Appendix B Archaeological Assessment

A Phase I Remote-Sensing Archaeological Survey Of
Two Proposed Borrow Areas
Offshore of Dare County, North Carolina

(Extract from 1590 Theodor de Bry map produced for Sir Walter Raleigh)

Submitted to:

Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina
4038 Masonboro Loop Road
Wilmington, North Carolina 28409

30 April 2015

Title Page:

A Phase I Remote-Sensing Archaeological Survey Of
Two Proposed Borrow Areas
Offshore of Dare County, North Carolina

Submitted to:

Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina
4038 Masonboro Loop Road
Wilmington, North Carolina 28409

Submitted by:

Gordon P. Watts, Jr., Ph. D, RPA
Lead Marine Archaeologist

Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc.
P. O. Box 2494
Washington, North Carolina 27889

30 April 2015
i
Executive Summary

Coastal Planning and Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. (CPE-NC) is working with the
Dare County, North Carolina towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk and Kill Devil Hills to identify
sources of beach nourishment quality sand to restore eroding beaches. As a consequence of
those activities, two offshore areas were classified as potential borrow sites and are identified
as Area A and Area C in this document. In order to determine the proposed project’s effects
on potentially significant submerged cultural resources, CPE-NC contracted with Tidewater
Atlantic Research, Inc. (TAR) of Washington, North Carolina to assist with the conduct a
magnetometer, sidescan sonar, sub-bottom profiler and fathometer survey of the proposed
borrow sites, to analyze the resultant data, to identify any evidence indicative of submerged
cultural resources and to produce a report in accordance with Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM) standards. Field research for the project was conducted between 20
and 29 October 2014.

Analysis of the remote-sensing data generated during the survey of Area A identified ten
sonar targets and nine magnetic anomalies. One of the sonar targets is a small single object,
three are bottom surface features and the remaining six appear to be sections of pipe, cable,
logs or pilings. None have an association with any of the magnetic anomalies. Four of the
magnetic anomalies represent small single objects, three represent moderate single objects
and two represent moderate single or multiple objects. Two of the moderate single or
multiple object anomalies and one cluster of two moderate single objects are recommended
for avoidance and are buffered. The buffered anomalies and anomaly cluster located in Area
A have signature characteristics suggestive of potentially significant submerged cultural
resources.

Analysis of the remote-sensing data generated during the survey of Area C identified 9 sonar
targets and 65 magnetic anomalies. Six of the sonar targets represent small single objects
and three are bottom surface features. Four of the targets have no association with any of the
magnetic anomalies and five have possible associations. Three of the 65 magnetic anomalies
lie outside the survey area. Nineteen represent small single objects, seventeen represent
moderate single objects, twenty more represent moderate single or multiple objects and six
represent complex or clustered objects. Twenty-seven of the anomalies are recommended for
avoidance and buffered. The buffered anomalies and anomaly clusters located in Area C
have signature characteristics suggestive of potentially significant submerged cultural
resources and could be associated with the wreck charted immediately east of the survey
area.

Avoidance of buffered anomalies and anomaly clusters is recommended. Should avoidance
of the buffers prove impossible, additional investigation is recommended to identify material
generating these anomalies and to assess their importance in terms of National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility.
ii
In the event that unanticipated cultural resources are identified during proposed dredging, the
on-site contractor should immediately cease operations in the subject area and notify the
designated Point of Contact (POC) for CPE-NC, BOEM and the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).
Non-Technical Summary

CPE-NC is working with the Dare County, North Carolina towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk and
Kill Devil Hills to identify sources of beach nourishment quality sand to restore eroding
beaches. Two borrow areas have been identified offshore of Kitty Hawk and Duck. In order
to determine the proposed project’s impact on shipwreck remains and/or prehistoric
submerged cultural resources, CPE-NC of Wilmington, North Carolina contracted with TAR
of Washington, North Carolina to assist with the conduct a remote-sensing survey in October
2014 using a magnetometer, sidescan sonar, sub-bottom profiler and fathometer. The
magnetometer identified ferrous metal objects that could be associated with shipwreck
remains. The sidescan sonar used sound to produce images of the bottom surface and any
exposed shipwreck or other material. The sub-bottom profiler employed sound to produce
images of the bottom sediment layers and relict channels or other buried landforms.

Analysis of the data generated during the survey of Borrow Area A off Kitty Hawk identified
ten sonar targets and nine magnetic anomalies. One of the sonar targets is a small single
object such as a fish trap, three are natural bottom surface features and the remaining six
appear to be sections of pipe, cable, logs or pilings. Four of the magnetic anomalies
represent small single objects such as traps. The remaining five magnetic signatures have
signature characteristics suggestive of potentially significant submerged cultural resources
such as historical vessel remains. Analysis of the remote-sensing data from Area C off Duck
identified nine sonar targets and sixty-five magnetic anomalies. Six of the sonar targets
represent small single objects and three are bottom surface features. Four of the targets have
no association with any of the magnetic anomalies and five have possible associations.
Three of the 65 magnetic anomalies lie outside the survey area. Nineteen represent small
single objects, seventeen represent moderate single objects, twenty more represent moderate
single or multiple objects and six represent complex or clustered objects. Based on their
signatures, twenty-seven of the Area C anomalies are recommended for avoidance and are
buffered. The buffered anomalies and anomaly clusters located in Area C have signature
characteristics suggestive of potentially significant submerged cultural resources such as
historical shipwreck remains and could be associated with a wreck charted immediately east
of the survey area.

If anomalies in the buffered areas prove impossible to avoid, additional investigation is
recommended to identify material generating their signatures and assess their importance in
terms of NRHP eligibility. In the event that unanticipated cultural resources are identified
during dredging, the contractor should immediately cease operations in that area and notify
the designated POC for CPE-NC, BOEM and the North Carolina SHPO.
iii
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... i
Non-Technical Summary .......................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... v
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
Field Project Methodology ....................................................................................................... 1
Project Personnel & Performance Roles ................................................................................... 2
Project Management Personnel ............................................................................................ 2
Project Field Personnel ......................................................................................................... 2
Project Cultural Resources Management Personnel ............................................................. 2
Data Analysis Overview ........................................................................................................... 2
Project Location ........................................................................................................................ 3
Literature and Historical Research ..................................................................................... 11
Cartographic Research ............................................................................................................ 12
National Register of Historic Places Listing ........................................................................... 12
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office Listing ..................................................... 13
Remote-Sensing Survey .......................................................................................................... 13
Magnetometer ..................................................................................................................... 14
Sidescan Sonar .................................................................................................................... 15
Sub-Bottom Profiler ............................................................................................................ 16
Positioning and Data Collection ......................................................................................... 17
Signature Analysis and Target Assessment ............................................................................ 20
Cultural Development ............................................................................................................. 21
Prehistoric Background ........................................................................................................... 21
The Cultural Sequence ............................................................................................................ 21
The Paleo-Indian Period (12,000-8000 B.C.) ..................................................................... 22
The Archaic Period (8000 -1000 B.C.) ............................................................................... 22
The Woodland Period (1000 B.C. -1650 A.D.) .................................................................. 23
Historical Background ............................................................................................................ 26
Exploration and Colonization (A.D. 1524-1776) ............................................................... 26
Revolutionary and Ante-Bellum Period 1776-1860 ........................................................... 37
Civil War Period 1860-1865 ............................................................................................... 43
Twentieth-Century Development ............................................................................................ 59
Outer Banks Area Shipwrecks ................................................................................................ 66
iv
Previous Remote-Sensing Investigations ................................................................................ 67
Survey Weather Conditions .................................................................................................... 68
Survey Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 69
Magnetometer Data Analysis .............................................................................................. 69
Sonar Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 69
Sub-bottom Profiler Data Analysis ..................................................................................... 69
Description of Findings ........................................................................................................... 70
Borrow Area A .................................................................................................................... 70
Borrow Area C ........................................................................................................................ 77
Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 91
Unexpected Discovery Protocol ............................................................................................. 92
References Cited ..................................................................................................................... 93
Newspaper Sources ........................................................................................................... 100
Attachment A: Shipwreck Inventory .................................................................................... 101
Attachment B: Area A Sonar Target Table………………………………………………... 110
Attachment C: Area A Sonar Target Reports……………………………………………… 112
Attachment D: Area A Magnetic Anomaly Table ………………………………...………..117
Attachment E: Area C Sonar Target Table ………..………………………………………..119
Attachment F: Area C Sonar Target Reports………………………………………………..121
Attachment G: Area C Magnetic Anomaly Table……………………………………….... 126
v
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1. Project location .................................................................................................. 4
Figure 2. Geophysical survey area and Borrow Area A ................................................... 5
Figure 3. Geophysical survey area and Borrow Area C ................................................... 6
Figure 4. Borrow Area A survey border configuration and control points. ...................... 7
Figure 5. Borrow Area C survey border configuration and control points. ...................... 9
Figure 6. Survey vessel MV Thunderforce. .................................................................... 13
Figure 7. Navigation computers on survey RV Thunderforce bridge. ........................... 14
Figure 8. Conex box navigation control and data collection stations. ............................ 14
Figure 9. Geometrics 882 cesium vapor marine magnetometer. .................................... 15
Figure 10. EdgeTech 4200-FS sidescan sonar system. .................................................... 16
Figure 11. EdgeTech 512i sub-bottom profiler towfish. .................................................. 17
Figure 12. As run tracklines in Borrow Area A. .............................................................. 18
Figure 13. As run tracklines in Borrow Area C. .............................................................. 19
Figure 14. John White painting that may depict Her Majesty's Tiger. ............................ 28
Figure 15. John White map dated 1585. .......................................................................... 29
Figure 16. White-DeBry map dated 1590. ....................................................................... 30
Figure 17. Oceangoing ships depicted in Thames River ................................................. 31
Figure 18. Engraving of earthfast [or post-in-the-ground] dwelling. .............................. 32
Figure 19. Ogilby map dated ca. 1672. ............................................................................ 33
Figure 20. John Lawson map dated 1709. ....................................................................... 34
Figure 21. "Sholes of Hatteras" from Herman Moll Map, 1729. ..................................... 36
Figure 22. Cape Hatteras depicted in 1770 Collett Map. ................................................. 37
Figure 23. The Collett map dated 1770 showing the inlets north of Hatteras. ................ 38
Figure 24. The MacRae-Brazier map dated 1833. ........................................................... 41
Figure 25. U.S. Coast Survey, topographic sheet, Bodies Island dated 1849. ................. 42
Figure 26. Chart depicting Hatteras Inlet details, 15 February 1862 ............................... 44
Figure 27. U.S. naval and army forces bombarding Hatteras Inlet fortifications. ........... 45
Figure 28. The US tugboat Fanny captured by Confederates ......................................... 47
Figure 29. Federal vessels encountering foul weather off Hatteras Inlet. ....................... 48
Figure 30. Loss of the City of New York at Hatteras Inlet. .............................................. 48
Figure 31. Montage showing wreck of Zouave in Hatteras Inlet. .................................... 49
Figure 32. Shipwreck of the Pocahontas near Rodanthe. ................................................ 50
Figure 33. Tragic loss of the USS Monitor off Cape Hatteras. ........................................ 52
Figure 34. Map of Hatteras Island drawn 1864. .............................................................. 52
Figure 35. Architectural sketch of the Cape Hatteras lighthouse .................................... 53
vi
Figure 36. Modern image of the Bodie Island light, built 1872 ...................................... 55
Figure 37. Drawing of North Carolina sharpie, 1891 ...................................................... 57
Figure 38. Outer Banks oyster boat (b. 1889) .................................................................. 58
Figure 39. Lightship beached after 1899 San Ciriaco hurricane ..................................... 58
Figure 40. Extract from 1938 Dare County map .............................................................. 62
Figure 41. Extract of 1938 Dare County map . ................................................................. 63
Figure 42. Legend from 1938 Dare County map ............................................................. 64
Figure 43. U-71 attacks Dixie Arrow off Cape Hatteras. ................................................. 65
Figure 44. Image of Dixie Arrow, 11 February 1942. ..................................................... 65
Figure 45. Borrow Area A sonar coverage mosaic with targets ...................................... 71
Figure 46. Sub-bottom profiler data example from Borrow Area A survey line 383. ..... 72
Figure 47. Borrow Area A magnetic contours, anomalies and buffers . ......................... 73
Figure 48. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer A. .............. 74
Figure 49. Anomaly recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer B. ................. 75
Figure 50. Anomaly recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer C. ................. 76
Figure 51. Borrow Area A sonar coverage mosaic with targets . .................................... 77
Figure 52. Sub-bottom profiler data example from Borrow Area C-line 565 East. ........ 78
Figure 53. Sub-bottom profiler data example from Borrow Area C-line 565 West. ....... 78
Figure 54. Borrow Area C magnetic contours, anomalies and avoidance buffers .......... 79
Figure 55. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer A. .............. 80
Figure 56. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer B and ......... 81
Figure 57. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer D. .............. 82
Figure 58. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer E. ............... 83
Figure 59. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer F. ............... 84
Figure 60. Anomalies and sonar target recommended for avoidance in Buffer G. ......... 85
Figure 61. Anomaly recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer H. ................. 86
Figure 62. Anomalies and sonar target recommended for avoidance in Buffer I, Buffer J and
Buffer K. ............................................................................................................ 87
Figure 63. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer L. ............... 88
Figure 64. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer M. .............. 89
Figure 65. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer N. .............. 90

Introduction

Coastal Planning and Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. (CPE-NC) is working with the
Dare County, North Carolina towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk and Kill Devil Hills to identify
sources of beach nourishment quality sand to restore eroding beaches. Two offshore
areas were classified as potential borrow sites and are identified as Area A and Area C in
this document. In order to determine the proposed project’s effects on potentially
significant submerged cultural resources, CPE-NC contracted with Tidewater Atlantic
Research, Inc. (TAR) of Washington, North Carolina to assist with the conduct a
magnetometer, sidescan sonar, sub-bottom profiler and fathometer survey of proposed
Borrow Area A and Borrow Area C, to analyze the data, to identify any evidence
indicative of submerged cultural resources and to produce a report in accordance with
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) standards.

The remote-sensing investigation conducted by CPE-NC was designed to provide
accurate and reliable identification, assessment and documentation of submerged cultural
resources in the two study areas. The assessment methodology was developed to comply
with the criteria of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665),
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 11-190), Executive Order
11593, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Procedures for the protection of
historic and cultural properties (36 CFR Part 800) and the updated guidelines described in
36 CFR 64 and 36 CFR 66.

TAR personnel prepared this report to comply with BOEM requirements identified in 30
CFR Part 585, Appendix B. The results of the investigation were designed to furnish
CPE-NC with the archaeological data required to comply with Federal submerged
cultural resource legislation and regulations.

Field Project Methodology

Field research for the subject project was conducted between 20 and 29 October 2014
aboard the M/V Thunderforce, which was contracted to CPE-NC to serve as a platform
for the survey. CPE-NC personnel planned survey activities and operated all remote-
sensing equipment during data collection. The location and configuration of the survey
of Area A and Area C was based on a geophysical reconnaissance carried out by CPE-
NC between 9 and 13 June 2014 and was authorized by BOEM (E13-002). Survey
equipment and methodology was based on BOEM “Guidelines for Providing Geological
and Geophysical, Hazards, and Archaeological Information Pursuant to 30 CFR PART
585”.

2
Project Personnel & Performance Roles
Project Management Personnel

CPE-NC project managers and their respective roles follow: Project Manager Kenneth
Willson, overall management of the design and permitting of the beach nourishment
projects, including offshore sand resource investigations; Functional Geophysical and
Survey Manager Jeffrey Andrews, overall management of geophysical and hydrographic
survey operations; Geophysical Lead Beau Suthard, management of geophysical data
acquisition and processing; and Hydrographic Survey Lead Michael Lowiec,
management of hydrographic survey data acquisition and processing.

Project Field Personnel

CPE-NC field personnel and their respective roles follow: Party Chief Franky
Stankiewicz, lead investigator on board M/V Thunderforce, sidescan sonar operator, and
protected species observer; Hydrographic Surveyor Ben Alocer, operated hydrographic
survey systems and served as protected species observer; Sub-bottom Profiler System
Operator Natasha Florez; and Protected Species Observer Stephanie Bush. Dr. Gordon
Watts, director of TAR, served as the lead marine archaeologist and supervised
magnetometer system operations.

Project Cultural Resources Management Personnel

Senior historian and Section 106 Specialist Robin Arnold carried out the historical
background investigation under the supervision of Dr. Watts. Dr. Watts and Mr. Gregory
O. Stratton carried out analysis of the scientific data. Dr. Watts and Ms. Arnold prepared
this report document. All personnel associated with the conduct of historical and
literature research, supervision of survey operations, data analysis and report preparation
meet, or exceed, the standards identified by the U.S. Department of Interior (USDI)
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-44739).
Lead Marine Archaeologist Gordon Watts has over 40 years of experience in conducting
high-resolution marine geophysical (HRG) surveys and processing and interpreting the
resulting data for submerged cultural resource identification (30 CFR Part 585 Appendix
B).

Data Analysis Overview

Analysis of the remote-sensing data generated during the survey of Area A identified ten
sonar targets and nine magnetic anomalies. One of the sonar targets is a small single
object, three are bottom surface features and the remaining six appear to be sections of
pipe, cable, logs or pilings. None of the sonar targets have an association with any of the
magnetic anomalies. Four of the magnetic anomalies represent small single objects, three
3
represent moderate single objects and two represent moderate single or multiple objects.
Two of the moderate single or multiple object anomalies and one cluster of two moderate
single objects are recommended for avoidance and buffered. The buffered anomalies and
anomaly cluster located in Area A have signature characteristics suggestive of potentially
significant submerged cultural resources.

Analysis of the remote-sensing data generated during the survey of Area C identified 9
sonar targets and 65 magnetic anomalies. Six of the sonar targets represent small single
objects and three are bottom surface features. Four of the targets have no association
with any of the magnetic anomalies and five have possible associations. Three of the 65
magnetic anomalies lie outside the survey area. Nineteen represent small single objects,
seventeen represent moderate single objects, twenty more represent moderate single or
multiple objects and six represent complex or clustered objects. Twenty-seven of the
anomalies are recommended for avoidance and buffered. The buffered anomalies and
anomaly clusters located in Area C have signature characteristics suggestive of
potentially significant submerged cultural resources and could be associated with the
wreck charted immediately east of the survey area
Project Location

The Dare County remote-sensing survey project areas are located offshore of Croatan
Shores and Duck, North Carolina (Figure 1). The location off Croatan Shores, identified
as Borrow Area A, lies approximately 6.5 statute miles east of the Croatan Shores
shoreline. Borrow Area A lies in Lease Block Number 980 (Figure 2). The location off
Duck, identified as Borrow Area C lies approximately 4.6 miles east of the Duck
shoreline. Borrow Area C lies in Lease Block Number 802 (Figure 3).
4

Figure 1. Project location (Extract of NOAA Chart 12200.)
5

Figure 2. Geophysical survey area and Borrow Area A located off Croatan
Shores in Lease Block 980 (Extract from Topographic Map C3674a1 Currituck
Sound 1969; 250,000 Scale).
6

Figure 3. Geophysical survey area and Borrow Area C located off Duck in Lease
Block 802 (Topographic Map C35074a1 Manteo 1972; 250,000 Scale).
7
The survey area for Borrow Area A is a polygon that measures approximately 16,900 feet
in north-south length and 7,500 feet in east-west width at its extreme points. The Borrow
Area A survey area covers an area of 2.6 square miles and 1701 acres (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Borrow Area A survey border configuration and control points.

8
Survey boundary control points for the Borrow Area A survey perimeter, defined in
North Carolina State Plane Coordinates (NCSPC), based on NAD 83, U.S. Survey Foot,
are as follows:

BORROW AREA A SURVEY PERIMETER
BORDER POINT X COORDINATE Y COORDINATE
1 3019374.6 855465.1
2 3020300.9 853540.8
3 3021496.4 853600.2
4 3021585.9 851422.2
5 3023214.7 851511.5
6 3023377.4 849590.1
7 3023618.1 848277.2
8 3021242.3 845533.3
9 3021466.4 844416.3
10 3021496.3 843222.6
11 3020823.9 838877.9
12 3020495.3 838564.5
13 3018881.5 838803.1
14 3017626.4 839742.9
15 3017805.6 841190
16 3017192.8 843189.3
17 3016475.7 844385
18 3016655.1 846130.6
19 3017611.4 846921.3
20 3017596.5 849768.9
21 3010326.4 850723.8
22 3016714.9 850256.2

Table 1. Borrow Area A survey perimeter coordinates.

Borrow Area C lies approximately 4.6 miles east of Duck, North Carolina. The survey
area for that site is a polygon that measures approximately 10,500 feet in north-south
length and 6,500 feet in east-west width at its extreme points. The Borrow Area C survey
covers an area of 1.4 square miles and 868 acres (Figure 5).

9

Figure 5. Borrow Area C survey border configuration and control points.
10

Survey boundary control points for the Borrow Area C survey perimeter, defined in
NCSPC, based on NAD 83, U.S. Survey Foot, are as follows:

BORROW AREA C SURVEY PERIMETER
BORDER POINT X COORDINATE Y COORDINATE
1 2981289.7 912258.4
2 2982922.9 912239.6
3 2984619.2 911187.8
4 2984608.2 910058.8
5 2983200.2 909184.2
6 2984807.7 907854.1
7 2984453.3 905060.1
8 2983424.1 902899.2
9 2980204.8 902899.2
10 2979130.3 901640.7
11 2978426.1 901640.7
12 2977941.7 902419.9
13 2979506.3 904225.1
14 2980390.7 907238.6
15 2981092.8 908236.5
16 2981069.9 911226.1

Table 2. Borrow Area C survey perimeter coordinates.

11
Research Methodology
Literature and Historical Research

In conjunction with the conduct of North Carolina Outer Banks remote-sensing surveys,
TAR historians previously examined the shipwreck inventories of the former Mariners
Museum Library in Newport News, Virginia [now housed at Christopher Newport
University]; the N.C. Division of Archives and History (NCDAH) in Raleigh; the
Program in Maritime History and Underwater Research at East Carolina University in
Greenville, North Carolina; and the David Stick Collection at the Outer Banks History
Center at Manteo, North Carolina. At the North Carolina Kure Beach Underwater
Archaeology Branch (UAB) facility, files were surveyed for prehistoric and historic
submerged archaeological sites in the study area. In respect to the current Dare County
project, the principal investigator consulted the “Bibliography of North Carolina
Underwater Archaeology” compiled by UAB staff (Brooks et al. 1996), and conferred
with the UAB director to ascertain if any newly discovered submerged cultural resources
have been added to that shipwreck inventory (John W. Morris, pers. comm., October
2014; John W. Morris, pers. comm., March 2015).

