52 -5 -4

53 -5 -4

54 -4 -3

55 -5 -4

56 -5.5 -4

57 -5.5 -4

58 -4 -4

59 -3 -4

60 -2 -3

61 -2 -2

62 -2 -2

63 -6 -3

64 -3 -3

65 -3 -2

66 -2 -2

67 -2 -2

68 -2 -2

69 -4 -2

70 -6 -4

71 -7 -6

72 -11 -10

73 -12 -10

74 -9.5 --

75 -6.5 --

76 -2 --

77 -2 --
Riggs and Ames—Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, 1960–2001—Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5309

Printed on recycled paper