2018-2230_Special Condition 32_Memo of JBS Pre-Dredge Analysis including appendices

4700 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 300
,", Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] Fax: [phone]
m o f f a t t& n i c h o l www.moffattnichol.com
MEMORANDUM
To: Greg Currey, US Army Corps of Engineers
Cc: Heather Coats, Division of Coastal Management; Twyla Cheatwood, NOAA Fisheries; David Kelly, Town
of Oak Island, Johnny Martin, Dawn York, and Mark Pirrello, M&N
From: Sam Morrison, Project Manager, M&N
Date: February 14, 2022
Subject: 2021/2022 Oak Island Nourishment Project — SAW 2018-2230 Special Condition #32; Preliminary
Results of Pre -Dredge Survey of Jay Bird Shoals
Dear Greg,
Please accept this memo and corresponding appendices as required per Special Condition #32 of
the Town of Oak Island's 2021 /2022 Nourishment Project's federal permit (SAW 2018-02230).
Special Condition #32 specifically states the following:
32. The Town must monitor the permitted dredged area for sediment accumulation (infill) rates within Jay Bird
Shoals, including all areas located 300 feet outside of the dredged area. A pre -dredge survey must be conducted prior to
the startpf the 2021/2022 project and supplied to the Corps and the NMFS-HCD. Subsequent surveys must then
be conducted at 12, 24, and 36 months from this initial survey. The Corps may require additional surveys if the
Corps, in coordination with the NMFS-HCD and state agencies, determines additional surveys are needed. Sediment
sampling and analysis must also be performed prior to dredging and at a 12, 24 and 36 months from the initial
sampling. Surfacegrab samples (top 6 inches) must be taken at the 13 on vibracore locations. Sediment analyses
must include a wet Munsell color, gran side analysis plus or and calcium carbonate content.
The Town must also host a meeting to brief the District, NMFS-HCD, and state agencies on the results from each
survey and sampling event. These meetings should occur within 60 days of completing the surveys and sampling and
focus on determining the infzlling rates of the dredged areas, comparison of the material infilling the dredged areas with
the material removed (includinggranulometry, mineralogy, and or content), estimates of the time needed for
complete infilling, and other morphological changes to the shoal. The geographic scope of the latter should, at a
minimum, include the area within 300 feet of the permitted borrow area.
This memo summarizes the results of the pre -dredge survey of Jay Bird Shoals UBS) borrow area as
well as the required ponar surface grab samples collected from the top 6 inches of material at the
corresponding vibracore locations within the JBS borrow area (see Figure 1).

February 14, 2022
M
x
..,
I►+
A�»
j
sb v
D2
J&ld TARGET EL U 0
•vV`J,-
•�41i
W%PAv 071LOW
e
L'•
• S
L�
.w
~r
.D
C
E7)
.
LOPE7PERWMDEL.Wo M092ANOEULi
,NO E-.CAVAT"%KLOMn IMAdbNE0EM&I
E
#Y-'
{..xri'
A�
JRAlA fJ&OIA
j
l
_
L:a.E :lirM RL:�LI:sTC
,+� �� �" �,�la-.
`.�y' N
7C
- .
[Md E-V-AVAT1DN BELOA'S
' j '
.
• _
1
- r
T
..
-
,- IO�i 9PEMYTTED Ei -7EA-.
_
. PJO EXCAVATION BELGWI
O
jF AN.M
r�" �70 ti
+
J\7E
L ,l x
`am
M&N #10128/04
Memorandum
Figure 1— Jay Bird Shoal Borrow Area and Corresponding Vibracore Locations
Sediment Accumulation within Jay Bird Shoals
Hydrographic surveys were conducted within the Town of Oak Island's 2021/2022 permitted Jay
Bird Shoals Borrow Area, including all areas located 500 feet outside of the authorized area to be
dredged (Figure 2). These surveys were conducted by TI Coastal between January 5 and January 6,
2022. Field procedures are further described in Appendix 1 and metadata provided in Appendix 1a.
Based on preliminary analysis showing the difference in the borrow area elevations between the
post -dredge survey of Jay Bird Shoals conducted in June 2021 compared to the pre -dredge
conducted January 2022, there are small areas of sediment accumulation ranging from less than +1.0
— 2.5/3.0 feet (Figure 3).
2

1/11
moffatt & nichol
4700 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] Fax: [phone]
www.moffaftnichol.com
Graphic Scale
OAK ISLAND RENOURISHMENT PROJECT 2021
TIjCo stsl i ! B.. B..—C.m.e.ro - _....,..W_ �:.::::':'
BORROW AREA- BEFORE DREDGE SURVEY-••^-••••-••-^-•-•-
„,�,.,g, PLAN VIEW -Survey Track Lines &Color Matrix
Figure 2 — Jay Bird Shoal Borrow Area Pre -Dredge Multibeam Survey, January 2022