The literature and archival investigation focused on a survey of primary and secondary
source materials associated with the historical development of the North Carolina Outer
Banks. TAR historians focused on documented activities such as exploration,
colonization, agriculture, industry, trade, shipbuilding, commerce, warfare,
transportation, and fishing. These historical activities could be contributing factors in the
loss of vessels in the project area. In examining each of these factors, special attention
was committed to maritime activities associated with navigation along the project survey
areas.

Wreck-specific information was collected from scholarly and ancillary sources that
include; National Political Manual (1868), Military and Naval Service of the United
States Coast Survey (U. S. Department of Commerce 1916), Graveyard of the Atlantic
(Stick 1952), An Oceanographic Atlas Of The Carolina Continental Margin (Newton,
Pilkey and Blanton [Newton et al.] 1971), Encyclopedia of American Shipwrecks
(Berman 1972), Shipwrecks of the Civil War (Shomette 1973), Merchant Steam Vessels
of the United States 1790–1868 (Mitchell 1975), and supplements nos. 1-3 (Mitchell
1978, 1982, 1984), Shipwrecks in the Americas (Marx 1983), The Naval War of 1812
(Dudley, 2 vols., 1985, 1992), Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in
the War of the Rebellion (National Historical Society, series I & II, 31 vols., 1987),
Shipwrecks: Diving the Graveyard of the Atlantic (Farb 1992), Shipwrecks of North
Carolina: from the Diamond Shoals North (Gentile 1993), North Carolina Shipwreck
Accounts, 1709 to 1950, Including Over 1100 Named Wrecks (Charles 2004), Naval
Documents of the American Revolution (U.S. Department of the Navy, 11 vols., 1964-
2005), Shipwrecks of the Outer Banks (Duffus 2007), and Shipwrecks & Reefs of Oregon
Inlet (Hudy 2007).

12
Additional maritime casualty information was generated by gratis and premium Internet
databases that included: AccessibleArchives.com, the Automatic Wreck and Obstruction
Information System (AWOIS) sponsored by NOAA, Eastern North Carolina Digital
Library, GenealogyBank.com, Fold3.com, HathiTrust, JSTOR, NewspaperArchive.com,
Newspapers.com, The American Memory Collection [historical newspapers] (Library of
Congress [LOC]), and The New York Times.

Technical reports provided another source of regional cultural resources analyses and
shipwreck information. David Phelps's "The Archaeology of Colington Island" serves as
an example of a report on the area’s prehistory. Wilson Angley's "An Historic Overview
of Oregon Inlet" provided a local historical background and shipwreck data. James
Delgado's "A Preliminary Assessment of Environmentally Exposed Shipwreck Remains,
Cape Hatteras, North Carolina" provided historical insight and shipwreck specific data.
Timothy Thompson and William Gardner's “A Cultural Resources and Impact Area
Assessment of the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, Dare County, North Carolina”
contributed to an understanding of prehistoric site potential in the region. Dames and
Moore's "Report on a Remote Sensing Survey of Oregon Inlet, North Carolina" provided
confirmation that unidentified remote-sensing targets have been located south of the
project area. Another credible source consulted for contemporary wreck-specific data for
the region included “East Carolina Nearshore Expedition: The Shipwrecks” (National
Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2012).

Cartographic Research

TAR historians previously examined relevant cartographic records preserved in The
National Archives (Washington, DC., Suitland, Maryland [MD], and College Park, MD);
the North Carolina Department of Archives and History (NCDAH) [Raleigh NC]; the
UAB (Kure Beach NC); the Outer Banks History Center (Manteo NC); the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Duke University (Durham NC); the USACE library
(Wilmington, NC); the Duke Marine Laboratory (Beaufort NC); and Joyner Library (East
Carolina University (Greenville NC). In addition to the large collection of North
Carolina maps [originals and reproductions] located at TAR, numerous Internet sources
of scholarly map collections were consulted during the current research phase including
the American Memory Map Collection (LOC), the David Rumsey Historical Map
Collection, and Old Maps Online.

National Register of Historic Places Listing

During the conduct of archival research and Section 106 compliance activities, the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) database was queried on several occasions.
The database was last queried on 30 April 2015 to check potential relevant updates. As
of this date, the shipwreck of the USS Huron is listed in the vicinity (Nags Head) of the
project area (National Park Service n.d.a.)

13
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office Listing

During the conduct of Section 106 compliance activities, the North Carolina Listings in
the NRHP was also queried. The state database was last queried on 30 April 2015 to
check potential relevant updates. As of this date, one shipwreck (USS Huron) was listed
in the vicinity of the project area off Nags Head (North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office 2015).

Remote-Sensing Survey

The remote-sensing survey, of Dare County borrow areas A and C, was designed to
identify potentially significant submerged cultural resources that could be impacted by a
proposed dredging of material for beach restoration. The survey methodology and
equipment was based on standards identified by BOEM and the North Carolina SHPO. A
combination of state-of-the-art seismic, magnetic and acoustic remote-sensing equipment
was employed to generate sufficient data to reliable identify cultural material such as
shipwreck sites and relict landforms that could be associated with prehistoric habitation.
The offshore survey was carried out aboard the Florida registered 85-foot MV
Thunderforce (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Survey vessel MV Thunderforce.

Data collection was controlled by the onboard computer (Figure 7) running precision
survey software and connected to a differential global positioning system. Remote-
sensing equipment employed in data collection during the survey was operated out of a
small conex box wired for power and fitted for computer stations. The container was also
14
rigged for navigation hard and software and connected to the bridge for communication
and navigation displays (Figure 8).

Figure 7. Navigation computers on survey RV Thunderforce bridge.

Figure 8. Conex box navigation control and data collection stations.

Magnetometer
An EG&G Geometrics G-882 marine cesium magnetometer, capable of plus or minus
0.001 gamma resolution, was employed to collect magnetic data in the survey areas
(Figure 9). The cesium magnetometer provides a scalar measurement of the earth’s
15
magnetic field intensity expressed in gammas. To produce the most comprehensive
magnetic record, data was collected at 10 samples per second.

Figure 9. Geometrics 882 cesium vapor marine magnetometer.

In order to maintain a depth of not more than 6 meters above the bottom surface, the
magnetometer sensor was towed approximately 20 feet behind the sidescan sonar at a
speed of approximately 3 to 4 knots. Magnetic data were recorded as a data file
associated with the computer navigation system. Data from the survey were contour
plotted using QUICKSURF computer software to facilitate anomaly location and definition
of target signature characteristics. All magnetic data were correlated with the acoustic
remote-sensing records.

Sidescan Sonar

An EdgeTech 4200-FS sidescan sonar system (Figure 10) was employed to collect
acoustic data in the survey area (Figure 10). The 4200-FS uses full-spectrum chirp
technology to deliver wideband, high-energy pulses coupled with high-resolution and
superb signal to noise ratio echo data. The sonar package included a portable laptop
configuration running DISCOVER acquisition software and a 120/410 kHz dual frequency
16

towfish running in high definition mode. Dual frequency provided a differential aid to
interpretation. Due to shallow water in the survey area the sidescan sonar transducer was
deployed and maintained between 2 to 3 feet below the water surface. Acoustic data
were collected using a range scale of 50 meters (164 feet) to provide a combination of
+250% coverage and high target signature definition. The digital sidescan data was
merged with positioning data via the computer navigation system and logged to disk for
post processing.

Figure 10. EdgeTech 4200-FS sidescan sonar system.

Sub-Bottom Profiler

An EdgeTech 512i towfish (Figure 11) and Full Spectrum Sub-Bottom Topside Unit was
employed to collect seismic data in the survey areas. The sub-bottom profiler sends an
acoustic signal through the ocean bottom to record surface and subsurface geological
features. Each distinct layer in the bottom sediment is indicated as a surficial trace,
which is recorded in an electronic format onboard the survey vessel. The chart shows the
presence of the sediment surface and other distinct layers or features within the sediment,
such as buried river channels. The topside unit was utilized to control the 512i towfish
and to display and archive the data, which was merged with positioning data via the
computer navigation system. The area was surveyed using the 2 KHz to 12 KHz 20ms
FM pulse setting. The pulse repetition rate was typically six pulses per second.

17

Figure 11. EdgeTech 512i sub-bottom profiler towfish.

Positioning and Data Collection

A TRIMBLE Real Time Kinematic (RTK) positioning system was used to control
navigation and data collection in the survey area. That system has an accuracy of +/- one
foot, and can be used to generate highly accurate coordinates for the computer navigation
system. The DGPS was interfaced with HYPACK 2014, a state-of-the-art navigation and
hydrographic surveying system. On-line screen graphic displays include the pre-plotted
survey lines, the updated boat track across the survey area, adjustable left/right indicator,
as well as other positioning information such as boat speed, quality of fix and line
bearing. Navigation fixes (shot points) were recorded 10 times a second (approximately
one fix every 0.9 feet) along all survey lanes. All data obtained were recorded on the
computer’s hard disk and transferred to an external hard drive to provide a backup of the
raw survey data. Data generated were correlated to remote-sensing records by DGPS to
facilitate target location and anomaly analysis. All data were plotted to North Carolina
State Plane, NAD 83, U.S. Survey Foot coordinates.

Survey data were collected on survey lanes spaced 100 feet apart. That lane spacing was
designed to provide complete lateral coverage with the sonar system and a representative
sampling with the seismic and magnetometer systems. Survey lines in Borrow Area A
were set up oriented northeast to southwest and run on headings of 49 and 229 degrees
(Figure 12). Survey lines in Borrow Area C were set up oriented east to west and run on
headings of 90 and 270 degrees (Figure 13).
18

Figure 12. As run tracklines in Borrow Area A.
19

Figure 13. As run tracklines in Borrow Area C.
20
Signature Analysis and Target Assessment

While no absolute criteria for identification of potentially significant magnetic and/or
acoustic target signatures exist, available literature confirm that reliable analysis must be
made on the basis of certain characteristics. Magnetic signatures must be assessed on the
basis of three basic factors. The first factor is intensity and the second is duration. The
third consideration is the nature of the signature; e.g., positive monopolar, negative
monopolar, dipolar or multi-component. Unfortunately, shipwreck sites have been
demonstrated to produce each signature type under certain circumstances. Some
shipwreck signatures are more apparent than others.

Large vessels, whether iron or wood produce signatures that can be reliably identified.
Smaller vessels, or disarticulated vessel remains, are more difficult to identify. Their
signatures are frequently difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish from single objects
and/or modern debris. In fact, some small vessels produce little or no magnetic signature.
Unless ordnance, ground tackle or cargo associated with the hull produces a detectable
signature, some sites are impossible to identify magnetically. It is also difficult to
magnetically distinguish some small wrecks from modern debris. As a consequence,
magnetic targets must be subjectively assessed according to intensity, duration and
signature characteristics. The final decision concerning potential significance must be
made on the basis of anomaly attributes, historical patterns of navigation in the project
area and a responsible balance between historical and economic priorities.

Acoustic signatures must also be assessed on the basis of several basic characteristics.
Perhaps the most important factor in acoustic analysis is the configuration of the
signature. As the acoustic record represents a reflection of specific target features, wreck
signatures are often a highly detailed and accurate image of architectural and construction
features. On sites with less structural integrity signatures often reflect more of a
geometric pattern that can be identified as structural material.

Where hull remains are disarticulated the pattern can be little more than a texture on the
bottom surface representing structure, ballast or shell hash associated with submerged
deposits. Unfortunately, shipwreck sites have been demonstrated to produce a variety of
signature characteristics under different circumstances. Like magnetic signatures, some
acoustic shipwreck signatures are more apparent than others. Large vessels, whether iron
or wood, produce signatures that can be reliably identified.

Smaller vessels, or disarticulated vessel remains are inevitably more difficult. Their
signatures are frequently difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish from concentrations of
snags and/or modern debris. In fact, some small vessels produce little or no acoustic
signature. As a consequence, acoustic targets must be subjectively assessed according to
intensity of return over background, elevation above bottom and geometric image
characteristics. The final decision concerning potential significance of less readily
identifiable targets must be made on the basis of anomaly attributes, historical patterns of
navigation in the project area and a responsible balance between historical and economic
priorities.
21

Seismic data generated by sub-bottom profilers can reveal evidence of relict landforms.
Certain types of relict landforms such as river channels and confluences, lagoons and
bays have a high potential for association with inundated prehistoric habitation sites.
Although the process of inundation may have destroyed much of a prehistoric site’s
integrity, significance evidence of paleo and archaic habitation has been identified.
Detailed analysis of the sub-bottom data can identify those landforms.

Cultural Development

Prehistoric Background

Modern archaeological research in North Carolina can be linked to the development of an
archaeology program that commenced at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
in the 1930s. A few general works published in the 1940s and early 1950s summarized
the available ethnographic and ethnohistoric data for the Coastal Plain (Phelps 1983:8).
The first extensive archaeological survey of the Tidewater region was undertaken in
1954-1955. William Haag carried out this work in response to the development of the
Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Haag 1958). Haag surveyed a considerable amount of
coastline from the Neuse estuary northward to the Virginia border and recorded 81 sites,
the majority of which were on Hatteras, Roanoke, Bodie, and Colington islands, the
lower Currituck peninsula, and along the shores of the Pamlico estuary (Phelps 1983:9).

Archaeological research increased during the 1970s when regional programs were
developed at universities and schools within North Carolina. Archaeological surveys
were done at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Thompson 1977), the Pea Island
National Wildlife Refuge (Thompson and Gardner 1979), Colington Island (Phelps
1981), and Roanoke Island (Phelps 1984). The cultural sequence of the Coastal Plain,
first presented by Haag and South, is continually being refined through archaeological
studies. An overview of the cultural sequence for the North Carolina Coastal Plain is
discussed below.

The Cultural Sequence

Archaeologists have divided human occupation in the eastern United States into four
temporal periods: Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Woodland, and Historic. Each temporal
division is distinguished by the climate, technology, and subsistence patterns
characteristic of the period. The Coastal Plain physiographic province can also be
divided into two cultural-spatial units, the North Coastal and South Coastal regions,
based upon cultural differences that seem to begin near the end of the Late Archaic
period (Phelps 1983: 16).

22
The Paleo-Indian Period (12,000-8000 B.C.)

The Paleo-Indian period of eastern North Carolina is the earliest and obscure of the
cultural divisions. The adaptive subsistence of humans during this period is generally
associated with specialized hunting and gathering, or big game hunting during the end of
the Wisconsin glaciation when its retreat brought about climatic and environmental
changes (Willey 1966: 37-38). Evidence of this period is almost entirely limited to the
surface distribution of fluted, Clovis, or finely worked Cumberland, Quad, Dalton, and
Hardaway projectile points. By 1983 less than 50 Paleo-Indian fluted points had been
recorded at sites in Bertie, Carteret, Edgecombe, Hertford, Nash, and Pitt counties
(Phelps 1983:18). Fluted points have been recorded in private collections for Beaufort,
Craven, and Gates counties.

For the most part, Paleo-Indian sites have been recorded in the uplands where the present
conditions do not favor the preservation of early sites. Agricultural disturbance, erosion,
and lack of appreciable soil accretion are factors that limit the preservation of Paleo-
Indian sites. These sites lack the stratification needed for comparative analysis and
dating. Paleo-Indian sites found in the Tidewater region would have been located on the
Inner Coastal Plain at the time of their occupation. With the retreat of the last glaciers the
sea level rose to near its present level, inundating coastal sites.

Settlement patterns of Paleo-Indian short-term-activity sites or longer-utilized base camps
seem to be associated with access to lithic materials for tool manufacture, such as quartz,
quartzite, slate, rhyolite, chert, and jasper which were brought down from the mountains
and Piedmont areas by rivers (Phelps 1983: 21). Other factors that influenced site
location included access to water, habitats favorable to game, and sunlight exposure
(Thompson and Gardner 1979: 23). The environment of the Coastal Plain during the
Paleo-Indian period was one of broad river valleys with braided stream channels around
numerous sandbars, freshwater marshes along the stream edges, and a boreal pine-spruce
forest on the interstream uplands (Whitehead 1972:313). The retreat of the Wisconsin
glaciation brought about changes in the environment and the disappearance of the
megafauna, which gave way to a new subsistence strategy.

The Archaic Period (8000 -1000 B.C.)

The change in climate following the glaciation must have produced a favorable
environment for human subsistence, since numerous Archaic sites can be found in the
Coastal Plain. The density of Archaic sites within the Coastal Plain is higher than for any
other prehistoric period. These locations can be found in all microenvironments from
saline estuary shores to stream margins and their tributary systems as well as pocosins
and floodplain swamps (Phelps 1983: 24). Each of these environments produced a
diverse and abundant food source that helped contribute to a slight rise in human
population. There is also a strong relationship between site location and accessibility to
streams.

23
Surveys that have documented Archaic sites in the Coastal Plain indicate that the
majority of sites represent short-term-activity localities evenly distributed along streams.
Fewer base camps that may indicate seasonal utilization of available resources appear to
be found near the confluence of major streams. All sites, however, are found in the Inner
Coastal Plain. Stratified Archaic sites are scarce, but probably do exist in select
undisturbed areas within the Inner Coastal Plain. Archaic sites are missing from the
Tidewater area as a result of the environmental change that has occurred over the last
several thousand years. Those sites that were located on the coast have been obliterated,
buried, or inundated like sites of the earlier period.

During the Archaic period a wider range of habitats were utilized for subsistence, and
thus likely a wider range of plants and animals. A transition in climate brought pines,
hemlock, birch, and northern hardwoods, such as beech and maple, replacing the earlier
boreal forests. Diversity in faunal and plant types would also accompany these habitat
changes (Phelps 1983: 23). Hunting strategies adapted to the diversification in faunal
species with changes in lithic point styles. Spear points such as the Kirk corner-notched,
which were gradually replaced by the Kirk stemmed type, are associated with hunting
during the Early Archaic period. Other lithic tools, such as scrapers, blades and drills
used for the processing of bone and hides are also identifiable to the Archaic period.

A warmer and drier period during the Middle Archaic, referred to as the hypsithermal,
distinguishes this subperiod from the previous one. During this time the pine-birch-
hemlock forests of the Coastal Plain were being replaced by oak and hickory hardwoods.
The numbers of sites increase slightly from the Early to Middle Archaic. Lithic point
types experience a transition from the Kirk stemmed to Stanly stemmed points. New
point types such as Morrow Mountain, Guilford, and Halifax that appear are believed to
represent introduction and possible trade with other areas. Polished stone and semilunar
spearthrower weights also appear for the first time.

The Late Archaic is represented by less diversification with the Savannah River point
style being prevalent. The Savannah River phase is generally associated with a higher
degree of sedentism believed to be a result of improved subsistence adaptation. The
appearance of steatite vessels for cooking and storage, as well as fiber-tempered ceramic
wares seem to support this belief. A distinction between the North Coastal Plain and the
South Coastal Plain can be based on the ceramic distribution of this ware (Phelps 1983:
26). Site diversity appears to remain relatively stable into the Late Archaic, but some
localities show a noticeable reduction of Late Archaic site density along smaller tributary
streams (Phelps 1983: 25).

The Woodland Period (1000 B.C. -1650 A.D.)

The Early Woodland period is marked by further development of the increased
diversification in subsistence and use of ceramics that began to appear during the Late
Archaic period. However, little is known about settlement patterns or subsistence on the
Coastal Plain during this transition Settlement patterns are believed to be continuous with
24
the preceding Archaic. It is thought that cultigens are also introduced during this period,
but their immediate effect is not readily seen in the archaeological record. At a few of the
sites with Early Woodland components in the Northern Coastal region, Stallings fiber-
tempered ceramics are replaced with Thom's Creek sand-tempered ceramics, showing an
introduction of new traits. Thom's Creek ceramics are eventually followed by the
Deptford series (Caldwell and Waring 1939). Lithic projectile points are of the small-
stemmed variety, considered transitional from the older Savannah River type (Phelps
1975: 68), and are now classified as Gypsy points (Oliver 1981).

In the South Coastal region New River is the named phase during the Early Woodland
period. There is a similarity between the South Coastal New River phase and the Deep
Creek phase for the North Coast, but the New River phase is believed to carry on
characteristics found only in the Southeast.

The Middle Woodland period is better understood than the preceding period. Phase
names for this period are Mount Pleasant for the North Coastal region, and Cape Fear for
the South Coastal region. During the Mount Pleasant phase there is a change in
settlement patterns. Small sites along the smaller tributary streams decrease in number,
while there is an increase in the number of sites along major streams and estuaries
(Phelps 1983: 33). Sites found on Colington and Roanoke Islands indicate seasonal
subsistence that relied primarily on shellfish collection. Inland riverine sites have the
same pattern but reflect adaptations to shellfish and other species of the riverine
environment (Phelps 1983: 33).

Sedentary villages represent the largest single settlement type of the period. This shift in
pattern from hunting and gathering camps is generally associated to an increased
dependence on domesticated plants, including maize. Ceramics of the Mount Pleasant
series are tempered with sand and inclusions of small pebbles with varying surface
finishes of fabric-impressions, cord-marking and net-impressing, simple-smoothing to
produce a plain type, and incising of plain surfaces (Phelps 1983: 32). Lithic projectile
points of the small variety of the triangular Roanoke type are associated with the Mount
Pleasant phase. Other artifacts known to occur in Mount Pleasant assemblages are blades
(bifaces), sandstone abraders, shell pendants or gorgets, polished stone gorgets, celts, and
mats woven of marsh grass (Phelps 1983: 33). Burial patterns found on the Inner Coastal
Plain and on Roanoke Island at the Tillet site include both primary inhumation and
cremation.

During the Middle Woodland period the Cape Fear phase of the South Coastal region is
less known. Ceramic types are similar to those of the North Coastal region. The
distinguishing trait seems to be the manner of burial. Found in the South Coastal region
is an extensive distribution of low sand burial mounds unique to the region. The high
frequency of secondary cremation, platform pipes, and other objects in the mounds, and
the fact that at least some of the mounds seem to be placed away from their
contemporaneous habitation sites, points to southern influence during this period (Phelps
1983: 35).

25
The two local phases of the Late Woodland period for the North Coastal region are the
Colington phase for the Algonkian culture of the Tidewater zone, and the Cashie phase
for territory occupied by the Tuscarora and northern Iroquoian Meherrin and Nottaway in
the interior Coastal Plain. The settlement pattern during the Late Woodland was
relatively dispersed with site locations found along the sounds, estuaries, major rivers,
and their tributaries. Most of the sites that occur on the mainland are found adjacent to
streams or other bodies of water on high banks and ridges of sandy loams. Types of sites
include capital villages (chiefdoms), villages, seasonal villages, and camps for
specialized activities, as well as farmsteads likely occupied by extended families (Phelps
1983: 39-40).

Except for the camps that appear to be directly related to seasonal gathering of shellfish,
fishing, and perhaps collecting, all seasonal and larger villages are located where
agriculture, hunting, gathering, and fishing could all be accomplished within the site
catchment area (Phelps 1983: 40). Shellfish collecting and fishing camps have been
found on Colington Island and major villages, except maybe for Hatteras Island, occur on
the Inner Coastal Plain. Hatteras Island is one of the few barrier islands with sufficient
area at its present south end to support the subsistence needs of a large population (Phelps
1983: 40). One chiefdom was located on the Outer Banks on Hatteras Island, with most
sites reported by Haag destroyed through modern development. Limited evidence does
remain at the Hatteras Village site (Phelps 1983: 40).

