Eroding support - Engineers, surf group differ about how to protect site of Montauk Lighthousel

After five years of studying how best to protect the site of the Montauk Point Lighthouse from future erosion, the Army Corps of Engineers says it has the answer: a rock wall.

But while the local historical society agrees that's the best solution, a surfing-environmental group has been a consistent voice of dissent, saying the lighthouse should instead be moved back from the Point.

After completing a $1-million feasibility study last fall, the Corps recommended spending $14 million to replace a 450-foot revetment or wall made from boulders placed by the Coast Guard in 1992 with a bigger wall. It would be made of 12.6-ton boulders extending 840 feet to bracket the easternmost tip of Long Island. The project, designed to last 50 years, has the enthusiastic support of the Montauk Historical Society, which owns the lighthouse that was completed in 1796.

But the East End chapter of the Surfrider Foundation, whose members catch waves at locations around the Point, calls the project a boondoggle that will hurt surfing spots and the environment.

Instead, it has concluded the lighthouse -- commissioned by George Washington -- should be raised and slid down the hill to a new site far from the bluff.

"It's putting a Band-Aid on erosion," said Tom Naro of Hampton Bays, chairman of the Surfrider chapter. He said while possible changes to surfing sites such as Alamo off the Point were important to the group, "we are first and foremost an environmental group dedicated to protecting the ocean's waves and beaches." He said previous walls had failed.

Frank Verga, the Corps project engineer, said of the existing wall, "I wouldn't call it a failure. It has lasted 16 years. ... It's still working."

The Coast Guard's 5-ton and 1-ton rocks were augmented by 950 feet of rocks installed by the Montauk Historical Society and the state between 1992 and 1997, so the Point has been stabilized with the lighthouse 75 feet from the bluff.

But Verga said that because of the size of the rocks installed by the Coast Guard and their height up the bluff, the existing wall is susceptible to waves breaking over it and then pulling the rocks away.

The new wall would extend out an average of 20 feet farther, running down 12 feet underwater.

"We believe the proposed project will have no perceptible impacts on surfing or beach erosion," Verga said.

The Corps has looked at and rejected moving the lighthouse, saying it would cost $27 million, ruin the historic nature of the site and possibly cause the structure to crumble.

Besides the high cost of moving the lighthouse, Verga said, "The problem is it's already on a bluff. They talk about other lighthouses that have been moved. But those were more on flat terrain and more easily maneuverable. Here there are a lot of question marks about whether it would survive a move."

Naro said "there's always environmental impact from putting boulders in. You're stopping the sand flow to other beaches." Naro's group has contacted the firms that moved lighthouses on Block Island, Cape Cod and North Carolina and was told the move would be difficult but was possible without damage, he said.

Greg Donohoe, the society's director of erosion control, said he supports the Corps' plan because it's the first one based on full engineering studies. He said the Corps arranged for a study at a wave tank at the University of Delaware that showed no negative impact on beaches or surf.

"Moving the lighthouse doesn't make any sense," Donohoe said. He said the building is fragile.

The Corps still needs congressional funding for construction and final design work.