Subsistence during this period relied upon gathering and hunting to support some
agriculture. Exploitation of a wide range of habitats provided the needed food sources.
Maize, hickory nuts, faunal remains of bears, deer, and a wide variety of small animals;
alligators, terrapins, and turtles; fish, and both marine and riverine shellfish have been
found at excavated sites of this period (Phelps 1983: 40). By the end of the Late
Woodland period, cultigens of squash, beans and sunflower would have been grown as
eventually noted by explorers.

Colington ceramics of the Tidewater region are shell-tempered and divided into types
based on surface decoration. In order of frequency are fabric-impressed, simple-stamped,
plain, and incised. Shell tempering is either marine (oyster) or freshwater (mussel),
depending upon the site location. Cashie ceramics associated with the Inner Coastal
region are grit or pebble-tempered with the same surface treatments as those noted for
Colington ware. Projectile points of the North Coastal region include the small variety of
Roanoke triangular type with some occurrence of the smaller, equilateral triangular
Clarksville points (Phelps 1983: 36-39).

Bifacial blades of various shapes, polished stone celts, gorgets, sandstone abraders, and
milling stones are part of the lithic assemblage. Shell hoes, ladles and shell beads are
also found. Bone artifacts include antler flakers, fish hooks, awls and punches of various
shapes, bone pins, and a panther mask. Ceramic pipes with bowls attached to stems
either horizontally or at an angle are also well known (Phelps 1983: 39).

26
Burial patterns during the Colington phase are those of Algonkian and Iroquoian
ossuaries. Five ossuaries have been located and excavated within the Tidewater zone,
with one located on Hatteras Island. The smallest contained 38 individuals and the
largest contained 58 persons. The individuals ranged from newborn to the elderly and
included both males and females. Few artifacts accompany the burials (Phelps 1983:42).
Cashie burials of the Inland Coastal region are also ossuaries. Unlike the Colington
ossuaries, Cashie burials usually contain two to five individuals deposited as secondary
bundle burials and may represent family rather than community interments (Phelps
1983:46). Bone awls are sometimes included with a few individuals and shell beads are
always found. A difference in the quantity of the shell beads included with the burial
may indicate differing levels of social status or rank.

The Colington phase ends with the expansion of the European colonial frontier southward
from Virginia into North Carolina. The Cashie phase, contemporary with Colington from
A.D. 800, remained intact until A.D. 1715 when reservations were established for the
Tuscarora and Meherrin after the Tuscarora War (Phelps 1983: 43). The Colington and
Cashie phases of the North Carolina region are local variants of the same basic cultural
tradition, but the South Coastal Plain has been presumed to be Siouian territory since the
beginning of the Woodland period (Snow 1978:60-61).

The Southern Coastal phase of the Late Woodland is known as Oak Island and continues
into the modern Waccamaw culture. The Southern Coastal region is less well defined
than for the north. The local phase in the narrow Tidewater zone appears to have been
similar to the Colington phase, but probably represents acculturation of south coast
groups to north coast patterns (Phelps 1983:48).

Historical Background

Exploration and Colonization (A.D. 1524-1776)

Documented exploration along the present-day North Carolina Outer Banks commenced
some 485 years ago. In 1524, Florentine pilot Giovanni da Verrazano sailed from the
Cape Fear region northwards to Old Currituck Inlet. Verrazano was justifiably cautious,
and stayed so far from the shore that he was unable to discern individual features and
inlets in the area (Cumming 1988:4-7). The following year, Spanish pilot Pedro de Quejo
sailed along the Outer Banks and entered two inlets north of Cape Hatteras and a third to
the south of this promontory. The names and exact locations of these historic inlets are
unknown (Hoffman 1987:3-4). Later that year, Portuguese pilot Estevan Gomez sailed as
far as 40 degrees north along the Atlantic Coast of North America (Dunbar 1958:7).

By 1542, Spanish treasure ships regularly passed within 50 to 75 miles of Cape Hatteras
and the Outer Banks before heading east towards the Azores [972 miles due west of
Lisbon] (Cumming 1988: 24). Spanish pilot Angel de Vilfane searched for the Jordan
River [South Carolina] circa 1561, and sailed north along the North Carolina coast until a
27
storm off Cape Hatteras sank one of his ships and forced him to head southeast (Hoffman
1987: 8). The intensity of sixteenth-century storms off the Outer Banks is confirmed by
the number of ships that were lost off the North Carolina coast in the early years of
exploration. Ships were reported lost near Cape Hatteras in 1528, 1545, 1551, 1553,
1559, 1561, and 1564 (Cumming 1988:44).

The first Europeans to consider permanent settlement in present day North Carolina were
Englishmen. When the first explorers under Ralph Lane arrived in 1585, they found a
thriving native Algonquian population that subsisted by hunting, fishing and cultivation
of a variety of foods. Europeans soon established a reliance on the native population for
subsistence. When the Indians of Roanoke Island tired of this one-sided arrangement the
former group destroyed fish weirs that had been constructed for the Europeans and
withdrew from Roanoke Island (Corbitt 1953:55).

At the time of the historic Roanoke voyages (1584-1590), there were two known inlets,
Port Fernando [Hatorask Inlet] and Port Lane [closed before 1657] just north of present
day Oregon Inlet. These inlets were in close proximity to one another, however, Port
Fernando was considered superior and was used by English vessels to establish and
supply the settlement on Roanoke Island. That inlet also served as a base for important
reconnaissance operations. A slipway was built just inside the inlet to facilitate these
activities (Quinn 1955:78). In 1585, Sir Richard Grenville (1542-1591) established a
colony on Roanoke Island, and returned to the location in 1586.

Popular tradition relates that Tennyson’s poem “The Revenge” is based on the nobleman-
adventurer’s adventures. Grenville’s ship Tyger [or Tiger] is assumed to be one of the
earliest shipwrecks recorded in North Carolina. A contemporary painting thought to be
Her Majesty’s Tyger flying the standards of Saint George was produced by John White in
Puerto Rico during Grenville’s expedition (Hulton 1984:9; Plate 3; Figure 14).

Shortly thereafter, Grenville returned to England for supplies leaving Ralph Lane in
command of the colony. On 9 June 1586, Sir Francis Drake visited the settlement on his
return from the Caribbean. Upon his arrival he determined Port Fernando to be an
inadequate harbor for his fleet. His vessels, therefore, were anchored well offshore. On
13 June, disaster struck when a storm hit the Outer Banks. In the ensuing chaos several
of Drake's smaller vessels were wrecked. The Colonists were disillusioned about the
settlement and all but a small force decided to abandon the Roanoke Island and returned
to England with Drake (Quinn 1955:passim).

A second attempt to establish a colony on Roanoke Island was made in the following
year. The expedition, led by John White, also utilized Port Fernando as a base of
operations. After a few months White returned to England. King Philip of Spain's 1588
attempt to invade England prevented White's return to the colony until 1590 (Figure 15).
Upon his arrival, the governor found that the colonists had abandoned the colony and
disappeared. Over time, due to the mystery, the unfortunate settlement became known as
the "Lost Colony." During White's futile attempts to locate the colony, Port Fernando was
still used to access the sound.
28

Figure 14. John White painting that may depict Her Majesty's Tiger (Hulton
1984:Plate 3).

On 17 August 1590, White sent out two small boats from his larger ships anchored off
shore. One of these small vessels capsized while trying to cross the inlet bar, killing
seven men. Ultimately, bad weather forced White to abandon his attempts to relocate the
colonists (Quinn 1955:252-255, 468-506, and 553-560). English colonization efforts
subsequently shifted to the Chesapeake Bay area where a successful settlement was
established at Jamestown in 1607.

One of the few attractive features of Roanoke Island was the relative security afforded by
the barrier islands (Figure 16). It would be difficult for the Spanish to find and destroy
the settlement. Although the Spanish suspected that the English had been trying to
establish a colony for some time, they did not send an expedition until 1588. The
expedition's leader, Captain Vincente Gonzalez, believed that the repudiated English
settlement was somewhere on Chesapeake Bay. Failing to find any evidence of an
English colony in that area, Gonzalez sailed back to Florida. It was during this return
voyage that the Spanish captain happened to discover the English slipway in Port
Fernando. He remained unconvinced, however, that there could be any settlement nearby
so he continued on his voyage without further reconnaissance (Quinn 1955:773-812).
29

Figure 15. John White map dated 1585.
30

Figure 16. White-DeBry map dated 1590.

31
Roanoke Island was a focus of attention of explorers and settlers in the years that
followed the historic Roanoke Voyages. The Claes Visscher panorama produced in 1616
illustrates the variety of English and other European vessels of the time (Figure 17),
which may have reconnoitered the modern Dare County coast. In 1620 Marmaduke
Rayner made a venture to Roanoke Island to explore (Dunbar 1958:16). Four years later,
Francis Yardley, the governor of Virginia, noted in a letter that small sloops were trading
in Carolina sounds with the local Indians for beaver skins. Later that year Yardley
sponsored a group that visited Roanoke Island and bought land in eastern North Carolina
from the local Indian tribes. These local Indian tribes died out or were absorbed by the
close of the colonial period in eastern North Carolina (Dunbar 1958:16, 19).

Figure 17. Oceangoing ships depicted anchored and at sail in Thames River in
Visscher’s 1616 panorama (shown in: Noël Hume 1994:115).

In 1664, interest in the North Carolina Outer Banks resumed when Sir John Colleton
established a plantation (Figure 18) on what is currently known as Colington Island. The
nobleman planned to grow tobacco, which had been shown to be a successful cash crop
in the Chesapeake Bay area, and prosper from the increased demand for tobacco in
Europe. Tobacco proved to be a failure and the only financial gain from the plantation
venture was derived from oil extracted from beached sea mammals some years later
(Stick 1958:22).

32

Figure 18. Engraving of earthfast [or post-in-the-ground] dwelling that may
represent Outer Banks construction of the mid-seventeenth century (Noël Hume
1994:315).

John Colleton's failure at growing tobacco on the Outer Banks was chiefly due to the
instability of the ground surface and lack of soil development. The introduction of stock
husbandry on the barrier islands further contributed to the deterioration of the ground
cover and accelerated the natural processes of wind and water erosion. Figure 19 shows
the area circa 1672; Colington Island, shown just to the right of Roanoke Island, is not
named.

The lack of a suitable agricultural environment, combined with the hazards of navigating
the barrier islands, limited the growth of the Outer Banks for several years. Those that
attempted to make a living in the area managed their income from the sea. Fishing and
shell fishing proved to be profitable, as well as salvaging or piloting of the vessels that
dared enter the Outer Banks. Until the hardwood forests of the barrier islands were
depleted, boat building also provided a source of income for some individuals living on
the Outer Banks. However, the rapid loss of the forests further contributed to the
destabilization of the sandy soil and produced migrating dunes which threatened some
communities (Stick 1958:286).

In 1696, the Hady, a British ship, was driven ashore between Roanoke and Currituck
inlets (Figure 20). The early trappers and fishermen camping along the Outer Banks
pillaged the ship, transported some of her cannons ashore, and fired them into the vessel's
side to ensure that the ship would never be refloated (Ashe 1908:149; Dunbar 1958: 20).
The salvage and destruction of the Hady was not an extraordinary occurrence as
wrecking developed as one of the earliest, albeit sporadic, occupations along the Outer
Banks.

33

Figure 19. Ogilby map dated ca. 1672.

More than a century after the last Roanoke voyage the first permanent white settlement
and residence near Oregon Inlet was established. Mathew Midget, who lived near the
Alligator River, received title to Bodie Island in the 1720s. Upon his death in 1734 he
left the island to his four sons (Stick 1958:78). It appears that Midget's descendants were
still living on the island at the time that Oregon Inlet opened in 1846 (Angley 1985:4-5).
34
Bodie Island went by many names over a period of years, including Bodys Island, Bodies
Island, Body Island, Micher Island, and Cow Island. The island was originally 9.5 miles
long and contained about 1900 acres (Stick 1958:278). The name Bodie Island first
appeared on maps in the early 1700s, and the 1709 John Lawson map identifies “Body
I.”, where the famous surveyor-general searched for coneys [rabbits] (Figure 20).

Figure 20. John Lawson map dated 1709.
35
During the colonial period villages were established on Haterask Island on small wooded
tracts on the sound side of the barrier island. Over time the English rendition for the
Algonquian term, which translated to “there is less vegetation” was replaced with
“Hatteras” (Powell 1968:216). On the islands of Roanoke and Colington, villages were
also established within small wooded tracts that afforded protection from the harsh winter
environment. There were also several villages located to the north of Roanoke Inlet
(Dunbar 1958: 24). Although the shallow depth of Roanoke Inlet prevented it from being
used by large vessels, navigation was sufficient to appoint a pilot in 1715. New
Englanders frequently brought their vessels in through Roanoke Inlet and off-loaded their
cargoes without payment of the required dues (Dunbar 1958: 21-23).

The Quidley family appears to have settled at The Cape [present-day Buxton] circa 1720
according to genealogist and descendant Dallas E. Quidley, Jr. In that year, the wife of
Patrick Quidley (formerly of Virginia) gave birth to William Quidley (Quidley 2013). As
an adult, the younger Quidley was identified as a captain and his progeny, including John
Quidley, figured in the early history of the maritime community. One descendant of John
Quidley born on Hatteras Island would serve as a surfman at Kinnekeet “riding a horse
watching for sailing ships” and later as a lighthouse keeper (Quidley 2013).

The attention to vessels navigating along The Cape served several purposes for early
eighteenth-century coastal families, whose lives and livelihoods depended on the goods
being transported aboard the watercraft, as well as often having a familial connection to
those on board. The Herman Moll map dated 1729 (Figure 21) illustrates the Sholes of
Hatteras, which became popularly known as “Diamond Shoals” or “graveyard of the
Atlantic”. Renowned North Carolina historian William Powell (1968:142) described the
treacherous series of three shoals that extend in a southeasterly direction from Cape
Hatteras as such:

Nearest the Cape is Hatteras Shoals; Inner Diamond Shoal is in the
middle, and Outer Diamond Shoal extends fartherest [sic] into the
Atlantic. The channel between Hatteras Shoals and Inner Diamond
Shoal is Hatteras Slough: Diamond Slough is the channel between the
two Diamond Shoals. At this point warm Gulf Stream waters collide
with cold artic waters from the north causing a constant turbulence in
the Atlantic.

Despite the obvious and constant dangers wrought by the Sholes of Hatteras, by the
middle of the eighteenth century, a considerable trade had developed along the North
Carolina coast. While Ocracoke was the dominant marine facility, Port Roanoke
provided services important to the development of the Albemarle region. Port Roanoke
has since developed into present-day Edenton. Commerce that left Port Roanoke
travelled along three main routes according to 1772 customs records. Approximately two
fifths of outbound cargoes were transported to the West Indies, one third went to the New
England area, and one fifth was exported to the British Isles.
36

Figure 21. "Sholes of Hatteras" from Herman Moll Map, 1729 (Cumming 1998:Plate
50).

It bears note that during the subject period, and in fact to 1846, that Hatteras Inlet was
joined to Ocracoke Island as the fluctuating inlet had closed in 1760-70 (Powell
1968:217). Contemporary customs’ records indicate that of the incoming commerce one-
half was from New England, one-fourth originated in the West Indies, and one-fifth was
imported from the British Isles. At this date, eastern North Carolina residents were still
not major consumers of goods. Of the incoming shipping, some 6,200 tons, which
cleared Port Roanoke nearly one-fifth was ballast. A large proportion of the ships that
passed through Port Roanoke were owned by merchants in the Albemarle area, as the
1772 custom records show that nearly one-third of the tonnage of ships that entered Port
Roanoke were also registered there (Crittenden 1936: 70-71, 77-78, 105).
37
Revolutionary and Ante-Bellum Period 1776-1860

During the Revolutionary War, Roanoke and New Currituck inlets gained greater
significance. Their shallow depths and constantly moving sand bars prevented strangers
or the Enemy from safely navigating the waterways and afforded American coastal
vessels safety within the sounds. Extracts from the 1770 Collett map show The Cape and
“Occacock” Island (Figure 22) and three distinct inlets north of Hatteras (Figure 23),
which depict the difficulties late-eighteenth-century mariners encountered as they sailed
along the Outer Banks. Port Roanoke, although plagued by shallow and migrating
channels, became a major North Carolina port that briefly rivaled Wilmington and the
Cape Fear region (Crittenden 1936:42).

While British warships captured numerous vessels in or near the inlets of the Outer
Banks, and even made sorties across the barrier islands into the sounds to harass small
coastal vessels, the dangerous inlet provided a means of escape from pursuing warships
and privateers. (Dunbar 1958:22; Crittenden 1936:122). The hostilities that led to the
Revolutionary War did little damage to the commerce that passed through Port Roanoke,
and custom records show that for the period 1774 to 1776 exports at Port Roanoke
increased. In 1775, there were 40 percent more exports than in 1772. Growth continued
so that by 1778 Port Roanoke cleared 15,000 tons in commerce that year alone
(Crittenden 1936:119-120, 158).

Figure 22. Cape Hatteras depicted in 1770 Collett Map (Cumming 1998:Plate 63).
38

Figure 23. The Collett map dated 1770 showing the inlets north of Hatteras.
39
Under the dynamic leadership of its secretary, Alexander Hamilton, the newly-formed
U.S. Treasury Department sought and received the authority to construct a beacon on the
headland of Cape Hatteras in 1794. According to Cape Hatteras Lighthouse authority
Kevin Duffus (2003:17):

[T]he proposed lighthouse was among the first commissioned by the
nation warning mariners to avoid a specific navigational hazard.
Previously, colonial lights had been established to guide vessels into
port. Urgency was paramount…As the young nation’s growth was
being fueled by the cargoes of merchant vessels, an increasingly and
disproportionate number of hulls were disgorging their wares on the
dark and low-lying beaches along the Outer Banks.

After a lengthy exercise to master numerous obstacles, the U.S. government purchased
four acres of land for $50 from a Currituck family [and estate] named Jennett. When the
deed was finally conveyed to the Federal government, the “lighthouse had already been
under construction for two seasons and its castle-like, octagonal stone rampart was by far
the tallest manmade structure on the island” (Duffus 2003:19). Despite constantly
combatting erosion due to storm surges and gales especially during the annual hurricane
and northeaster cycles, the builders prevailed and the lighthouse was illuminated in
October 1803 (Duffus 2003:19).

By 1808, a series of small islands developed in the sound immediately west of Roanoke
Inlet, and navigation became especially hazardous. Trade through Port Roanoke finally
ceased when the inlet closed in 1811. In 1828, Currituck Inlet to the north also closed,
leaving the Albemarle region dependent upon facilities at Ocracoke, a considerable
distance to the south. Figure 19 shows the coastline as of 1833. As part of a program to
improve coastal navigation that was heavily supported by North Carolina legislator
Archibald Murphy, construction of an inlet near Roanoke Island was proposed in 1816,
1820, 1829, 1840, and 1853. None of the proposals received necessary statewide
political support (Dunbar 1958:26; Lefler 1965:199-205).

In 1837, Congress did appropriate 5,000 U.S. dollars to build a lighthouse on Pea Island,
near New Inlet. Captain Charles W. Skinner upon inspecting the site for the Navy Board
found it unsatisfactory and recommended that the lighthouse be built upon another site
farther north on Bodie Island. This seems to be the first printed use of “Pea Island”, but it
must have been in use earlier as Pea Island was no longer an island after Roanoke Inlet
between the former and Bodie Island closed in 1811 (Stick 1958: 282). The MacRae-
Brazier Map of 1833 clearly illustrates the closed status of Roanoke Inlet (Figure 24).

When plans for the lighthouse to be constructed on Pea Island north of Chicamacomico
Inlet were revealed, the inhabitants of the area demanded that it be placed farther north on
Bodie Island. The uproar they created kept anything from being decided until 1848. One
factor complicating the decision was the opening of new inlets during a storm in the fall
of 1846. On 7 September 1846, an intense storm drove water across the Outer Banks and
40
created two relatively small inlets. An assistant superintendent with the United States
Survey was stationed on Bodie Island when the storm occurred and observed that:

On the morning of the September gale the sound waters were all piled
up to the southeast, from the effects of the northeast blow of the
previous days. The weather was clear, nearly calm, until about 11 a.
m., when a sudden squall came up from the southwest, and the waters
came upon the beach with such fury that Mr. Midgett, within three
quarters of a mile of his house when the storm began, was unable to
reach it until four in the afternoon. He sat upon his horse on a small
sand knoll, for five hours, and witnessed the destruction of his
property and (as he then supposed) of his family also, without the
power to move a foot to their rescue, and, for two hours, expecting
every moment to be swept to sea himself. The force of the water
coming in so suddenly, and having a head of two or three feet, broke
through the small portion of sea beach which had formed since the
March gale, and created the inlets. They were insignificant at first--
not more than twenty feet wide-- and the northern one much the
deepest and the widest. In the westerly winds which prevailed in
September, the current from the sound gradually widened them; and
then in the October gale, they came about as wide as they are now.
The northern one has since been gradually filling, and is now a mere
hole at the low water... [but the southern one] between high water
marks, measured on the line, is 202 yards [wide and] between low
water marks, 107 yards (C. O. Boutelle quoted in: Stick 1958:279-
280).

Although the northern inlet closed, the southern inlet continued to develop. It quickly
became an important channel for vessels operating in both the Albemarle and Pamlico
Sound (Angley 1985: 6). The inlet is said to have received its name from the steamboat
Oregon, which was owned by merchant W. H. Willard, of Washington, North Carolina,
when it passed through the inlet in June 1848 (Free Press, 8 July 1848; Sharpe
1954:104).

41

Figure 24. The MacRae-Brazier map dated 1833.
42
While Oregon Inlet provided the Albemarle region with a new Atlantic access, the
shallow bar and shifting channels in the inlet made navigation difficult. Consequently,
this elusive waterway was principally used by shallow draft vessels. Even navigation by
small vessels was not without risk and the U.S. Coast Survey Chart of Bodies Island
produced in 1849 identifies three wrecks in the inlet (Figure 25). Within a few years of
its formation, navigation in Oregon Inlet came to the attention of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Considerable local support developed for improving Oregon Inlet and several
proposals were made in Congress to provide support. Other priorities prevailed,
however, and it would be more that a century before improvements to the channel would
be approved and funded.

Figure 25. U.S. Coast Survey, topographic sheet, Bodies Island dated 1849.
43
While navigation in the inlet remained hazardous, Congress did approve the construction
of a lighthouse near Oregon Inlet. The first Bodie Island Lighthouse was constructed
south of the inlet during 1847-1848 (Republican, 5 May 1847, Angley 1985: 6-7). The
lighthouse was 56.5 feet tall and its light had a range of 12 nautical miles (North State
Whig 19 January 1848, Free Press, 8 July 1848). Unfortunately, it fell into disrepair
shortly after its construction, and in 1857 an appropriation of 25,000 dollars was required
for building a second structure and procuring a new lens. The second lighthouse began
its operation on 1 July 1859 (Times Daily 18 July 1872; Stick 1958: 277-278).

The Bodie Island beacon was welcomed by those navigating North Carolina coastal
waters, but it did not stop the loss of vessels in the Oregon Inlet vicinity. The same
month that the second lighthouse began operations, the schooner Spy of Plymouth was
wrecked on the beach three miles below the lighthouse (Democratic Pioneer 26 July
1859). The Spy carried a valuable cargo of pork, beef, fish, oils, paints, flour, sugar,
bricks, gunney cloth, rope, shoes, hats, furniture, dry goods, doors, blinds, spirits,
tobacco, butter, and cheese. Cargo salvaged from the wreck and rights to the vessel's
remains were sold by Captain S. A. Baum [Commissioner of Wrecks] on 18 July 1859
(Democratic Pioneer 26 July 1859).

Civil War Period 1860-1865

During the Civil War, the Confederate States Government and the State of North
Carolina initiated construction of a series of fortifications designed to provide for the
defense of the Outer Banks of North Carolina, but both the plan and the resources to
carry it out were limited. The result was a series of hastily constructed defenses that
included Fort Oregon, located south of the inlet between the breakers and the Bodie
Island lighthouse (Angley 1985:7).

North Carolina also began a buildup of naval forces to protect the sound and inlets. The
"Mosquito Fleet" consisted of four vessels, the Winslow, Ellis, Raleigh, and Beaufort.
The Winslow, under the command of Captain Thomas M. Crossan, was a side-wheel
steamer armed with a single 32-pound gun. The other three vessels were small river
boats such as the Beaufort which was 94 feet long, a 17-foot beam, carried a compliment
of 35 officers and men, and mounted one 32-pounder on its bow.

These three small river craft were sent to operate on the inland sounds and waterways,
while the Winslow was ordered to Hatteras Inlet (Figure 26) to harass the enemy and
capture coastal shipping. She was able to capture sixteen enemy vessels (Stick
1958:118). When the United States government received information that "pirates" were
operating out of Oregon Inlet and that supplies were being run through the inlet, plans
were devised to block the channel. The plan called for scuttling a number of stone-laden
schooners. However, there is no historical evidence that the plan was ever implemented
(Angley 1985:8).
44

Figure 26. Contemporary chart depicting Hatteras Inlet details (Harper’s Weekly
15 February 1862:103).
45
Instead, a joint Army and Navy force was dispatched to the North Carolina Outer Banks
from Hampton Roads, Virginia, on 26 August 1861. The naval force, commanded by
Commodore Silas H. Stringham, consisted of seven vessels mounting 143 guns.
Stringham's fleet included the warships Minnesota, Wabash, Susquehanna, Pawnee,
Monticello, Harriet Lane, and Cumberland. The land force, under the command of
General Benjamin F. Butler, consisted of 880 men from the Ninth and Twentieth New
York Volunteers, and detachments from the Union Coast Guard and Second U.S.
Artillery. These troops were transported south on the tug Fanny, and the chartered
steamers Adelaide and George Peabody (Stick 1958:120).

Figure 27. U.S. joint naval and army forces bombarding Hatteras Inlet
fortifications in August 1861 published by Currier & Ives (Courtesy Library of
Congress).

On arrival at Hatteras Inlet on 28 August, the warships began bombarding Fort Clarke.
By the end of the day, it was under the control of Union officers. The next morning, the
Federal force began shelling Fort Hatteras. After only a brief bombardment the
Confederate garrison also surrendered (Figure 27). Upon learning of the attack on the
forts, the Confederates sent a relieving force consisting of the Third Georgia Regiment
from Norfolk onboard the steam tug Junaluska. The fall of both forts left the
Confederate reinforcements without a practical mission and they landed on Roanoke
Island on 30 August. After disembarking its troops the Junaluska went to Oregon Inlet
and a council was held at Fort Oregon.
46
It was decided to evacuate the men and guns to Roanoke Island and join with other
Confederate forces in resisting General Burnside. As they abandoned the fort, retreating
Confederates destroyed the second Bodie Island Lighthouse (Stick 1958:129, 280).
Meanwhile, supply lines were being established by the Federal force between Hatteras
and Newport News, Virginia. In September, a detachment of men arrived to supplement
those left to guard the Confederate forts. The Union gunboats Ceres and Putnam joined
the three vessels that had been left by the original invading force, the Pawnee,
Monticello, and Fanny. Fearing an attack, the commander of the Union detachments sent
600 men to the north end of Hatteras Island to set up a camp at Chicamacomico (Stick
1958: 130-131).

The Confederate force on Roanoke Island mounted a rifled naval thirty-two pounder on
the bow of the side-wheel steamer Curlew. The vessel, under the command of
Commodore Lynch and manned by recruits from the Third Georgia Infantry, set out with
the Junaluska and Raleigh towards Chicamacomico.

Battle was initiated on 1 October 1861, when the small Confederate squadron met the
Union steam tug Fanny. After only a 15-minute battle, the Fanny (Figure 28) was taken
by Confederates, thus accomplishing their first capture of an armed ship (Stick
1958:132). On 5 October, two regiments of Confederate infantrymen were loaded onto
the steamers Curlew, Cotton Plant, Raleigh, Fanny, Empire, and Junaluska and
transported to a point about three miles off Chicamacomico in Pamlico Sound. The
Cotton Plant was able to get about a mile closer in towards shore than the other vessels
because of its shallower draft.

A company of artillery along with two 6-pound boat howitzers and two companies of
infantry disembarked into the shallow water and waded towards the shoreline, firing at
the Union troops stationed on the beach. The other vessels headed south in an attempt to
land their troops behind the Union forces. Seeing that they might be encircled, the
Federals rapidly retreated to Fort Hatteras. Their pursuit by Confederates has been called
the “Chicamacomico Races” (Stick 1958:133-136).

Upon returning to Roanoke Island after the attack on Chicamacomico, Confederates set
about fortifying their positions. Across Crotoan Sound, heavy pilings were sunk along
with old sand-filled vessels. This strategy created a line of obstructions with only a few
openings large enough to permit friendly vessel passage. An old canal boat was
grounded opposite Redstone Point at the western end of the line of pilings and hulks. A
battery of eight guns mounted upon the deck of the grounded hulk was called Fort
Forrest.
47

Figure 28. The US tugboat Fanny captured by Confederates (Carbone 2001:18).

On the eastern end at Roanoke Island, three forts were constructed. Fort Huger, which
mounted twelve guns, was located at Weir Point, north of the piling line. Fort Blanchard,
which had only four guns, was located a half-mile to the south of the line. Fort Bartow
with eight guns was located on Pork Point near the line but invisible from the water
(Stick 1958: 137).

On 11 January 1862, a flotilla of more than 80 Federal vessels, composed of sailing
boats, North River barges, and large passenger steamers, sailed from Newport News and
arrived off Hatteras Inlet on 13 January. Land forces were under the command of
General Ambrose Burnside and U.S. Navy divisions were under the direction of Admiral
Louis M. Goldsborough.

After arriving at the inlet, gales and storms prevented the Fleet from passing over the
shallow sand bars and into the Pamlico Sound. The foul weather also caused the
stranding and loss of five vessels; City of New York, Grapeshot, Pocahontas, Louisiana,
and the Zouave (Figure 29; Figure 30; Figure 31).
48

Figure 29. Federal vessels encountering foul weather off Hatteras Inlet.

Figure 30. Loss of the City of New York at Hatteras Inlet (Harper’s Weekly 15
February 1862:104-105).
49

Figure 31. Contemporary montage showing wreck of the Zouave in Hatteras Inlet, Union transports and Hatteras Island scenes (Harper’s Weekly 15 February 1862:101).
50
The City of New York, a 574-ton screw steamer transporting troops for the operation,
foundered east of Hatteras Inlet on 13 January 1862 (Shomette 1973:36-37). The aging side-
wheel steamer Pocahontas was also lost (Figure 32) while engaged in transporting horses
and equipment to support the invasion of North Carolina near Rodanthe on 18 January 1862
(Delgado 1984:62). Once within the sound, grounded Union vessels were easier to refloat
and losses were almost eliminated. On 4 February, the remainder of the Union fleet was
finally able to pass the bar and sail for Roanoke Island.

Figure 32. Shipwreck of the Pocahontas near Rodanthe on 13 January 1862 (Leslie’s
Illustrated Newspaper 15 March 1862:273).

Confederate defense of Roanoke Island had been given to General Henry A. Wise, but as he
was suffering from pneumonia, command was transferred to Colonel H. M. Shaw. Under the
command of Commodore Lynch, a fleet of nine vessels--Black Warrior, Seabird,
Appomattox, Ellis, Curlew, Forrest, Raleigh, Beaufort, and Fanny-- each with one 32-
pounder, also guarded the island (Stick 1958:141-142). Union forces arrived off Roanoke
and began shelling the Confederate batteries and gunboats on 7 February. The Confederate
gunboat Curlew was hit and ran aground in front of Fort Forrest, blocking the battery's line of
fire. The Forrest was also struck by enemy fire and forced to withdraw.

By nightfall the Confederate fleet was out of ammunition and retreated up Albemarle Sound
toward Elizabeth City (Stick 1958:143). Union land troops continued to land at Ashby's
Harbor until late in the night. The next morning the 7,500-man force began an attack on the
Confederate defenses and by nightfall had captured the island with only light losses on each
side (Stick 1958:144-148).

The fall of Roanoke Island, on 8 February 1862, provided the United States with a base of
operations that supported the closures of Albemarle and Pamlico sounds to Confederate
commerce for the duration of the war. Along with the captures of Hatteras Inlet and Fort
51
Macon, “organized Confederate resistance” on the Outer Banks was generally suppressed
(Stick 1958:152-153). A routine account by Master Woodward of the USS Shawsheen
stationed at Hatteras Inlet on 5 April 1862 described the local maritime scene with a variety
of watercraft as such:

I proceeded to the inlet [Hatteras] with schooner Napoleon and towed her
to sea without much trouble; the took lighter alongside the schooner E. J.
Raynor to lighten her; supplied myself with coals from the Charlotte
Williams, she being the deepest draft…gave orders to schooner Neptune to
proceed to Roanoke island…these being all the coal schooners in the inlet
for the Navy. Found the schooner Charles H. Moller with stores; gave
him orders, after towing him over the swash…After lightening the Raynor
up to 8 feet, towed him over the swash. Went to the steamer Suwanee,
took 73 boxes of shell for 100 pounder Parrott guns, the boxes in bad
condition, and one cask of packing; then took lighter up over the swash
and put ammunition on board the Raynor again…Having done all as
directed…I left the inlet for New Berne…Passed on the way here
schooner C. H. Moller, bound here, and schooner Palma, bound out
(National Historical Society, ser. 1, v. 7, 1987:202).

On the last day of December 1862, one of the more famous [modern perspective] Civil War
Era shipwrecks occurred off Hatteras Island, when the USS Monitor foundered some 16
miles SSE of the Cape Hatteras Light in 225 feet of water (Figure 33). The ironclad steamer
was being towed by the USS Rhode Island, in concert with the Passaic being towed by USS
State of Georgia, when the Federal vessels encountered severe squalls (Berman 1973:148;
Broadwater 2012 8-10). Owing to its historic status and the volume of public interest, the
shipwreck site was “designated the first National Marine Sanctuary” on 30 January 1975 by
the U.S. Department of Commerce secretary with approval by President Gerald Ford (Watts
1985:315).

At this time of the Monitor’s tragic demise, some 1200 individuals lived on Hatteras Island
and of this number nearly half were housed west of the lighthouse (Figure 34).
Approximately 100 slaves were included in the larger figure, and the majority of all residents
were dispersed in just over 200 dwellings (Stick 1958:154). Only the contemporary village
of Hatteras was known by its present-day name; and a nearby small village was simply called
“The Cape” (Stick 1958:154).

52

Figure 33. Tragic loss of the USS Monitor off Cape Hatteras.

Figure 34. Map of Hatteras Island drawn 1864 by Union engineer (Courtesy National
Archives Cartographic Section).
53

Figure 35. Architectural sketch of the Cape Hatteras lighthouse prepared in 1869
(courtesy National Archives).
54
Following the Civil War proposals were also developed for improving navigation in Oregon
Inlet, but government surveys carried out in 1873-1874 and again in 1882 determined that
dredging the inlet as impractical. Several other improvements to navigation were initiated
(U.S. Congress 1874:85). The new Hatteras Light had been constructed (Figure 35) and was
illuminated by 17 December 1870 (Duffus 2003:161-163). To provide a measure of safety
for vessels navigating in the vicinity of Oregon Inlet, a third Bodie Island Lighthouse was
built to replace the one destroyed by retreating Confederates. Constructed on a site bought
for $150 from John B. Etheridge in 1871-1872, that lighthouse ultimately cost $14,000 (U.S.
Congress 1883:2). Work began on the 150-foot structure on 1 October 1872 (Stick 1958:
277-278; Figure 36). During construction of the new lighthouse five sailing vessels were
wrecked off Bodie Island, confirming the need for a navigation aid in the area (Times Daily
18 July 1872).

From December 1873 to December 1874, the U.S. Lifesaving Service built seven new
stations at Little Kinnakeet, Chicamacomico, Bodie Island, Kitty Hawk Beach, Nag's Head,
Jones' Hill, and Caffrey's Inlet. Due to continued loss of life on the Outer Banks from vessel
losses, the service built eleven more stations during the winter of 1878-1879. These were
located at Tommy's Hummock (located north of Oregon Inlet and later renamed Bodie
Island), Pea Island, Cedar Hummock, Big Kinnakeet, Creed's Hill, Hatteras, Deal's Island,
Old Currituck Inlet, Poyner's Hill, Paul Gamiel's Hill, and Kill Devil Hills. Later in 1883, the
service built a station at New Inlet (Stick 1958: 173). The Pea Island Life Station, which was
opened in 1879 operated until 1946. For 63 years this highly efficient facility operated as an
all Negro-manned station (Sharpe 1954:103).

In 1870, the Church brothers from Rhode Island opened a menhaden processing plant at
Oregon Inlet (Dunbar 1958: 231). The plant was closed two years later because of hazardous
navigation in the inlet, the limited supply of menhaden, and the lack of oil in the fish that
were being caught in the sounds (Dunbar 1958:149 and Angley 1985:8-9). Only a year after
the Church brothers closed their plant, the Corps of Engineers surveyed Oregon Inlet to
assess the feasibility of improving navigation. Their plan was designed to improve access to
the Oregon Inlet passage to Albemarle Sound and thus reduce by 120 miles the distance
vessels arriving from northern ports would have to travel to ports in the sound. The survey
determined that the advantages of the plan did not justify its projected cost. A particularly
important consideration in the decision was the southward migration of the inlet (Angley
1985:9; U.S. Congress 1874:85).

Although nineteenth-century commercial fishing registered only nominal success in the
Oregon Inlet vicinity, independent fishermen enjoyed success at Oregon Inlet and sport
fishing became an important source of local income. By 1875, plentiful blue fish represented
an important resource for both commercial and sport fisherman (Economist, 24 November
1875). Drum also became an important source of revenue for the area. Two years later that
same Elizabeth City newspaper reported that "the sound near Oregon is alive with old drums
55

Figure 36. Modern image of the Bodie Island light, built 1872 (courtesy National Park
Service).
56
and trolling furnishes sport and happiness to many an angler" (Economist, 6 June 1877).
Herring also became an important resource and smoked herring brought two cents apiece in
1877 (Economist, 9 May 1877). By 1891, Captain John Ward of Roanoke Island was
offering "choice Oregon Inlet herrings" that were described as the "best in North Carolina" at
$5.50 per thousand (Economist, 5 May 1891).

By 1876, sizable ocean vessels were also using Oregon Inlet to gain access to the Albemarle.
On 23 August 1876, the Elizabeth City Economist reported that six large vessels had
navigated the inlet within the past month and the editor observed that "with proper help the
water would be deepened all the way through" (Economist 23 August 1876). In April 1878,
there was about 12 feet of water on the bar at Oregon Inlet and a schooner of 200 tons was
reported to have crossed without incident (Economist 23 April 1878).

In 1882, increased use prompted the Corps of Engineers to re-examined plans for improving
navigation channels at Oregon Inlet. However, the constant migration south and volatile
nature of the inlet environment still proved to be major stumbling blocks to cost-effective
improvements. The inlet was found to have moved south and widened to about 500 yards
since the previous survey. The channel had deepened, however, and vessels drawing 11 feet
could pass though at high water while those drawing nine feet could pass when the tide was
out. The Corps of Engineers also noted that on the sound side, Old House Channel ran away
to the southwest and was both crooked and highly active. The channel over the bar was more
constant but still liable to change in response to storm energy. The high-energy environment
made any attempt at improving the inlet costly if not futile.

In 1897, the Oregon Inlet Coast Guard Station was built on the north end of Pea Island. The
building was remodeled in 1933 and 1970 and was in use up until December 1988. The
station was evacuated due to the constant erosion on the end of the island from the southward
movement of Oregon Inlet. The station is listed on the NRHP as being the "oldest active
Coast Guard Station in the State of North Carolina" (N.C. Department of Transportation
1989:C-3).

57
A letter forwarded to the U.S. life-saving service superintendent in December 1895 confirms
that the Little Sampson of Buxton was engaged in commercial fishing. On 13 October of that
year the schooner sailed from Buxton “for Elizabeth City, North Carolina, with a cargo of
fresh fish” (United States Life-Saving Service [USLSS] 1897:257). Later that day, the vessel
“was driven ashore on a reef in consequence of a gale”, however, due to the efforts of the
Gull Shoal station, the Little Sampson was refloated a few days later (USLSS 1897:257). At
the time of the mishap, the seven-ton schooner was under the command of Master Barnett
and carried finfish valued at $120 (USLLS 1897:316-317).

Another contemporary and popular vessel plying late-nineteenth-century Dare County waters
was the sharpie (Stick 1958:179; Figure 37). Contemporary records compiled by District Six
station heads (Cape Henry to Cape Fear) identified Dare County vessels including the
schooner I. D. Jane of Hatteras [Avon], the sloop Little Inez of Kinnakeet, the sailboat Mary
Caroline of Roanoke Island, the sailboat Rosette of Roanoke Island, the schooner Dorcas
Jane of Big Kinnakeet, and one unknown “Fish boat” of Hatteras. The outbound cargoes
carried aboard these vessels appeared to be chiefly fish or oysters (Figure 38), and inbound
cargoes brought to their homeports included corn and wood, and “General” merchandise
(USLSS 1897:316-317).

Figure 37. Drawing of North Carolina sharpie, 1891 (Chapelle 1961:143).

A highly visible vessel near Cape Hatteras seen at its official station was the Diamond Shoal
lightship. This vessel served local watercraft, coastwise traders and foreign shipping in one
of the most dangerous seaways in North America. Ironically, one of the lightships (Figure
39) survived the horrific effects of the San Ciriaco hurricane during August 1899, when the
government-owned vessel was swept on the beach (Hairr 2001:72). Another would be
destroyed some 19 years later by a German submarine stalking shipping along the Atlantic
seaboard.

58

Figure 38. Outer Banks oyster boat (b. 1889) that sailed waters of Dare County for
decades (Hairr 2001:81).

Figure 39. Diamond Shoals lightship beached after 1899 San Ciriaco hurricane (Hairr
2001:72).
59
Twentieth-Century Development

An interesting story published by The Washington Herald in January 1909 touched on local
activities at Kill Devil Hills. Owing to the historic flight undertaken by the Wright brothers
at that location, the small North Carolina town was known in international circles. An
excerpt from the District of Columbian newspaper printed on 17 January follows:

Reliable information from Kill Devil Hills, N.C. is that the Wright
brothers, now in Europe, are making preparations there for experiments
with an improved aeroplane, said to be far in advance of the machine
which they are now using…When the Wrights left Kill Devil Hills last
spring after a series of flights, which startled the world, and proved that
navigation of the air with heavier than air machines was a fact, they
announced that they would ‘probably return some day.’ At Kill Devil
Hills the combined aerodrome workshop and living apartments of the
Wrights is still intact, and in it is much aeroplane paraphernalia. It is
believed that the departure of Orville Wright for Europe is for the purpose
of hastening the conclusion of business deals there, that the experiments at
Kill Devil Hills may be continued (The Washington Herald 17 January
1909).

Although Dare County principally remained remote and underdeveloped in the years
preceding The Great War, Gannon (1991:243) remarked that due to the brisk shipping
passing along its barrier islands, “German U-boats worked the adjacent waters in 1918
destroying (by torpedo, mine, or driving aground) six tankers, a schooner, a bark, and the
Diamond Shoals Lightship.” Some of these war losses are identified in Attachment A. In
respect to military activities carried out in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras in the postwar period,
a controversial bombing experiment was conducted by Brigadier General William Mitchell.

According to Branch (2006), Mitchell “had demonstrated in 1921 what many naval
strategists considered impossible-that battleships could be destroyed from the air-when he
used airplanes to sink an old surplus battleship” off the coast of Virginia. In September
1923, Mitchell:

[S]et up the experiment off Cape Hatteras to determine if battleships could
be sunk by high-level bombing and to measure the potential for aircraft
being called into combat from long distances to intercept a hostile
warship. The target vessels, which were to be scrapped under postwar
naval limitation treaties, were the 14,949-ton New Jersey and Virginia,
built between 1902 and 1906 at a cost of $6 million each and anchored 18
miles southeast of Cape Hatteras (Branch 2006).

The initial air attack was made by planes flying in from Langley Airfield in Virginia, some
175 miles to the north, while Mitchell’s own planes flew out to the site from a make-shift
airfield located on Hatteras Island. In the aftermath, the two vessels were successfully
60
destroyed; the Virginia sank in 30 minutes, and the New Jersey disappeared in the ocean
within minutes (Branch 2006). Due to his popularity with Hatteras Islanders, the airfield at
Buxton was eventually named for “Billy” Mitchell (Hairr 2001:85).

The development of a lucrative fishing industry at Manteo increased pressure to improve
navigation between that island and the Atlantic, which affected the region including the
project area. In 1910 and 1911, dredging was begun to link Shallowbag Bay with Oregon
Inlet. Proposed improvements called for a 6-foot-deep, 100-foot- wide channel across
Shallowbag. Maintenance dredging of this channel was carried out in 1916, 1929, and 1934
(Angley 1985:12-13). The next step in the process of linking Manteo with Oregon Inlet was
proposed in 1927. The Corps of Engineers investigated the feasibility of maintaining a 6-
foot-deep, 150-foot-wide channel from Manteo through Roanoke Sound and into the main
channel across the Pamlico Sound.

However, It was not until 1940/1941 that a channel of this nature was approved and work
completed. It was approximately 13 miles long at the same depth as the 1927 proposal, but
for economy the channel was dredged some 50 feet more narrow (Angley 1985:13). The
improvements were designed to stimulate local commerce and improve navigation for the
5,000 to 15,000 vessels that navigated between Roanoke Island and Oregon Inlet (Angley
1985: 14). By 1940, local interest groups began to push for additional improvements to the
channel from Manteo to Oregon Inlet and called for dredging and maintaining a channel
through the inlet itself. They believed that this would "stimulate further growth in the fishing
industry, increase salinity in the sounds, and provide a badly needed place of refuge for deep-
sea trawlers fishing along the Outer Banks" (Angley 1985: 14).

Three years earlier the Elizabeth City Daily Advance reported that there were "100 boats
occupied in the fishing industry around Oregon Inlet" and recorded that "President Roosevelt
asked about fishing at Oregon Inlet" in conjunction with a visit to Roanoke Island in August
1937 (Daily Advance 23 June 1937). The newspaper went on to report the sport fishing for
drum and channel bass at Oregon Inlet, "annually attracts thousands of sportsmen from
northern cities as well as nearby towns" and each year brings approximately $100,000 into
the economy of Dare County (Daily Advance 23 June 1937).

Other significant regional infrastructure improvements were constructed and installed during
the pre-World War II era as depicted by a 1938 Dare County map prepared by the North
Carolina State Highway and Public Works Commission. In addition to relevant extracts
taken from the publication that includes the Currituck County Township of Duck, the map’s
legend is also included to convey the impressive extent of the “modern” improvements
(Figure 40; Figure 41, and Figure 42).

In Operation Drumbeat, Gannon (1991) provides an excellent overview of Germany’s initial
World War II Unterseeboot attacks along the vulnerable Outer Banks, which focused on the
waters off Cape Hatteras. Specifically, the work sheds light on the remarkable albeit
terrifying exploits of Reinhard Hardegen, commander of U-123 as the Bremen-born former
Naval airman carried out Operation Paukenschlag. The German High Command astutely
61
recognized that the destruction of civilian maritime commerce making the critical turn at
Cape Hatteras would cripple the United States military and its allies.

A dramatic photograph taken on 26 March 1942 shows the devastating torpedo attack on the
Dixie Arrow off Cape Hatteras by U-71 (Figure 43). This “Second Battle of the Atlantic”
period was boldly called [in translation] “The Second Happy Time” or the “American
shooting season” by many German submarine commanders. An additional image depicts the
massive tanker in the previous month (Figure 44). At the time of its destruction, the 8046-
ton Dixie Arrow was transporting 96,000 barrels of crude oil from Texas to New Jersey. War
losses from this period are identified, when possible, in Attachment A.

62

Figure 40. Extract from 1938 Dare County map (North Carolina State Highway &
Public Works Commission [SH&PWC] 1938).
63

Figure 41. Extract of 1938 Dare County map (SH&PWC 1938).
64

Figure 42. Legend from 1938 Dare County map (SH&PWC 1938).
65

Figure 43. U-71 attacks Dixie Arrow off Cape Hatteras in March 1942 (U.S. Coast
Guard [USCG] photo from McKay Collection).

Figure 44. Image of Dixie Arrow, 11 February 1942 (USCG photo from McKay
Collection).

In 1950, Congress gave approval for a 14-foot-by-400-foot channel across the ocean bar at
Oregon Inlet and also authorized maintenance dredging of Old House Channel, Manteo-
Oregon Inlet channel, and a channel from Manteo Oregon Inlet channel to Wanchese. A
200-foot-by- 600-foot basin was to be dredged at Manteo and a 200-foot-square harbor
66
created at Wanchese (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987). To stabilize the inlet channel
and deter its southward migration, the Corps proposed the idea of building two rubble-mound
jetties. The jetties would extend seaward from either shoulder of the inlet and stabilize the
channel. After careful consideration this plan was not deemed economical (Angley 1985:
16).

By 1950, the Outer Banks' reputation as a recreational area was increasing rapidly. The town
of Nags Head became a popular resort and that popularity provided support for rapid
commercial development of the oceanfront. In addition, sport-fishing boats catering to the
tourist joined the fishing fleets operating out of Oregon Inlet. Vessel traffic substantially
increased the demand for improvements to navigation and political support for such projects.
Over the next ten years the Corps worked to meet the channel specification outlined in 1950.

After the National Park Service opened the Cape Hatteras National Seashore in 1953,
demands for ferry transportation across Oregon Inlet increased dramatically (Angley
1985:17). By 1957, a 12-foot-deep channel was dredged across Oregon Inlet from the north
ferry slip on Bodie Island to Pea Island. This channel was maintained over the course of the
following two years by the hopper dredge Barracuda. Navigating the inlet remained a
hazardous endeavor, however, and the ferry was frequently delayed by stranded fishing boats
blocking the narrow channel (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1959; Angley 1985:16).

In response to these problems local residents began to lobby for an Oregon Inlet bridge. In
August 1961, politician Herbert C. Bonner suggested to his colleagues in Congress that a
bridge, financed by both state and Federal revenue, should be built across the inlet. Shortly
after Bonner's petition was approved, specifications for the bridge were developed.
According to Angley (1985:17), “the structure would be two and a half miles long, ...would
curve westerly over the inlet, ...[and] would be twenty eight feet wide and elevated sixty-five
feet above the water". The historic opening of the Bonner Bridge provided ready access to
the Cape Hatteras National Seashore and attracted countless tourists to all parts of remote
Dare County, including access to the northern Outer Banks. This event stimulated the origins
of the modern economy of the project area.

Outer Banks Area Shipwrecks

Historical source materials for the earliest periods of exploration and colonization are
extremely limited and contain few geographically specific details. This was primarily a
factor of the state-of-the-art of navigation. In later periods shipwreck references become
more frequent, but until well into the twentieth century, location data was rarely accurate.
This was because of the limitations of navigational accuracy and the methods of
communicating and recording wreck-specific information. In addition, the loss of a vessel,
cargo, and crew was certainly more important than the precise location of the disaster. Those
complications make exact correlation of historical shipwreck information with remote-
sensing data difficult under most circumstances. However, an inventory of documented
vessel losses off Dare County provides a basis for preliminary vessel specific association
67
with remote-sensing targets. This inventory, which covers the coast from Currituck Inlet to
Hatteras Inlet, is added as Attachment A.

The remains of vessels from Sir Francis Drake's fleet preserve evidence associated with the
earliest English colony in the New World on Roanoke Island. Other sixteenth-century
shipwreck sites have provided information about the Spanish conquest and colonization of
the Americas. Vessels lost during the seventeenth century represent sources of data
concerning the exploration and earliest permanent settlement along the North Carolina coast.
Evidence of our colonial development and Revolutionary War survives in association with
shipwreck sites of the eighteenth century. Nineteenth-century vessel remains document one
of the most dynamic period of United States maritime history, during which dramatic
changes took place in the design and construction of ships. During the Civil War
considerable maritime and naval activity took place along the North Carolina Outer Banks
and many Union and Confederate vessels were sunk. Evidence of modern ship development
and the ultimate decline of American maritime power survives in the remains of twentieth-
century shipwrecks. Those include the last working sailing vessels as well as steamers,
submarines, and warships.

The remains of vessels provide valuable opportunities to examine and reconstruct important
aspects of our maritime heritage that frequently have not survived in the written historical
record. Historic shipwrecks contain information concerning the design and construction of
vessels that was never a part of the written record. Well into the twentieth century,
shipwrights continued to build vessels without benefit of plans or documentation. Although
the displacement of shipwrights by engineers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
brought increasing documentation, much of that evidence has not survived. This makes
shipwrecks one of the most important sources of data concerning the evolution of vessel
architecture and construction.

Ships and small vessels provided the most important element of trade and transportation
system until late in the nineteenth century. They were the essential element of European
exploration and development of the western hemisphere. Because of the instrumental role
vessels played in that historical process, their remains contain an important record of the
evolving material culture in the area. Artifacts associated with wrecks provide insight into
shipboard life that permits the reconstruction of historic lifeways. Material carried as cargo
reflects the development of the economic system that supported European development of
North America. Cargo also reflects the development of technologies associated with
virtually every aspect of life along the Atlantic seaboard.

Previous Remote-Sensing Investigations

Between 1997 and 1998, two surveys, under separate contracts, were undertaken by Mid-
Atlantic Technology and Environmental Research, Inc. of Castle Hayne, North Carolina in
order to ensure that no significant shipwrecks or cultural resources would be adversely
impacted by offshore dredging designed to renourish beaches between Oregon Inlet and Kitty
68
Hawk (Hall 1999). Two separate borrow areas were surveyed; one offshore from Kitty
Hawk, the other east of Nags Head. In addition, a terrestrial reconnaissance was conducted
to identify any exposed shipwreck remains along the beach. As a result of these surveys,
three single-source magnetic anomalies were identified in the borrow areas offshore from
Kitty Hawk. No targets were discovered in the borrow area near Nags Head. No additional
investigation was recommended.

In 2009, TAR carried out a remote-sensing survey of three offshore borrow sites located east
of Nags Head, North Carolina. Those sites were surveyed for Coastal Science and
Engineering, Inc. (CSE). CSE was working with the Town of Nags Head to identify a source
of beach nourishment quality sand to restore local beaches. That survey was carried out
between 2 and 5 July 2009. Analysis of the remote-sensing data generated during the survey
identified a total of six magnetic and no acoustic anomalies in Area 1 and no magnetic or
acoustic targets in Areas 2 and 3. These six magnetic anomalies, grouped in two clusters,
had signature characteristics suggestive of potentially significant cultural material.
Avoidance of these two target clusters was recommended by the creation of 400-foot
diameter buffers around each site.

Survey Weather Conditions

Weather conditions during survey operations varied considerably as is almost always the case
during any extended period in the autumn season off the North Carolina Outer Banks. At the
start of the survey on 20 October 2014, winds were northeast at about 10 knots and seas were
three to four feet under a partly cloudy sky.

On 21 October winds shifted to the southwest and remained about 10 knots. Seas moderated
to between two and three feet under a partly cloudy sky. On the following day, conditions
were was overcast and the wind shifted to the northwest and increased all day from 15 to
above 20 knots in advance of a storm. Due to inclement weather, survey operations were
suspended and the Thunderforce cruised to Portsmouth, Virginia in eight to ten foot seas.
Surveying resumed on 25 October. The sea state was two to three feet and winds were north-
northwest from five to seven knots. The sky was clear with pleasant temperatures.

On 26 October 2014 wind increased early to 10 to 15 knots gusting to 20 and seas increased
from four to six feet. By late afternoon conditions improved with winds and seas dropping.
The sky remained clear all day. By 27 October, winds shifted from southwest to northwest
with speeds from five to ten knots under a clear sky. On the final day of operations winds
were southwest to south-southwest and blowing five to eight knots. Seas remained at two to
three feet all day under a clear sky.
69
Survey Data Analysis

Magnetometer Data Analysis

Analysis of the magnetic data generated by the Borrow Site A and Borrow Site B surveys
was carried out using HYPACK 2014 and QUICKSURF. Each line of raw magnetic data was
reviewed and edited using HYPACK’S “single beam editor” to identify and characterize
anomalies and remove spurious data. Edited data files were saved and then sorted to produce
georeferenced x, y, z format data for contouring. Each anomaly was saved as a target file
and the line number, target number on line, signature characteristics, gamma intensity and
signature duration used to identify the anomaly. Using QUICKSURF contouring software,
magnetic data generated during the survey were contour plotted at 5-gamma intervals for
additional analysis, accurate location and graphic representation. An EXCEL spreadsheet,
which contained each of those characteristics and an assessment of potential significance was
created for the anomalies. This spreadsheet was used to create a shapefile for inclusion into a
project GIS. The contoured data was edited in AutoCAD and the contours saved as a DWG
or DXF for inclusion in the project GIS. Potentially significant anomalies and/or anomaly
clusters were buffered and recommended for avoidance or additional investigation.

Sonar Data Analysis

Sidescan sonar acoustic records were analyzed using Chesapeake Technology’s SONARWIZ
software. Each line of data was reviewed to identify targets on the basis of configuration,
areal extent, target intensity and contrast with background, elevation and shadow image.
Each target image was imported into an Excel spreadsheet file that contained an assessment
of potential significance for both of the survey areas. Those Excel spreadsheets were used to
create shapefiles of Borrow Area A and Borrow Area C for inclusion in a project GIS.
SONARWIZ software was also used to create a mosaic of each of the survey areas. Potentially
significant sonar targets and/or target clusters were buffered and recommended for avoidance
or additional investigation.

Sub-bottom Profiler Data Analysis

Sub-bottom profiler acoustic records were analyzed using SONARWIZ software. Each line of
data was reviewed to identify features that could be associated with anomalies and sonar
targets. Features that represent relict landforms were also identified to determine if there
might be a potential association with prehistoric submerged cultural resources. Each
landform image was captured and included in a target report produced with SONARWIZ
software.

70
Description of Findings

Borrow Area A

Acoustic data generated by the survey of Borrow Area A produced in excess of 200 percent
coverage of the bottom surface (Figure 45). Analysis of the acoustic data identified 10 sonar
targets (Attachment B). One of the sonar targets is a small single object, three are bottom
surface features and the remaining six appear to be sections of pipe, cable, logs or pilings
(Attachment C). None have an association with any of the magnetic anomalies.

Analysis of the Borrow Area A sub-bottom profiler data confirmed excellent sediment
penetration and revealed that no stratigraphic features are associated with either the sidescan
sonar targets or the magnetic anomalies. No evidence of complex relict landforms such as
channels, lagoons and estuaries that might be associated with prehistoric habitation are
present. Only one image on a single lane contained evidence of such features (Figure 46).

71

Figure 45. Borrow Area A sonar coverage mosaic with targets (NOAA Chart 12200).

72

Figure 46. Sub-bottom profiler data example from Borrow Area A survey line 383.

Line by line analysis and contouring of the magnetic remote-sensing data generated during
the survey of Borrow Area A identified nine anomalies (Figure 47). Four of the magnetic
anomalies represent small single objects, three represent moderate single objects and two
represent moderate single or multiple objects (Attachment D). One cluster of two moderate
single objects, 360-1-pm-19.3g-102.1f and 360-2-nm-70.8g-122.8f (Figure 48), and two of
the moderate single or multiple object anomalies, 352-1-nm-21.3g-398f (Figure 49) and 306-
1-pm-101.1g-136.2f (Figure 50) are recommended for avoidance and buffered. The buffered
anomalies and anomaly cluster located in Borrow Area A have signature characteristics
suggestive of potentially significant historical vessel remains.

73

Figure 47. Borrow Area A magnetic contours, anomalies and recommended avoidance
buffers (NOAA Chart 12200).

74

Figure 48. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer A.

75

Figure 49. Anomaly recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer B.

76

Figure 50. Anomaly recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer C.

77
Borrow Area C

Acoustic data generated by the survey of Borrow Site C produced in excess of 200 percent
coverage of the bottom surface (Figure 51). Analysis of the acoustic data identified nine
sonar targets (Attachment E). Four of the sonar targets represent small single objects, three
are bottom surface features and the remaining six appear to be clusters of small objects
(Attachment F). Four of the targets have no association with any of the magnetic anomalies
and five have possible associations.

Figure 51. Borrow Area A sonar coverage mosaic with targets (NOAA Chart 12200).
78
Analysis of the Borrow Area C sub-bottom profiler data confirmed excellent sediment
penetration (Figure 52) and revealed that no stratigraphic features are associated with either
the sidescan sonar targets or the magnetic anomalies. No evidence of complex well-
preserved relict landforms such as channels, lagoons and estuaries that might be associated
with prehistoric habitation is present. However, along and outside the western perimeter of
Borrow Area C a paleochannel feature is present (Figure 53). The almost vertical nature of
the fill suggests a highly active progradational sequence that would not be conducive to
prehistoric site preservation.

Figure 52. Sub-bottom profiler data example from Borrow Area C survey line 565 East.

Figure 53. Sub-bottom profiler data example from Borrow Area C survey line 565
West.

Line by line analysis and contouring of the magnetic remote-sensing data generated during
the survey of Borrow Site C identified 65 anomalies (Figure 54). Three of the 65 magnetic
anomalies lie outside the survey area. Nineteen represent small single objects, seventeen
represent moderate single objects, twenty more represent moderate single or multiple objects
and six represent complex or clustered objects (Appendix G).
79

Figure 54. Borrow Area C magnetic contours, anomalies and recommended avoidance
buffers (Extract from NOAA Chart 12200).
80
Twenty-seven of the anomalies are recommended for avoidance and are included in 14
buffers (A through L). The buffered anomalies and anomaly clusters located in Area C have
signature characteristics suggestive of potentially significant submerged cultural resources
and could be associated with the wreck immediately east of the survey area on NOAA Chart
12200. Buffer A (Figure 55) includes two anomalies 600-1-mc-9.5g-165.5f and 601-1-mc-
4.8g-106.3f.

Figure 55. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer A.
81

Buffer B includes anomaly 594-1-mc-10.4g-462.9f and Buffer C includes anomaly 587-1-
mc-14.6g-462.2f (Figure 56).

Figure 56. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer B and
Buffer C.

82

Buffer D includes two anomalies 581-2-dp-16.7g-166F and 582-1-dp-17.3g-169.5f (Figure
57).

Figure 57. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer D.
83

Buffer E includes two anomalies 567-1-dp-12.5g-103.1f and 568-1-dp-14.7g-166.9f (Figure
58).

Figure 58. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer E.
84
Buffer F includes two anomalies 555-1-nm-10.4g-196.6f and 556-1-nm-11.3g-303.6f (Figure
59).

Figure 59. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer F.

85
Buffer G includes two anomalies 553-1-nm-11.1g-274.6f and 555-2-dp-29.4g-93.6f and
sonar target SSS C 003 (Figure 60).

Figure 60. Anomalies and sonar target recommended for avoidance and included in
Buffer G.
86

Buffer H includes anomaly 534-1-pm-11.1g-328.2f (Figure 61).

Figure 61. Anomaly recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer H.

87
Buffer I includes two anomalies, 530-1-mc-15g-348.2f and 532-1-pm-20.2g-174.3f, and
sonar target SSS C 002. Buffer J includes one anomaly, 528-1-mc-9.5g-276.3f, and Buffer K
includes anomalies 525-1-nm-10.5g-242.9f and 526-1-dp-14.6g-294f (Figure 62).

Figure 62. Anomalies and sonar target recommended for avoidance and included in
Buffer I, Buffer J and Buffer K.
88

Buffer L includes anomalies 514-3-dp-27.7g-62.4f and 515=1=dp-6g-42.4f (Figure 63).

Figure 63. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer L.

89
Buffer M includes anomalies 512-2-pd-32.3g-55.7f, 513-2-pm-9.6g-135.6f and 514-2-dp-
15.6g-372.2f (Figure 64).

Figure 64. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer M.

90
Buffer N includes anomalies 511-1-pm-8.3g-102.2f, 512-1-dp-9.9g-181.7f, 513-1-dp-9.2g-
181.9f and 513-1-mc-10.7g-235.4f (Figure 65).

Figure 65. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer N.

91
Conclusions and Recommendations

Although the project area lies in the Graveyard of the Atlantic, no known or historically
documented shipwrecks have been identified inside the survey areas. However the proposed
borrow site locations correspond with the vicinity of sixteenth-century Port Fernando and the
anchorage used by Sir Francis Drake and vessels that supported Sir Walter Raleigh’s
attempts to establish a colony on Roanoke Island. One charted wreck is identified
immediately east of Borrow Area C. Because of the number of historically documented
shipwrecks in the area and the geographical association with the first English attempt to
establish a settlement in North America, the project locations should be considered as an area
of high sensitivity for submerged cultural resources.

Although Dr. John G. Newton’s superlative collaboration with Pilkey and Blanton (1971)
entitled An Oceanographic Atlas Of The Carolina Continental Margin does not include the
current project area, it sheds light on the potential to discover unknown cultural resources in
Dare County’s nearshore and offshore waters. The groundbreaking study confirmed that at
least 368 documented shipwrecks occurred off one section of coastal Dare County (from the
Francis E. Waters site located 2¾ miles N-NW of Nags Head Station to the Richard H.
Wyatt site located at 34½º N, 74º W) (Newton et al. 1971:24-25, 28-29).

The methodically researched North Carolina Shipwreck Accounts, 1709 to 1950 compiled by
shipwreck authority Joan Charles confirms that at least 48 named or unknown vessels were
lost “off”, “near” or simply along the “coast” of North Carolina. Of the first classification,
the earliest documented loss off the Colony of North Carolina was the Adriatic in February
1740/41 at some unknown site (Charles 2004:159). Several coasting or sea-going vessels
(named and unknown) were lost off the North Carolina coast during the years preceding the
American Revolution (Charles 2004:159-160).

Analysis of the remote-sensing data generated during the survey of Area A identified 10
sonar targets and 9 magnetic anomalies. One of the sonar targets is a small single object,
three are bottom surface features and the remaining six appear to be sections of pipe, cable,
logs or pilings. None have an association with any of the magnetic anomalies. Four of the
magnetic anomalies represent small single objects, three represent moderate single objects
and two represent moderate single or multiple objects. Two of the moderate single or
multiple object anomalies and one cluster of two moderate single objects are recommended
for avoidance and buffered.

Analysis of the remote-sensing data generated during the survey of Area C identified 9 sonar
targets and 65 magnetic anomalies. Four of the sonar targets represent small single objects,
three are bottom surface features and the remaining six appear to be clusters of small objects.
Four of the targets have no association with any of the magnetic anomalies and five have
possible associations.

92
Three of the 65 magnetic anomalies lie outside the survey area. Nineteen represent small
single objects, seventeen represent moderate single objects, twenty more represent moderate
single or multiple objects and six represent complex or clustered objects. Twenty-seven of
the anomalies and 2 of the sonar targets are recommended for avoidance and are included in
14 buffers.

The buffered anomalies, anomaly clusters and sonar targets located in Borrow Area A and
Borrow Area C have signature characteristics suggestive of potentially significant submerged
cultural resources. The buffered anomalies and sonar targets in Borrow Site C could be
associated with a wreck charted immediately east of the survey area. AWOIS data indicates
that the wreck (RECORD 2440) is the tug “TEENS TOW” and this casualty was classified as
“dangerous to surface navigation”. While that comment suggests that the vessel is relatively
modern, additional investigation could provide more comprehensive data that would permit
an assessment of historical significance. If modern, buffered anomalies potentially
associated with the wreck could be reassessed.

At this point all of the buffered anomalies and sonar targets in Borrow Area A and Borrow
Area C should be avoided during dredging operations. Should avoidance prove impossible,
additional investigation is recommended to determine the nature of the material generating
those anomalies and targets and more definitively to assess their significance in terms of
NRHP eligibility.

Unexpected Discovery Protocol

In the event that any project activities expose prehistoric or historic cultural material not
identified during the remote-sensing survey, the dredging company under contract to the
Dare County townships should immediately cease operations in that vicinity and notify the
respective Point of Contact for Dare County, CPE-NC, BOEM and for the North Carolina
SHPO. Notification should address the exact location, where possible, the nature of material
exposed by the project activities, and options for immediate archaeological inspection and
assessment of the site(s).

93
References Cited

Abbot, Willis J.
The Naval History of the United States. Vol. 2. Peter Fenelon Collier, New York, NY.

Angley, Wilson
1985 An Historic Overview of Oregon Inlet. Report on file at the Research Branch, North
Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.

Ashe, Samuel A’ Court
1908 History of North Carolina, volume I, From 1584 to 1783. Charles L. Van Noppen,
Greensboro, NC.

Berman, Bruce D.
1972 Encyclopedia of American Shipwrecks. The Mariners Press, Boston, MA.

Broadwater, John D.
2012 USS Monitor: A Historic Ship Completes Its Final Voyage. National Marine
Sanctuary Foundation, Washington, DC.

Brooks, Barbara Lynn, Ann M. Merriman, and Mark Wilde-Ramsing (compilers)
1996 Bibliography of North Carolina Underwater Archaeology. North Carolina Division of
Archives and History, Underwater Archaeology Branch, Kure Beach.

Burgess, Robert H.
1978 Coasting Schooner: The Four-Masted Albert F. Paul. University Press of Virginia,
Charlottesville.

Caldwell, Joseph R., and Waring, A.J., Jr.
1939 Pottery Type Descriptions. In: Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter,
1(5):4-12.

Carbone, John S.
2001 The Civil War In Coastal North Carolina. North Carolina Division of Archives and
History, Raleigh.

Chapelle, Howard I.
1961 The Migrations of an American Boat Type. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Corbitt, David L. (editor)
1953 Explorations, Descriptions and Attempted Settlements of Carolina, 1584-1590. North
Carolina Department of Archives and History, Raleigh.

94
Crittenden, Charles C.
1936 The Commerce of North Carolina, 1763-1789. Yale University Press, New Haven,
NJ.

Cumming, William P.
1988 Mapping the North Carolina Coast, Sixteenth-Century Cartography and the Roanoke
Voyages. Division of Archives and History, North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources, Raleigh.

1998 The Southeast In Early Maps. Third edition, revised & enlarged by Louis de Vorsey,
Jr. The Fred Morrison Series in Southern Studies. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.

Dames and Moore
1979 A Remote Sensing Survey of Oregon Inlet, North Carolina. Report to U. S. Army
Engineer District, Wilmington, North Carolina, from Dames and Moore, Raleigh,
NC.

Delgado, James P.
1984 A Preliminary Assessment of Environmentally Exposed Shipwreck Remains, Cape
Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina. Report to U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, DC, National Park Service, Washington, DC, and East Carolina
University, Greenville, NC.

Dudley, William S. (editor)
1985 The Naval War of 1812: A Documentary History. Vol. I. Naval Historical Center,
Washington, DC.

1992 The Naval War of 1812: A Documentary History. Vol. 2. Naval Historical Center,
Washington, DC.

Duffus, Kevin P.
2003 The Lost Light: The Mystery Of The Missing Cape Hatteras Fresnel Lens. Looking
Glass Productions, Raleigh, NC.

2007 Shipwrecks of the Outer Banks-An Illustrated Guide. Looking Glass Productions,
Raleigh, NC.

Dunbar, Gary S.
1958 Historical Geography of the North Carolina Outer Banks. Louisiana State University
Press, Baton Rouge.

Farb, Roderick M.
1992 Shipwrecks: Diving the Graveyard of the Atlantic. Menasha Ridge Press,
Birmingham, AL.
95

Gannon, Michael
1991 Operation Drumbeat: The Dramatic True Story Of Germany’s First U-Boat Attacks
Along The American Coast In World War II. Reprint of 1990 first edition.
HarperCollins Publishers, New York.

Gentile, Gary
1993 Shipwrecks of North Carolina. Gary Gentile Productions, Philadelphia, PA.

Haag, William G.
1958 The Archaeology of Coastal North Carolina. Louisiana State University Coastal
Studies Series 2. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Hairr, John
2001 Outer Banks. In: Images of America series. Arcadia Publishing Company, Charleston,
SC.

Hall, Wesley K.
1999 A Phase I Upland and Underwater Archaeological Survey of the Dare County
Beaches and Borrow Areas, North Carolina. Report to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District, Wilmington, NC, from Mid-Atlantic Technology and
Environmental Research, Castle Hayne, NC.

Hoffman, Paul E.
1987 Spain and the Roanoke Voyages. Division of Archives and History North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh.

Hudy, Paul M.
2009 Shipwrecks & Reefs of Oregon Inlet <http://www.nc-
wreckdiving.com/LOCATIONS/OREGON.html >, last accessed 30 April 2015.

Hulton, Paul
1984 America 1585: The Complete Drawings of John White. Published jointly by The
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and British Museum Publications, London,
England.

Lefler, Hugh Talmage
1965 North Carolina History told by Contemporaries. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.

96
Marx, Robert F.
1983 Shipwrecks in the Americas: A complete guide to every major shipwreck in the
Western Hemisphere. Bonanza Books, New York, NY.

Mitchell, C. Bradford (editor)
1975 Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States, 1790-1868. “The Lytle-Holdcamper
List” initially compiled by William Lytle and Forrest Holdcamper. Revised and
edited by C. Bradford Mitchell. The Steamship Historical Society of America, Staten
Island, NY.

1978 Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States, 1790-1868. “The Lytle-Holdcamper
List” initially compiled by William Lytle and Forrest Holdcamper. Supplement
Number 1. Prepared by C. Bradford Mitchell. The Steamship Historical Society of
America, Staten Island, NY.

1982 Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States, 1790-1868. “The Lytle-Holdcamper
List” initially compiled by William Lytle and Forrest Holdcamper. Supplement
Number 2. Prepared by C. Bradford Mitchell. The Steamship Historical Society of
America, Providence, RI.

1984 Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States, 1790-1868. “The Lytle-Holdcamper
List” initially compiled by William Lytle and Forrest Holdcamper. Supplement
Number 3. Prepared by C. Bradford Mitchell. The Steamship Historical Society of
America, Providence, RI.

National Historical Society
1987 Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion.
Historical Times, Harrisburg, PA.

National Park Service
n.d.a. Dare County, North Carolina Search. National Register of Historic Places Database.
National Park Service <http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/>, last accessed 30 April
2015.

n.d.b. Lost to the Perils of the Sea. Cape Hatteras: National Seashore, North Carolina.
National Park Service <http://www.nps.gov>, last accessed 29 March 2015.

n.d.c. The Ghost Ship of the Outer Banks. Cape Hatteras: National Seashore, North
Carolina. National Park Service <http://www.nps.gov>, last accessed 29 March 2015.

n.d.d. Abandoned Shipwreck Act Guidelines. Part IV. Shipwrecks in the National Register
of Historic Places. National Park Service
<http://www.nps.gov/archeology/submerged/NRShips.htm>, last accessed 30 April
2015.

97
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
2010 East Carolina Nearshore Expedition: The Shipwrecks. Sponsored by the National
Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD. National Marine
Sanctuaries
<http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/missions/2010ecu_nearshore/shipwrecks.html>, last
accessed 31 March 2015.

Newton, John G., O. H. Pilkey, and J. O. Blanton
1971 An Oceanographic Atlas Of The Carolina Continental Margin. In association with
Duke University Marine Laboratory, Beaufort, NC. Supported by the North Carolina
Board of Science and Technology, Raleigh, in cooperation with the North Carolina
Department of Conservation & Development, Raleigh, and U.S. National Science
Foundation, Washington, DC, and U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC.

Noël Hume, Ivor
1994 The Virginia Adventure, Roanoke To James Towne: An Archaeological And
Historical Odyssey. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY.

North Carolina Division of Archives and History
1989 Memorandum [14 November] from David Brook, Deputy State Historic Preservation
Officer to H. Franklin Vick, Planning and Research Branch, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Raleigh. North Carolina Division of Archives and
History, Raleigh.

North Carolina Department of Transportation
1989 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact: Report on the
Construction of a Terminal Groin and Revetment at Pea Island for Protection of the
Herbert C. Bonner Bridge and North Carolina Highway 12, Dare County, North
Carolina. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh.

North Carolina Humanities Council
n.d. Many Stories, One People. Programs. Road Scholars. “How Shipwrecks Shaped the
Destiny of the Outer Banks.” [Kevin P. Duffus]. North Carolina Humanities Council
<http://nchumanities.org/programs/road-scholars/how-shipwrecks-shaped-destiny-
outer-banks>, last accessed 29 March 2015.

North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
2015 North Carolina Listings In The National Register Of Historic Places. “As of February
1, 2015.” North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
<http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/NR-PDFs.html>, last accessed 29 March 2015.

Oliver, Billy L.
1981 The Piedmont Archaic: Reflections and Perspectives. Paper presented at the 37th
Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, New Orleans, LA.

98
Phelps, David S.
1975 Test Excavations at the Parker Site (31Ed29) at Speed, Edgecombe County, North
Carolina. In: Archaeological Surveys of Four Watersheds in the North Carolina
Coastal Plain, pp. 106-137. North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication 16
(1981).

1981 The Archaeology of Colington Island. East Carolina University Archaeological
Research Report No. 3. East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.

1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plain: Problems and
Hypotheses. In: The Prehistory of North Carolina. Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J.
Crow, eds. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.

1984 Archaeology of the Tillett Site: The First Fishing Community at Wanchese, Roanoke
Island. East Carolina University Archaeological Research Report No. 6, Greenville,
NC.

Powell, William S.
1968 The North Carolina Gazetteer: A Dictionary Of Tar Heel Places. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Pullen, Drew
2001 Portrait of the Past, The Civil War On Hatteras Island North Carolina: A Pictorial
Tour. Aerial Prospective, Mt. Holly, NJ.

Quidley, Jr., Dallas Edward
2013 The Lighthouse Keeper’s Son. LifeRich Publishing, Bloomington, IN.

Quinn, David B. (editor)
1955 The Roanoke Voyages, 1584-1590. Hakluyt Society, London, England.

Sharpe, William
1954 A New Geography of North Carolina. Four vols. Sharpe Publishing Company,
Raleigh, NC.

Shomette, Donald G.
1973 Shipwrecks of the Civil War: the Encyclopedia of Union and Confederate Naval
Losses. Donic Ltd., Washington, DC.

Snow, Dean R.
1978 Late Prehistory of the East Coast. In: Handbook of North American Indians, vol.
15:357-361 (Northeast), edited by B. G. Trigger. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, DC.

99
Stick, David.
1952 Graveyard of the Atlantic: Shipwrecks of the North Carolina Coast. The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

1958 The Outer Banks of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill.

1970 Dare County: A History. North Carolina State Department of Archives and History,
Raleigh.

Thompson, Timothy A.
1977 Archaeological Resources at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, A Management
Study. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.

Thompson, Timothy A. and William M. Gardner
1979 A Cultural Resources and Impact Area Assessment of the Pea Island National
Wildlife Refuge, Dare County, North Carolina. Thunderbird Research Corporation,
Port Royal, Virginia.

U. S. Congress
1874 House Executive Document, No. 1, 43rd Congress, 2nd Session, U.S. Congress,
Washington DC.

U. S. Congress
1883 Senate Executive Document, No. 1, 47rd Congress, 2nd Session, U.S. Senate,
Washington D.C.

U.S. Department of Commerce
1916 Military and Naval Service of the United States Coast Survey. U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington DC.

U.S. Department of the Navy
1964-2005 Naval Documents of the American Revolution. U.S. Department of the Navy,
Washington, DC.

United States Life-Saving Service (USLSS)
1897 Annual Report Of The Operations Of The United States Life-Saving Service For The
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1896. Treasury Department, Document No. 1926.
United States Life-Saving Service, U.S. Treasury Department, Washington, DC.

Watts, Gordon P., Jr.
1985 Deep-Water Archaeological Investigation and Site Testing in the Monitor National
Marine Sanctuary. In: Journal of Field Archaeology 12:315-332.

100
Whitehead, Donald R.
1972 Development and Environmental History of the Dismal Swamp. Ecological
Monographs, Vol. 42:301-315.

Willey, Gordon R.
1966 An Introduction to American Archaeology, Volume I. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.

Newspaper Sources

Daily Advance, Elizabeth City, North Carolina (NC)

Democratic Pioneer, Elizabeth City, NC.

Economist, Elizabeth City, NC.

Flake’s Bulletin, Galveston, Texas

Free Press, Tarboro, NC.

North Carolina Times, New Bern, NC

North State Whig, Washington, NC.

Republican, New Bern, NC.

The Washington Herald, Washington, DC.

Times Daily, New Bern, NC.

Attachment A

(Shipwreck Inventory)

Attachment A: Select Outer Banks Shipwreck Inventory

VESSEL NAME TYPE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE LOSS DATE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE SHIPWRECK LOCATION REFERENCE
Tiger [or Tyger] English ship 29 June 1585 Ocracoke Inlet K
Multiple Unknown

13 June 1586 Oregon Inlet C
HMS Garland English warship 29 November 1710 “a little southward of Currituck Inlet” K
Unknown English ship 1728 “wrecked 6 miles seaward from Ocracoke Inlet” K
Adriatick English merchantman 1739 “wrecked at Cape Hatteras” K
Hoylin English merchantman 1741 “lost off Cape Hatteras” K
Woolford English merchantman 1741 “lost off Cape Hatteras” K
George American coastal trader 1743 “near Oregon Inlet” CK
Katherine & Elizabeth English merchantman 1744 “on Diamond Shoals” K
Neptune English merchantman 1744 “on Diamond Shoals” K
Seven Unknown English merchantmen 7/8 October 1749 “sank inside the [Ocracoke] bar” K
Two Unknown English merchantmen 7/8 October 1749 “wrecked 5 miles north of the inlet” K
Unknown Unknown August 1750 Cape Hatteras A
Nuestra Señora de la Soleda Galleon of New Spain Flota 18 August 1750 “wrecked 10 leagues north of Ocracoke Inlet” K
El Salvador Merchant nao of New Spain Flota 18 August 1750 “wrecked 15 leagues north of Ocracoke Inlet” K
Unknown English merchantman 18 August 1750 “off Cape Hatteras” K
Two Unknown Schooners-merchantmen 1752 “wrecked on the Ocracoke Bar” K
Union American merchantman January 1757 “lost at Cape Hatteras” K
Virginia Packet English packet boat 1757 “lost at Cape Hatteras” K
Unknown American schooner 1757 “lost at Cape Hatteras” K
Friendship English merchantman 1758 “lost at Cape Hatteras” K
Peggy English merchantman 1758 “lost at Cape Hatteras” K
Princess Amelia English merchantman 1758 “lost at Cape Hatteras” K
Nancy English merchantman 1760 “wrecked near Cape Hatteras” K
Charming Betsey Scottish merchantman 1760 “foundered off Cape Hatteras” K
Shannon Scottish merchantman 1764 “wrecked at Currituck Inlet” K
Revenge English merchantman June 1765 “wrecked…two miles north of Currituck Inlet” K
Good Intent English slaver 1767 “lost off Cape Hatteras” K
Charming Polly English merchantman 1770 “totally lost off Cape Hatteras” K
Lively English merchantman 1771 “lost off Cape Hatteras” K
Betsey English merchantman Before September 1772 “lost crossing… [Ocracoke] bar” K
(14/15) Unknown Large merchantmen Early September 1772 “totally lost near the Ocracoke Inlet bar” K
Charming Betsey English merchantman 1774 “wrecked on Ocracoke Island” K
Sally English merchantman 1774 “lost on Cape Hatteras” K
Clementina English merchantman 1775 “at Cape Hatteras” K
Austin English merchantman 1775 “lost off Cape Hatteras” K
Aurora English troop-transport 11 November 1777 “off Cape Hatteras” K
Peggy American merchantman 1783 “off Cape Hatteras” K
(17) Unknown Ships 23/24 July 1788 “wrecked at Ocracoke Inlet” K

VESSEL NAME TYPE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE LOSS DATE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE SHIPWRECK LOCATION REFERENCE
Molly English merchantman 1789 “wrecked at Cape Hatteras” K
Pitt English merchantman 1792 “lost on the Ocracoke Inlet bar” K
Experiment American merchantman 1792 “off Cape Hatteras” K
(6) Unknown Ships 2 August 1795 Ocracoke Inlet bar K
Multiple Unknown Spanish flota ships 2 August 1795 “off Cape Hatteras” K
Betsey American sloop 6 September 1797 “at Currituck Inlet” K
Industry American merchantman 1798 “on Cape Hatteras” K
Expectation English merchantman 1802 “on Cape Hatteras” K
Brunshill English merchantman 1802 “on Cape Hatteras” K
Lydia English ship 1804 “on Cape Hatteras” K
Molly American merchantman 1804 “wrecked near Cape Hatteras” K
Fortura Portuguese merchantman 1805 “on Cape Hatteras” K
Maria French ship 1810 Cape Hatteras K
Lively Lass American ship Late September 1810 “drifted onshore at Ocracoke Island’ K
Patriot American pilot boat January 1813 Nags Head K
#140 American gunboat 23 September 1814 Ocracoke Island K
(20+) Unknown Ships Early September 1815 “wrecked or sunk at Ocracoke Inlet and on Ocracoke Island” K
Superior American merchantman 3 October 1815 “near Cape Hatteras” K
Sero English merchantman 25 September 1815 “off Cape Hatteras” K
Atlanta American brig 8 November 1815 Diamond Shoals K
Mary Ship 15 April 1816 Currituck Beach K
Eliza American merchantman 1816 Ocracoke Island K
Bolina American merchantman 26 September 1816 “Boddy Island” K
Mary & Francis American ship March 1817 “near Cape Hatteras’ K
Rosetta Ship 4 March 1817 “lost…crossing the Ocracoke Inlet bar” K
Emperor of Russia Ship 18 March 1817 “near Currituck Inlet” K
John Adams American merchantman 19 May 1817 “on Cape Hatteras” K
Voucher Ship 19 November 1817 Chicamacomico A
William Carlton American merchantman 15 May 1818 [or 22 May] Kill Devil Hills KQ
Georgia English brig 15 July 1818 Currituck Inlet K
(2) Unknown American merchantmen 3 October 1818 “wrecked near Cape Hatteras” K
Revenge American sloop January 1819 Currituck Inlet K
Phoenix American schooner 13 May 1819 Cape Hatteras K
Henry American sloop January 1820 Ocracoke Island K
Islington American merchantman 16 March 1820 Cape Hatteras K
Horatio American ship April 1820 “on Diamond Shoals” K
Unknown 125-ton English merchantman September 1821 “at Cape Hatteras” K
Charles K. Mallory American merchantman 10 September 1821 “on Cape Hatteras” K
Martha English merchantman 1821 Currituck Sands K
Nereus Ship 1 January 1822 “totally lost…on Cape Hatteras” K
Enterprise Schooner 27 October 1822 New Inlet ACK
Peter Francisco American ship 7 October 1823 “Bodies Island” K

VESSEL NAME TYPE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE LOSS DATE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE SHIPWRECK LOCATION REFERENCE
Caroline du Nord French merchantman 19 January 1824 Ocracoke Inlet bar K
Susan American schooner 1 June 1824 Ocracoke Inlet bar K
Emulous American schooner 22 January 1825 Off Kitty Hawk E
Diomede American schooner 23 January 1825 Kitty Hawk K
Washington American ship 24 January 1825 Ocracoke Island K
Nancy American ship 21 February 1825 Ocracoke Inlet Bar K
Horam American merchantman 6 April 1825 Ocracoke Inlet Bar K
(25+) Unknown Ships 4 June 1825 “wrecked north of Ocracoke Inlet” K
Harvest Schooner 18 November 1825 Bodie Island ACK
Victory American schooner December 1825 Kitty Hawk K
Louisa Matilda Packet 24 August 1827 On Bodie Island E
Belle Packet 15 August 1836 On Bodie Island EF
William Gibbons Steamer 10 October 1836 New Inlet/Bodie Island AE
Victory Schooner 6 February 1837 Bodie Island A
Aurora Schooner June 1837 Ocracoke Bar F
Hunter Schooner 19 August 1837 Kitty Hawk E
Alhambra Schooner 26 August 1837 Bodie Island AEF
Enterprise Brig 9 October 1837 Bodie Island A
Milledgeville Packet 30 August 1839 Chicamacomico A
William J. Watson Schooner 15 November 1840 Bodie Island A
Alonzo Schooner 24 August 1841 Currituck Beach E
American Trader Schooner 24 August 1841 Currituck Beach E
Astoria Bark 29 January 1842 Hatteras Inlet F
Trident Schooner 14 June 1842 Bodie Island AC
Kilgore Brig 24 August 1842 On Currituck Beach E
Marion Brig 4 November 1842 Bodie Island AE
William Taylor Brig 20 October 1843 Bodie Island CD
Danube Schooner 14 May 1844 Bodie Island E
C.C. Thorn Schooner 2 June 1846 New Inlet A
Antilla Schooner 6 November 1846 Nags Head EF
R.W. Brown Schooner 11 December 1848 New Inlet AD
Evergreen Schooner 9 January 1849 Currituck Beach E
Franklin Steamer 14 September 1850 Currituck E
Belle Brig July 1850 Diamond Shoals F
America Side-wheel steamer 29 January 1851 Off Cape Hatteras F
P.B. Savery Schooner 11 August 1851 Chicamacomico A
Magnolia Schooner 3 December 1852 Chicamacomico A
Henrietta Pierce Schooner 16 January 1853 Kitty Hawk E
Augustus Moore [or Augusta Moore] Schooner 15 April 1853 Kitty Hawk EFQ
Bladen McLaughlin Steamer 6 May 1853 Kitty Hawk EF
Albemarle Brig 7 September 1853 Off Hatteras F
Rio Schooner December 1853 Bodie Island AC

VESSEL NAME TYPE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE LOSS DATE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE SHIPWRECK LOCATION REFERENCE
A. S. Willers Schooner September 1857 Off Cape Hatteras F
Baltic Schooner November 1857 Currituck Beach E
Atlanta Steam side wheel 1 March 1858 Bodie Island, “Body Island” EF
Amanda Coons Brig 11 November 1858 Currituck Beach E
Charles Schooner November 1859 Off Nags Head E
Lady Whidbee Schooner 17 January 1860 New Inlet A
Black Squall Brig 8 April 1861 Ocracroke F
B. T. Martin Brig 24 July 1861 Chicamacomico AF
Oriental Union Transport 8 May 1862 Bodie Island ACE
Volant Brig September 1862 New Inlet A
Acton Schooner 9 September 1862 “Kill Devil Hills (ashore)” Q
USS Monitor Ironclad steamer December 1862 16 miles SSE of the Cape Hatteras Light in 225 feet of water FO
Vera Cruz Steamer 12 April 1866 Bodie Island E
King Fisher Steamship November 1866 “about six miles south of Hatteras” I
Martha Schooner 10 January 1867 Currituck Beach E
Alfred Thomas Schooner 10 March 1867 Chicamacomico AC
Quick Brig March 1867 Oregon Inlet ABCD
Adamantine Schooner November 1867 Bodie Island/Inlet AEF
Alliance Steamer 4 March 1869 Off Hatteras Inlet F
Ezra Bark September 1869 Bodie Island AC
Eagle Steamer 4 March 1870 Bodie Island ACE
Kensington Steamer 27 January 1871 Chicamacomico A
Harriet N. Rogers Schooner 15 January 1873 Bodie Island ACE
Annie McFarland Brig 30 January 1873 Currituck Beach E
William Schooner 6 February 1873 Chicamacomico A
Ariadne Steam screw 7 February 1873 Oregon Inlet F
Waltham Brig 4 May 1874 Bodie Island ABC
J. Means Schooner 12 October 1874 Bodie Island AE
Blaisdell Schooner May 1875 Off Cape Hatteras F
Mary H. Westcott Schooner 25 June 1875 Oregon Inlet BCD
Harvest Schooner 17 November 1875 Off Nags Head E
J.H. Lockwood Schooner 20 November 1876 Chicamacomico AE
America Bark 24 December 1876 Chicamacomico AEF
Iona Schooner 9 April 1877 Chicamacomico A
Benjamin W. Robinson Schooner 10 April 1877 Chicamacomico AF
Edward J. Hearaty Wooden Schooner 10 April 1877 Kitty Hawk LSS, N 5 miles Q
Hattie L. Fuller Schooner 13 April 1877 Oregon Inlet ABCD
Western Star Schooner 11 September 1877 Bodie Inlet [or Kitty Hawk LSS, N 12 miles] AQ
Huron Steam screw 24 November 1877 “short distance offshore from Nags Head” EN
Success Bark 15 January 1879 Bodie Inlet AC
M&E Henderson Schooner 30 November 1879 [or 3 December 1879] Pea Island [or Kitty Hawk LSS, S 2 miles] AQ
Benjamin Dickerson Bark 18 October 1880 Off Cape Hatteras F

VESSEL NAME TYPE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE LOSS DATE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE SHIPWRECK LOCATION REFERENCE
A. B. Goodman Schooner 4 April 1881 Creed Hill Station-Diamond Shoals F
Thomas J. Lancaster Schooner 5 October 1881 New Inlet A
Resolute Steamer 1881 Oregon Inlet D
Mary L. Vankirk Schooner 5 February 1882 New Inlet A
Unqua Sloop 15 August 1882 Oregon Inlet D
Angela Italian bark 4 March 1883 ¼ m. E of northern end of Kitty Hawk Beach EF
Luola Murchison Schooner 3 October 1883 Kitty Hawk EQ
Florence Schooner 5 January 1884 Chicamacomico A
A. F. Crockett Schooner 7 February 1885 Ocracoke F
Ella May Sloop 8 August 1885 Oregon Inlet BCD
Jennie Beasley Schooner 26 January 1886 Currituck Inlet E
Charles Schooner 23 August 1887 Oregon Inlet BCD
Annchen Barge 18 July 1888 Off Cape Hatteras F
Allie R. Chester Schooner 20 January 1889 Outer edge of Diamond Shoals F
Josie Troop Bark 22/23 February 1889 Chicamacomico AE
Hattie Lollies Schooner 7 April 1889 Nags Head E
Francis E. Waters American schooner 23 October 1889 Nags Head N
Lizzie S. Haynes Schooner 24 October 1889 Pea Island/Bodie Island* ABCE*
Annie E. Blackman Schooner 24 October 1889 New Inlet A
Sue Williams Schooner 22 March 1890 Chicamacomico A
Blanche Schooner 18 December 1890 Ocracoke Inlet F
Dudley Farlin Schooner 26 December 1890 Bodie Island E
J.W. Gaskill Schooner 16 February 1891 Pea Island AE
Strathairly Steamer 24 March 1891 Chicamacomico AN
Irene Thayer Schooner 19 November 1892 Oregon Inlet ABCD
Ravenwood Barkentine 13 October 1893 Chicamacomico AD
Florence C. Magee Schooner 26 February 1894 Bodie Island AC
A. P. Richardson Schooner 26 September 1894 Ocracoke F
Laura Nelson Schooner 30 March 1895 Bodie Island AE
Addie Henry Schooner 14 April 1895 Ocracoke F
J. W. Dresser American Barkentine 23 July 1895 “outer Diamond Shoal” M
Emma C. Cotton Schooner 27 December 1895 Pea Island AC
James Woodall Steamer 12 January 1896 New Inlet A
Maggie J. Lawrence Schooner 10 February 1896 Pea Island ACE
E.S. Newman Schooner 11 October 1896 Pea Island E
Mathilda Ship 27 October 1897 Bodie Island A
Samuel W. Hall Schooner 24 December 1897 Chicamacomico A
Samuel W. Tilton Schooner 17 February 1898 Chicamacomico A
Milton Schooner 27 April 1898 Bodie Island AC
George C. Fessenden Schooner 27 April 1898 Chicamacomico A
June Sloop 11 August 1899 Oregon Inlet ABCD
Minnie Berge Schooner 18 August 1899 Chicamacomico A

VESSEL NAME TYPE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE LOSS DATE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE SHIPWRECK LOCATION REFERENCE
Ariosto Schooner 24 December 1899 “3 miles south of Hatteras Inlet” F
Jane C. Harris Schooner 25 February 1900 Oregon Inlet ABCD
William H. Shubert Schooner 16 February 1903 Bodie Island A
J.F. Becker Schooner 26 April 1903 Oregon Inlet ABCD
Benjamin M. Wallace Schooner 26 March 1904 Chicamacomico AF
Montana Schooner 11 December 1904 Pea Island AC
Jennie Lockwood Schooner 13 February 1906 Pea Island ACE
Addie Morrill Barkentine 3 October 1907 Cape Hatteras F
Bluefields Iron steam screw 4 January 1908 Cape Hatteras F
Flora Rogers Schooner 23 October 1908 Bodie Island AC
Governor Ames Schooner 13 December 1909 Chicamacomico A
Charles J. Dumas Schooner 26/27 December 1911 Pea Island ACE
Annie F. Kimball Schooner 8 January 1912 Cape Hatteras F
Richard F.C. Hartle Schooner 2 September 1913 Chicamacomico A
Helen H. Benedict Schooner 6 February 1914 6.5 miles N Bodie Island Light E
George N. Reed Schooner 20 January 1915 Pea Island AC
Alice Murphy Schooner 3 April 1915 Cape Hatteras F
Josephine [The Josephine] Wooden Schooner 3 April 1915 ¾ mile S Kill Devil Hill Lightship [or KDH USCG Station] EQ
Hattie George Steam screw 29 June 1918 Oregon Inlet BD
Nordhav Bark 17 September 1918 Off Bodie Island A
Gracie D. Chambers Schooner 13 February 1919 Currituck Beach E
Black Hawk Yacht 6 November 1919 Oregon Inlet AC
Explorer Tugboat 12 December 1919 200 yds. Off Nags Head Pier N
Louisa M. Schooner 8 December 1920 Off Currituck light E
Laura A. Barnes Schooner June 1921 Bodie Island ACEN
I. C. White Steam screw 21 January 1922 Off Bodie Island E
Blanche C. Pendleton Schooner 21 January 1922 Off Bodie Island EF
Agawam Gas yacht 16 March 1922 NE of Diamond Shoal Lightship F
Dorothea L. Brinkman Schooner 22 March 1924 Oregon Inlet ABCDEL
Irma Schooner 29 April 1925 Bodie Island E
Isabella Parmenter Schooner 1 November 1925 Chicamacomico A
Beatrice Gas yacht 27 January 1927 Cape Hatteras F
Adelaide Day Schooner 8 November 1927 Off Cape Hatteras F
Kyzikes [or Kyzickes] Greek? 4 December 1927 1.5 miles N Kill Devil Hills CG station F
Bainbridge Schooner 4 February 1929 Nags Head F
Brainbridge Schooner 5 February 1929 Nags Head E
Anna May Oil screw trawler 9 December 1931 Off Diamond Shoals F
St. Rita Oil screw 13 January 1932 Kitty Hawk Q
Glory Steamer 26 August 1933 Off Nags Head E
Blink Norwegian registry 11 February 1942 Off Cape Hatteras F
Anna R. Heidritter 4-masted schooner 2 March 1942 Off Ocracoke FL
Ceiba Freighter 15 March 1942 Off Nags Head EF

VESSEL NAME TYPE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE LOSS DATE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE SHIPWRECK LOCATION REFERENCE
Acme Tanker 17 March 1942 “12 miles, 148˚ from Cape Hatteras Light” F
Dixie Arrow Steel tanker 26 March 1942 25 miles SW of Hatteras Light F
Agra 20 April 1942 Off Cape Hatteras F
U-576 German submarine 15 July 1942 30 miles off Cape Hatteras P
Bluefields American freighter 15 July 1942 30 miles off Cape Hatteras P
Benson H. Riggin Oil screw 3 December 1953 In Ocracoke Inlet F
Miss Pamlico Oil screw 20 June 1960 Oregon Inlet BCD
Sarah J. Oil screw trawler 14 January 1961 Oregon Inlet BD
Townsend April 1962 Oregon Inlet BD
W.J. Townsend Oil Screw 15 December 1962 Oregon Inlet BCD
Lois Joyce Trawler 12 December 1982 Oregon Inlet CD
USS LST-471 WW-II ship Scrapped-lost in transit Near Rodanthe N
USS LST-292 WW-II ship Scrapped-lost in transit 1.4 miles S of Rodanthe pier N

Shipwreck Inventory References:

A=(Stick 1952:244-257)
B=(Dames and Moore 1979:9-12)
C=(North Carolina Department of Transportation 1989: C5-C6)
D=(North Carolina Division of Archives and History, UAB Site File)
E=(Mitchell 1975)
F=(Berman 1972)
G=(National Park Service n.d.a; n.d.b.; n.d.c., n.d.d.)
H=(North Carolina Humanities Council)
I=(Flake’s Bulletin 5 December 1866:11 [Galveston TX])
J=(Watts 1985)
K=(Marx 1983)
L=(Burgess 1978)
M=(USLSS 1897)
N=(NOAA 2010)
O=(Watts 1985)
P=(The Washington Post, 21 October 2014)
Q=(Charles 2004)

Attachment B: Borrow Area A Sonar Target Table

Target X
 Coordinate Y
 Coordinate Assessment Anomaly
 Association
SSS
 A
 001 3017502.427 851974.1759 Bottom
 surface
 feature No
SSS
 A
 002 3020555.238 852726.1212 Posssible
 pipe
 or
 cable No
SSS
 A
 003 3022241.534 850169.7206 Small
 single
 object No
SSS
 A
 004 3021100.723 841822.3953 Posssible
 pipe
 or
 cable No
SSS
 A
 005 3018938.652 842158.7049 Posssible
 pipe
 or
 cable No
SSS
 A
 006 3020700.7 845023.2802 Posssible
 pipe
 or
 cable No
SSS
 A
 007 3018606.349 843592.662 Posssible
 pipe
 or
 cable No
SSS
 A
 008 3021760.761 849979.1769 Botton
 surface
 feature No
SSS
 A
 009 3019465.545 850917.5342 Posssible
 pipe
 or
 cable No
SSS
 A
 010 3016791.406 851692.8774 Bottom
 surface
 features No
Attachment C: Borrow Area A Sonar Target Reports

Target Info User Entered Info
Generated on 3/13/2015 2:55:57 PM
Target Image
Borrow Area A Sonar Target Reports
SSS A 001
● Water Depth: 38.45 US ft
● Sonar Time at Target: 10/20/2014 2:18:10 PM
36.0423936597 -75.5576635638 (WGS84)
● Click Position
36.0422240640 -75.5580466605 (NAD27LL)
36.0423936597 -75.5576635638 (LocalLL)
● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014
\Sidescan\10.20.2014
\OBII_A_14_Line_317_SW_2.jsf
● Ping Number: 90227
● Map Projection: NC83F
(X) 3017502.43 (Y) 851974.18 (Projected
Coordinates)
● Range to target: 71.33 US ft
● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft
● Heading: 258.900 Degrees
● Event Number: 0
● Line Name: OBII_A_14_Line_317_SW_2
● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000
Dimensions and attributes
● Target Height: 0.00 US ft
● Target Width: 21.21 US ft
● Target Length: 14.87 US ft
● Target Shadow: 17.16 US ft
● Mag Anomaly: No
● Avoidance Area:
● Classification1:
● Classification2:
● Area:
● Block:
● Description: Bottom surface feature
SSS A 002
● Water Depth: 33.64 US ft
● Sonar Time at Target: 10/20/2014 4:00:43 PM
36.0441668499 -75.5472553984 (WGS84)
● Click Position
36.0439970507 -75.5476388500 (NAD27LL)
36.0441668499 -75.5472553984 (LocalLL)
● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014
\Sidescan\10.20.2014
\OBII_A_14_Line_327_NE.jsf
● Ping Number: 156438
● Map Projection: NC83F
(X) 3020555.24 (Y) 852726.12 (Projected
Coordinates)
● Range to target: 223.60 US ft
● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft
● Heading: 41.190 Degrees
● Event Number: 0
● Line Name: OBII_A_14_Line_327_NE
● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000
Dimensions and attributes
● Target Height: 0.00 US ft
● Target Width: 2.02 US ft
● Target Length: 27.69 US ft
● Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft
● Mag Anomaly: No
● Avoidance Area:
● Classification1:
● Classification2:
● Area:
● Block:
● Description: Possible piece of pipe or cable
SSS A 003
● Water Depth: 36.34 US ft
● Sonar Time at Target: 10/21/2014 11:46:25 AM
36.0369873642 -75.5418560935 (WGS84)
● Click Position
36.0368172820 -75.5422399870 (NAD27LL)
36.0369873642 -75.5418560935 (LocalLL)
● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014
\Sidescan\10.21.2014
\OBII_A_14_Line_354_SW.jsf
● Ping Number: 111699
● Map Projection: NC83F
(X) 3022241.53 (Y) 850169.72 (Projected
Coordinates)
● Range to target: 132.91 US ft
● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft
● Heading: 255.090 Degrees
● Event Number: 0
● Line Name: OBII_A_14_Line_354_SW
● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000
Dimensions and attributes
● Target Height: 0.00 US ft
● Target Width: 4.87 US ft
● Target Length: 12.82 US ft
● Target Shadow: 7.20 US ft
● Mag Anomaly: No
● Avoidance Area:
● Classification1:
● Classification2:
● Area:
● Block:
● Description: Small single object
SSS A 004
● Water Depth: 50.83 US ft
● Sonar Time at Target: 10/22/2014 9:40:18 AM
36.0141797750 -75.5466941568 (WGS84)
● Click Position
36.0140093105 -75.5470785881 (NAD27LL)
36.0141797750 -75.5466941568 (LocalLL)
● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014
\Sidescan\10.22.2014
\OBII_A_14_Line_399_SW.jsf
● Ping Number: 29897
● Map Projection: NC83F
(X) 3021100.72 (Y) 841822.40 (Projected
Coordinates)
● Range to target: 112.76 US ft
● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft
● Heading: 278.500 Degrees
● Event Number: 0
● Line Name: OBII_A_14_Line_399_SW
● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000
Dimensions and attributes
● Target Height: 0.00 US ft
● Target Width: 4.36 US ft
● Target Length: 22.60 US ft
● Target Shadow: 11.59 US ft
● Mag Anomaly: No
● Avoidance Area:
● Classification1:
● Classification2:
● Area:
● Block:
● Description: Possible pipe or cable
SSS A 005
● Water Depth: 58.21 US ft
● Sonar Time at Target: 10/25/2014 11:06:51 AM
36.0153094347 -75.5539608140 (WGS84)
● Click Position
36.0151391737 -75.5543449291 (NAD27LL)
36.0153094347 -75.5539608140 (LocalLL)
● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014
\Sidescan\10.25.2014
\OBII_A_14_Line_386_SW.jsf
● Ping Number: 103006
● Map Projection: NC83F
(X) 3018938.65 (Y) 842158.70 (Projected
Coordinates)
● Range to target: 196.25 US ft
● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft
● Heading: 261.900 Degrees
● Event Number: 0
● Line Name: OBII_A_14_Line_386_SW
● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000
Dimensions and attributes
● Target Height: 0.00 US ft
● Target Width: 4.09 US ft
● Target Length: 31.10 US ft
● Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft
● Mag Anomaly: No
● Avoidance Area:
● Classification1:
● Classification2:
● Area:
● Block:
● Description: Possible pipe, wire or cable
SSS A 006
● Water Depth: 65.42 US ft
● Sonar Time at Target: 10/25/2014 12:33:10 PM
36.0230056991 -75.5476696044 (WGS84)
● Click Position
36.0228354503 -75.5480537160 (NAD27LL)
36.0230056991 -75.5476696044 (LocalLL)
● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014
\Sidescan\10.25.2014
\OBII_A_14_Line_375_SW.jsf
● Ping Number: 151394
● Map Projection: NC83F
(X) 3020700.70 (Y) 845023.28 (Projected
Coordinates)
● Range to target: 165.54 US ft
● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft
● Heading: 259.190 Degrees
● Event Number: 0
● Line Name: OBII_A_14_Line_375_SW
● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000
Dimensions and attributes
● Target Height: 0.00 US ft
● Target Width: 0.00 US ft
● Target Length: 0.00 US ft
● Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft
● Mag Anomaly: No
● Avoidance Area:
● Classification1:
● Classification2:
● Area:
● Block:
● Description: Possible wire or cable
SSS A 007
● Water Depth: 62.01 US ft
● Sonar Time at Target: 10/25/2014 1:21:40 PM
36.0192779111 -75.5549155232 (WGS84)
● Click Position
36.0191077583 -75.5552994736 (NAD27LL)
36.0192779111 -75.5549155232 (LocalLL)
● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014
\Sidescan\10.25.2014
\OBII_A_14_Line_420_SW.jsf
● Ping Number: 178587
● Map Projection: NC83F
(X) 3018606.35 (Y) 843592.66 (Projected
Coordinates)
● Range to target: 165.54 US ft
● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft
● Heading: 256.500 Degrees
● Event Number: 0
● Line Name: OBII_A_14_Line_420_SW
● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000
Dimensions and attributes
● Target Height: 0.00 US ft
● Target Width: 1.57 US ft
● Target Length: 30.85 US ft
● Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft
● Mag Anomaly: No
● Avoidance Area:
● Classification1:
● Classification2:
● Area:
● Block:
● Description: Possible wire or cable
SSS A 008
● Water Depth: 41.69 US ft
● Sonar Time at Target: 10/25/2014 6:24:12 PM
36.0365102375 -75.5435036219 (WGS84)
● Click Position
36.0363401837 -75.5438874657 (NAD27LL)
36.0365102375 -75.5435036219 (LocalLL)
● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014
\Sidescan\10.25.2014
\OBII_A_14_Line_351_SW.jsf
● Ping Number: 348186
● Map Projection: NC83F
(X) 3021760.76 (Y) 849979.18 (Projected
Coordinates)
● Range to target: 93.09 US ft
● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft
● Heading: 259.800 Degrees
● Event Number: 0
● Line Name: OBII_A_14_Line_351_SW
● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000
Dimensions and attributes
● Target Height: 0.00 US ft
● Target Width: 58.12 US ft
● Target Length: 101.53 US ft
● Target Shadow: 17.29 US ft
● Mag Anomaly: No
● Avoidance Area:
● Classification1:
● Classification2:
● Area:
● Block:
● Description: Bottom surface feature
SSS A 009
● Water Depth: 26.67 US ft
● Sonar Time at Target: 10/26/2014 12:30:45 PM
36.0393056331 -75.5511515781 (WGS84)
● Click Position
36.0391358195 -75.5515350315 (NAD27LL)
36.0393056331 -75.5511515781 (LocalLL)
● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014
\Sidescan\10.26.2014
\OBII_A_14_Line_415_SW.jsf
● Ping Number: 159923
● Map Projection: NC83F
(X) 3019465.54 (Y) 850917.53 (Projected
Coordinates)
● Range to target: 160.74 US ft
● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft
● Heading: 256.590 Degrees
● Event Number: 0
● Line Name: OBII_A_14_Line_415_SW
● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000
Dimensions and attributes
● Target Height: 0.00 US ft
● Target Width: 0.58 US ft
● Target Length: 32.69 US ft
● Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft
● Mag Anomaly: No
● Avoidance Area:
● Classification1:
● Classification2:
● Area:
● Block:
● Description: Possible pipe or wire
SSS A 010
● Water Depth: 42.73 US ft
● Sonar Time at Target: 10/26/2014 3:21:00 PM
36.0416890795 -75.5601000736 (WGS84)
● Click Position
36.0415195256 -75.5604830968 (NAD27LL)
36.0416890795 -75.5601000736 (LocalLL)
● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014
\Sidescan\10.26.2014
\OBII_A_14_Line_316_SW.jsf
● Ping Number: 255368
● Map Projection: NC83F
(X) 3016791.41 (Y) 851692.88 (Projected
Coordinates)
● Range to target: 128.59 US ft
● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft
● Heading: 255.500 Degrees
● Event Number: 0
● Line Name: OBII_A_14_Line_316_SW
● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000
Dimensions and attributes
● Target Height: 0.00 US ft
● Target Width: 14.73 US ft
● Target Length: 35.23 US ft
● Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft
● Mag Anomaly: No
● Avoidance Area:
● Classification1:
● Classification2:
● Area:
● Block:
● Description: Bottom surface features
Attachment D: Borrow Area A Magnetic Anomaly Table

Anomaly X
 Coordinate Y
 Coordinate Line
 #Target
 #Signature Intensity Duration Assessment Avoidance
 Buffers
315-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐6.5g-­‐56.7f 3016556.2 851446.4 315 1 Dipolar 6.5g 56.7f Small
 single
 object No
318-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐8g-­‐38.6f 3017024.6 851377.7 318 1 Dipolar 8g 38.6f Small
 single
 object No
331-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐6.9g-­‐93.6f 3020502 852290.9 331 1 Dipolar 6.9g 93.6f Small
 single
 object No
341-­‐1-­‐nm-­‐5.7g-­‐40f 3021091.5 851133 341 1 Negative
 Monopolar 5.7g 40f Small
 single
 object No
352-­‐1-­‐nm-­‐21.3g-­‐398f 3019395.6 847949.9 352 1 Negative
 Monopolar 21.3g 398f Moderate
 object(s)Buffer
 B
354-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐27g-­‐113.6f 3017150.3 845576 354 1 Dipolar 27g 113.6f Moderate
 single
 object No
360-­‐1-­‐pm-­‐19.3g-­‐102.1f 3016934.9 844504.3 360 1 Positive
 Monopolar 19.3g 102.1f Moderate
 single
 object Cluster
 Buffer
 A
360-­‐2-­‐nm-­‐70.8g-­‐122.8f 3017126.4 844674.2 360 2 Negative
 Monopolar 70.8g 122.8f Moderate
 single
 object Cluster
 Buffer
 A
366-­‐1-­‐pm-­‐101.1g-­‐136.2f 3018006.3 844359 366 1 Positive
 Monopolar 101.1g 136.2f Moderate
 object(s)Buffer
 C
Attachment E: Borrow Area C Sonar Target Table

Target X
 Coordinate Y
 Coordinate Assessment Anomaly
 Association
SSS
 C
 001 2982383.872 909862.2835 Small
 single
 object No
SSS
 C
 002 2981223.849 909594.9132 Small
 single
 object(s)No
SSS
 C
 003 2983408.851 906895.8117 Bottom
 surface
 feature 555-­‐2
 Possible
SSS
 C
 004 2983032.328 905958.8844 Bottom
 surface
 feature 564-­‐1
 Possible
SSS
 C
 005 2982110.086 904810.504 Small
 single
 object 572-­‐2
 Possible
SSS
 C
 006 2982401.932 909813.5558 Small
 single
 object No
SSS
 C
 007 2983181.039 907410.2336 Small
 single
 object(s)No
SSS
 C
 008 2980809.053 904685.6529 Small
 single
 object 574-­‐1
 Possible
SSS
 C
 009 2982121.612 904865.6474 Bottom
 surface
 feature 572-­‐2
 Possible
Attachment F: Borrow Area C Sonar Target Reports

Target Info User Entered Info
Generated on 3/13/2015 2:57:38 PM
Target Image
Borrow Area C Sonar Target Reports
SSS C 001
● Water Depth: 40.94 US ft
● Sonar Time at Target: 10/28/2014 5:38:45 PM
36.2046064363 -75.6698160347 (WGS84)
● Click Position
36.2044419671 -75.6701887817 (NAD27LL)
36.2046064363 -75.6698160347 (LocalLL)
● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014
\Sidescan\10.28.2014\OBII_C_14_Line_526_W.jsf
● Ping Number: 499260
● Map Projection: NC83F
(X) 2982383.87 (Y) 909862.28 (Projected
Coordinates)
● Range to target: 119.64 US ft
● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft
● Heading: 291.800 Degrees
● Event Number: 0
● Line Name: OBII_C_14_Line_526_W
● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000
Dimensions and attributes
● Target Height: 0.00 US ft
● Target Width: 1.98 US ft
● Target Length: 9.61 US ft
● Target Shadow: 1.65 US ft
● Mag Anomaly: No
● Avoidance Area:
● Classification1:
● Classification2:
● Area:
● Block:
● Description: Small single object
SSS C 002
● Water Depth: 50.67 US ft
● Sonar Time at Target: 10/28/2014 5:09:03 PM
36.2039792346 -75.6737758141 (WGS84)
● Click Position
36.2038148154 -75.6741484038 (NAD27LL)
36.2039792346 -75.6737758141 (LocalLL)
● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014
\Sidescan\10.28.2014\OBII_C_14_Line_532_E.jsf
● Ping Number: 475085
● Map Projection: NC83F
(X) 2981223.85 (Y) 909594.91 (Projected
Coordinates)
● Range to target: 156.10 US ft
● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft
● Heading: 88.100 Degrees
● Event Number: 0
● Line Name: OBII_C_14_Line_532_E
● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000
Dimensions and attributes
● Target Height: 0.00 US ft
● Target Width: 10.15 US ft
● Target Length: 12.86 US ft
● Target Shadow: 7.60 US ft
● Mag Anomaly: No
● Avoidance Area:
● Classification1:
● Classification2:
● Area:
● Block:
● Description: Small single object(s)
SSS C 003
● Water Depth: 42.75 US ft
● Sonar Time at Target: 10/28/2014 2:59:52 PM
36.1963681033 -75.6666816050 (WGS84)
● Click Position
36.1962034578 -75.6670547941 (NAD27LL)
36.1963681033 -75.6666816050 (LocalLL)
● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014
\Sidescan\10.28.2014\OBII_C_14_Line_556_E.jsf
● Ping Number: 369891
● Map Projection: NC83F
(X) 2983408.85 (Y) 906895.81 (Projected
Coordinates)
● Range to target: 134.99 US ft
● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft
● Heading: 90.000 Degrees
● Event Number: 0
● Line Name: OBII_C_14_Line_556_E
● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000
Dimensions and attributes
● Target Height: 0.00 US ft
● Target Width: 10.05 US ft
● Target Length: 39.37 US ft
● Target Shadow: 7.31 US ft
● Mag Anomaly: 555-2
● Avoidance Area:
● Classification1:
● Classification2:
● Area:
● Block:
● Description: Bottom surface feature. Possible
association with Anomaly 555-2
SSS C 004
● Water Depth: 46.71 US ft
● Sonar Time at Target: 10/28/2014 2:10:53 PM
36.1938306654 -75.6680634452 (WGS84)
● Click Position
36.1936660016 -75.6684366642 (NAD27LL)
36.1938306654 -75.6680634452 (LocalLL)
● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014
\Sidescan\10.28.2014\OBII_C_14_Line_564_E.jsf
● Ping Number: 330006
● Map Projection: NC83F
(X) 2983032.33 (Y) 905958.88 (Projected
Coordinates)
● Range to target: 93.73 US ft
● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft
● Heading: 85.100 Degrees
● Event Number: 0
● Line Name: OBII_C_14_Line_564_E
● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000
Dimensions and attributes
● Target Height: 0.00 US ft
● Target Width: 3.37 US ft
● Target Length: 42.90 US ft
● Target Shadow: 5.37 US ft
● Mag Anomaly: 564-1
● Avoidance Area:
● Classification1:
● Classification2:
● Area:
● Block:
● Description: Bottom surface feature possibly
associated with Anomaly 564-1.
SSS C 005
● Water Depth: 58.39 US ft
● Sonar Time at Target: 10/28/2014 1:13:17 PM
36.1907629729 -75.6713174618 (WGS84)
● Click Position
36.1905983124 -75.6716906460 (NAD27LL)
36.1907629729 -75.6713174618 (LocalLL)
● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014
\Sidescan\10.28.2014\OBII_C_14_Line_572_E.jsf
● Ping Number: 283093
● Map Projection: NC83F
(X) 2982110.09 (Y) 904810.50 (Projected
Coordinates)
● Range to target: 84.45 US ft
● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft
● Heading: 94.290 Degrees
● Event Number: 0
● Line Name: OBII_C_14_Line_572_E
● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000
Dimensions and attributes
● Target Height: 0.00 US ft
● Target Width: 3.77 US ft
● Target Length: 9.67 US ft
● Target Shadow: 6.85 US ft
● Mag Anomaly: 572-2
● Avoidance Area:
● Classification1:
● Classification2:
● Area:
● Block:
● Description: Small single object possible
association with anomaly 572-2.
SSS C 006
● Water Depth: 50.57 US ft
● Sonar Time at Target: 10/27/2014 1:23:36 PM
36.2044710003 -75.6697603982 (WGS84)
● Click Position
36.2043065283 -75.6701331527 (NAD27LL)
36.2044710003 -75.6697603982 (LocalLL)
● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014
\Sidescan\10.27.2014\OBII_C_14_Line_527_E.jsf
● Ping Number: 134181
● Map Projection: NC83F
(X) 2982401.93 (Y) 909813.56 (Projected
Coordinates)
● Range to target: 93.09 US ft
● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft
● Heading: 98.390 Degrees
● Event Number: 0
● Line Name: OBII_C_14_Line_527_E
● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000
Dimensions and attributes
● Target Height: 0.00 US ft
● Target Width: 1.43 US ft
● Target Length: 6.87 US ft
● Target Shadow: 2.00 US ft
● Mag Anomaly: No
● Avoidance Area:
● Classification1:
● Classification2:
● Area:
● Block:
● Description: Small single object.
SSS C 007
● Water Depth: 36.09 US ft
● Sonar Time at Target: 10/27/2014 3:33:50 PM
36.1978013537 -75.6673946928 (WGS84)
● Click Position
36.1976367416 -75.6677677976 (NAD27LL)
36.1978013537 -75.6673946928 (LocalLL)
● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014
\Sidescan\10.27.2014\OBII_C_14_Line_551_E.jsf
● Ping Number: 240226
● Map Projection: NC83F
(X) 2983181.04 (Y) 907410.23 (Projected
Coordinates)
● Range to target: 66.54 US ft
● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft
● Heading: 83.100 Degrees
● Event Number: 0
● Line Name: OBII_C_14_Line_551_E
● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000
Dimensions and attributes
● Target Height: 0.00 US ft
● Target Width: 6.28 US ft
● Target Length: 5.42 US ft
● Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft
● Mag Anomaly: No
● Avoidance Area:
● Classification1:
● Classification2:
● Area:
● Block:
● Description: Small single object(s).
SSS C 008
● Water Depth: 51.54 US ft
● Sonar Time at Target: 10/27/2014 6:00:21 PM
36.1905399486 -75.6757379430 (WGS84)
● Click Position
36.1903753543 -75.6761109364 (NAD27LL)
36.1905399486 -75.6757379430 (LocalLL)
● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014
\Sidescan\10.27.2014\OBII_C_14_Line_573_W.jsf
● Ping Number: 359540
● Map Projection: NC83F
(X) 2980809.05 (Y) 904685.65 (Projected
Coordinates)
● Range to target: 95.96 US ft
● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft
● Heading: 291.900 Degrees
● Event Number: 0
● Line Name: OBII_C_14_Line_573_W
● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000
Dimensions and attributes
● Target Height: 0.00 US ft
● Target Width: 2.03 US ft
● Target Length: 4.51 US ft
● Target Shadow: 10.83 US ft
● Mag Anomaly: 574-1
● Avoidance Area:
● Classification1:
● Classification2:
● Area:
● Block:
● Description: Small single object possible
association with anomaly 574-1.
SSS C 009
● Water Depth: 46.11 US ft
● Sonar Time at Target: 10/27/2014 5:44:34 PM
36.1909132975 -75.6712721613 (WGS84)
● Click Position
36.1907486386 -75.6716453420 (NAD27LL)
36.1909132975 -75.6712721613 (LocalLL)
● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014
\Sidescan\10.27.2014\OBII_C_14_Line_571_E.jsf
● Ping Number: 346686
● Map Projection: NC83F
(X) 2982121.61 (Y) 904865.65 (Projected
Coordinates)
● Range to target: 125.71 US ft
● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft
● Heading: 95.290 Degrees
● Event Number: 0
● Line Name: OBII_C_14_Line_571_E
● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000
Dimensions and attributes
● Target Height: 0.00 US ft
● Target Width: 6.78 US ft
● Target Length: 24.75 US ft
● Target Shadow: 8.19 US ft
● Mag Anomaly: 572-2
● Avoidance Area:
● Classification1:
● Classification2:
● Area:
● Block:
● Description: Bottom surface feature possibly
assoiated with anomaly 572-2.
Attachment G: Borrow Area C Magnetic Anomaly Table

Anomaly X
 Coordinate Y
 Coordinate Line
 #Target
 #Signature Intensity Duration Assessment Avoidance
 Buffers
507-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐5g-­‐115.1f 2982390.7 912045.9 507 1 Dipolar 5g 115.1f Small
 Single
 Object No
509-­‐1-­‐nm-­‐3.4g-­‐62.4f 2983840.7 911869.3 509 1 Negative
 Monopolar 3.4g 62.4f Out
 of
 Area No
511-­‐1-­‐pm-­‐8.3g-­‐102.2f 2981111.2 911652.8 511 1 Positive
 Monopolar 8.3g 102.2f Small
 Single
 Object Buffer
 N
512-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐9.9g-­‐181.7f 2981159.2 911589.3 512 1 Dipolar 9.9g 181.7f Moderate
 Single
 Object Buffer
 N
512-­‐2-­‐dp-­‐32.3g-­‐55.7f 2982153.2 911567.3 512 2 Dipolar 32.3g 55.7f Moderate
 Single
 Object Buffer
 M
513-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐9.2g-­‐181.9f 2981045.9 911452.6 513 1 Dipolar 9.2g 181.9f Moderate
 Single
 Object Buffer
 N
513-­‐2-­‐pm-­‐9.6g-­‐135.6f 2982106.5 911465.4 513 2 Positive
 Monopolar 9.6g 135.6f Moderate
 Object(S)Buffer
 M
514-­‐1-­‐mc-­‐10.7g-­‐235.4f 2980981.8 911359.2 514 1 Multicomponent 10.7g 235.4f Moderate
 Object(S)Buffer
 N
514-­‐2-­‐dp-­‐15.6g-­‐372.2f 2982237.9 911356.7 514 2 Dipolar 15.6g 372.2f Moderate
 Object(S)Buffer
 M
514-­‐3-­‐dp-­‐27.7g-­‐62.4f 2983753 911364 514 3 Dipolar 27.7g 62.4f Moderate
 Single
 Object Buffer
 L
515-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐5.6g-­‐42.4f 2983783.8 911245 515 1 Dipolar 5.6g 42.4f Small
 Single
 Object Buffer
 L
517-­‐1-­‐pm-­‐16.7g-­‐193.9f 2980950.3 910988.2 517 1 Positive
 Monopolar 16.7g 193.9f Moderate
 Object(S)No
517-­‐2-­‐nm-­‐8.3g-­‐145.7f 2981504.7 910993.2 517 2 Negative
 Monopolar 8.3g 145.7f Moderate
 Object(S)No
517-­‐3-­‐pm-­‐5.4g-­‐49.8f 2981996.5 910987.2 517 3 Positive
 Monopolar 5.4g 49.8f Small
 Single
 Object No
521-­‐1-­‐pm-­‐15.4g-­‐104.6f 2980721.2 910593.4 521 1 Positive
 Monopolar 15.4g 104.6f Out
 of
 Area No
523-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐7.4g-­‐61.1f 2983430.2 910404.9 523 1 Dipolar 7.4g 61.1f Small
 Single
 Object No
525-­‐1-­‐nm-­‐10.5g-­‐242.9f 2981068.1 910087.3 525 1 Negative
 Monopolar 10.5g 242.9f Moderate
 Object(S)Buffer
 K
526-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐14.6g-­‐294f 2981029.6 909980.4 526 1 Dipolar 14.6g 294f Moderate
 Single
 Object Buffer
 K
527-­‐1-­‐pm-­‐7.4g-­‐32.6f 2983938.7 909908.7 527 1 Positive
 Monopolar 7.4g 32.6f Small
 Single
 Object No
528-­‐1-­‐mc-­‐9.5g-­‐276.3f 2981603 909812.3 528 1 Multicomponent 9.5g 276.3f Moderate
 Object(S)Buffer
 J
530-­‐1-­‐mc-­‐15g-­‐348.2f 2980910.5 909582.1 530 1 Multicomponent 15g 348.2f Moderate
 Object(S)Buffer
 I
532-­‐1-­‐pm-­‐20.2g-­‐174.3f 2981148.3 909434.8 532 1 Positive
 Monopolar 20.2g 174.3f Moderate
 Single
 Object Buffer
 I
534-­‐1-­‐pm-­‐11.1g-­‐328.2f 2981757.2 909097.7 534 1 Positive
 Monopolar 11.1g 328.2f Moderate
 Single
 Object Buffer
 H
538-­‐1-­‐nm-­‐4.8g-­‐71.5f 2981158.6 908701.2 538 1 Negative
 Monopolar 4.8g 71.5f Small
 Single
 Object No
542-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐10.2g-­‐143.4f 2981134.5 908318.3 542 1 Dipolar 10.2g 143.4f Moderate
 Single
 Object No
542-­‐2-­‐dp-­‐8.3g-­‐88.5f 2981824.6 908313.7 542 2 Dipolar 8.3g 88.5f Small
 Single
 Object No
550-­‐1-­‐nm-­‐6.1g-­‐66.8f 2983669.5 907427.3 550 1 Negative
 Monopolar 6.1g 66.8f Small
 Single
 Object No
551-­‐1-­‐pm-­‐42.7g-­‐53.1f 2984818.2 907354 551 1 Positive
 Monopolar 42.7g 53.1f Out
 of
 Area No
553-­‐1-­‐nm-­‐11.1g-­‐274.6f 2983457.6 907023.9 553 1 Negative
 Monopolar 11.1g 274.6f Moderate
 Object(S)Buffer
 G
555-­‐1-­‐nm-­‐10.4g-­‐196.6f 2980644.2 906851.8 555 1 Negative
 Monopolar 10.4g 196.6f Moderate
 Object(S)Buffer
 F
555-­‐2-­‐dp-­‐29.4g-­‐93.6f 2983497.2 906844.3 555 2 Dipolar 29.4g 93.6f Moderate
 Object(S)Buffer
 G
556-­‐1-­‐nm-­‐11.3g-­‐303.6f 2980586.4 906757.8 556 1 Negative
 Monopolar 11.3g 303.6f Moderate
 Object(S)Buffer
 F
558-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐17.2g-­‐230.2f 2981187.3 906544.4 558 1 Dipolar 17.2g 230.2f Moderate
 Single
 Object No
558-­‐2-­‐nm-­‐6g-­‐69.2f 2983447.4 906543.5 558 2 Negative
 Monopolar 6g 69.2f Small
 Single
 Object No
558-­‐3-­‐dp-­‐4.2g-­‐106.9f 2983666.7 906534.1 558 3 Dipolar 4.2g 106.9f Moderate
 Single
 Object No
560-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐8.2g-­‐214.2f 2982187 906374.6 560 1 Dipolar 8.2g 214.2f Moderate
 Object(s)No
563-­‐1-­‐mc-­‐9.8g-­‐172.4f 2980188.3 905982.7 563 1 Multicomponent 9.8g 172.4f Moderate
 Object(s)No
564-­‐1-­‐nm-­‐7.4g-­‐58.6f 2982940.1 905858.9 564 1 Negative
 Monopolar 7.4g 58.6f Small
 Single
 Object No
565-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐5.3g-­‐82.6f 2981582.4 905660.8 565 1 Dipolar 5.3g 82.6f Small
 Single
 Object No
566-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐13g-­‐78.7f 2981418.4 905558 566 1 Dipolar 13g 78.7f Small
 Single
 Object No
567-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐12.5g-­‐103.1f 2980852.7 905473.9 567 1 Dipolar 12.5g 103.1f Moderate
 Single
 Object Buffer
 E
568-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐14.7g-­‐166.9f 2980836.9 905380.8 568 1 Dipolar 14.7g 166.9f Moderate
 Single
 Object Buffer
 E
568-­‐2-­‐dp-­‐6.6g-­‐162.5f 2981625.8 905380.2 568 2 Dipolar 6.6g 162.5f Moderate
 Object(s)No
569-­‐1-­‐nm-­‐12g-­‐232.9f 2980730.4 905160.4 569 1 Negative
 Monopolar 12g 232.9f Moderate
 Object(s)No
570-­‐1-­‐pm-­‐21.8g-­‐130.9f 2983000.6 905063.1 570 1 Positive
 Monopolar 21.8g 130.9f Moderate
 Object(s)No
571-­‐1-­‐pm-­‐13.9g-­‐78.5f 2984062.3 904988.5 571 1 Positive
 Monopolar 13.9g 78.5f Small
 Single
 Object No
572-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐10.4g-­‐134.6f 2980678 904894.1 572 1 Dipolar 10.4g 134.6f Moderate
 Single
 Object No
572-­‐2-­‐nm-­‐7.4g-­‐43.1f 2981949.6 904894.6 572 2 Negative
 Monopolar 7.4g 43.1f Small
 Single
 Object No
572-­‐3-­‐dp-­‐25.5g-­‐83.8f 2982623.1 904889.1 572 3 Dipolar 25.5g 83.8f Moderate
 Single
 Object No
573-­‐1-­‐pm-­‐10.3g-­‐144.1f 2984282.9 904763.2 573 1 Positive
 Monopolar 10.3g 144.1f Moderate
 Object(s)No
574-­‐1-­‐nm-­‐13.7g-­‐179f 2980732.4 904674.5 574 1 Negative
 Monopolar 13.7g 179f Moderate
 Single
 Object SSS
 C
 008
 Single
 Object
576-­‐1-­‐nm-­‐5.7g-­‐64.6f 2983213.2 904501.4 576 1 Negative
 Monopolar 5.7g 64.6f Small
 Single
 Object No
577-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐15.7g-­‐180.8f 2980869.9 904373.2 577 1 Dipolar 15.7g 180.8f Moderate
 Single
 Object No
580-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐7.1g-­‐48.1f 2983130.7 904002 580 1 Dipolar 7.1g 48.1f Small
 Single
 Object No
581-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐13.2g-­‐217.8f 2979498 903880.4 581 1 Dipolar 13.2g 217.8f Moderate
 Single
 Object No
581-­‐2-­‐dp-­‐16.7g-­‐166f 2980515.5 903882 581 2 Dipolar 16.7g 166f Complex
 Object(s)Buffer
 D
581-­‐3-­‐pm-­‐8.6g-­‐192.1f 2981091.4 903878.7 581 3 Positive
 Monopolar 8.6g 192.1f Moderate
 Object(s)No
582-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐17.3g-­‐169.5f 2980381.6 903782.4 582 1 Dipolar 17.3g 169.5f Complex
 Object(s)Buffer
 D
583-­‐1-­‐nm-­‐9.4g-­‐102.6f 2979328.5 903720.4 583 1 Negative
 Monopolar 9.4g 102.6f Small
 Single
 Object No
583-­‐2-­‐pm-­‐30.7g-­‐100.9f 2983723.2 903710.4 583 2 Positive
 Monopolar 30.7g 100.9f Moderate
 Object(s)
587-­‐1-­‐mc-­‐14.6g-­‐462.2f 2980409.6 903196.5 587 1 Multicomponent 14.6g 462.2f Complex
 Object(s)Buffer
 C
594-­‐1-­‐mc-­‐10.4g-­‐462.9f 2980601.9 903017.5 594 1 Multicomponent 10.4g 462.9f Complex
 Object(s)Buffer
 B
596-­‐1-­‐dp-­‐12.4g-­‐56.4f 2978189.8 902805.6 596 1 Dipolar 12.4g 56.4f Small
 Single
 Object No
600-­‐1-­‐mc-­‐9.5g-­‐165.5f 2978970.2 902417.2 600 1 Multicomponent 9.5g 165.5f Complex
 Object(s)Buffer
 A
601-­‐1-­‐mc-­‐4.8g-­‐108.3f 2978804.6 902241.1 601 1 Multicomponent 4.8g 108.3f Complex
 Object(s)Buffer
 A