1/11
moffatt & nichol
4700 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] Fax: [phone]
www.moffaftnichol.com
Legend
Elevation Change (ft)
❑ -3.38 - -3.00
❑ -2.99 - -2.50
1 -2.49 - -2.00
■ -1.99 - -1.50
■ -1.49 - -1.00
■ -0.99 - -0.50
❑ -0.49 - 0.00
D 0.01 - 0.50
❑ 0.51 - 1.00
❑ 1.09 - 1.50
❑ 1.51 - 2.00
❑ 2.01 - 2.50
[12.51 - 3.00
❑ 3.01 - 3.50
■ 3.51 - 4.00
■ 4.01 - 4.50
■ 4.51 - 5.00
■ 5.01 - 5.50
2019J6-19 20111tt 2019J8-� y �'72019�6=z2 ( 18JB-23
O O- O i c O ( O
A s _ �'
i
-
20 MaB 9s-� 2019-JB-01
2019JB-02
2019JB-03A
2019JB-04A
r-•
�.
2019JB-17
0019JB-05 � 2019JIMAG' `h
20V -07
JB-is
O
O
2019JB-09A 2019JB-10
o O
2019JB-14A 2019JB-15
2019JB-11A 201948-12
o o
J
2019JB-14A 2019-JB-13
O O
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
Figure 3 - Jay Bird Shoal Borrow Area Elevation Change; June 2021 vs January 2022
ALI

4700 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 300
,", Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] Fax: [phone]
m o f f a t t& n i c h o l www.moffattnichol.com
Surface Sediment Analysis within Jay Bird Shoals
Sediment sampling was conducted in January 2022 of surface ponar grab samples collected within
the top six inches at each of the thirteen original vibracore locations in the Town's Jay Bird Shoals
borrow area. Lab results of the surface sediment samples were provided by the Contractor on
February 9, 2022 and are summarized in Table 1. All sediment data is provided in Appendix 2.
One of the primary concerns within Jay Bird Shoals borrow area is the higher percentage of
carbonate content; however, as shown in Appendix 2, carbonate percentage was approximately 6%
or below except for JB-01 which was 13.56%, well below the 25% value allowed per NC Technical
Sediment Criteria.
In a select portion of the borrow area, several surface samples (5 of 13) contained a low Munsell
color value with corresponding high fines content. These samples appear to be where shoaling has
occurred and are very inconsistent with the original vibracores of the material that lies just below in
the Jay Bird Shoals borrow area. We further investigated the locations of the ponar grab surface
samples that showed the elevated fines content and confirmed the five (5) locations are where large
amounts of dredging occurred during last year's (2021) dredging event and greater than 0.5' of
shoaling occurred. With the ponar samples only being taken from the top 6" of the surface, it was
concluded the samples resulting in higher fines content is due to shoaling and sediment
accumulation in deeper depressions. To further verify this, a difference map from the post -dredging
survey from June 2021 and the pre -dredge survey, January 2022, was developed (Figure 3). Sediment
accumulation within the borrow area greater than 0.5 feet corresponds with where the ponar
samples showed lower Munsell color value and higher fines content. In the areas where only a small
amount of dredging occurred in 2021, which had little to no shoaling, the sand content, Munsell
color value, and calcium carbonate content all appeared to be satisfactory.
As a result of the sediment analyses it is believed that some depressions within the borrow area have
filled in with a thin layer of 0.5 to 1.0 feet of a dark fines material. However, based on the dredging
methodology to be conducted during the 2021 /2022 Nourishment Project (hopper dredging) we do
not believe these fines will end up in the beach building process for the following reasons.
Using hopper dredges on the project, the methodology is that the draghead will plough though the
firm ocean bottom (sand) to be buried into the surface by a minimum of 6", this will be achieved by
the weight of the draghead through the soft sediments and into the firm sands. This is a SARBO
requirement for the protection against turtle entrainment in the draghead. In the event fines are
pulled into the draghead, the fines, when pumped with sands in a slurry into the receiving hopper,
will not settle out in the hopper and will then become part of the overflow waters in the dredging
process. A small amount of fines may settle into the hopper however, based on placement process,
the fines will not settle onto the beach and therefore the receiving beach will have a very low fines
content.

4700 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 300
,", Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] Fax: [phone]
m o f f a t t & n i c h o l www.moffattnichol.com
Table 1- Summary of surface sediment analysis of ponar grab samples within Jay Bird Shoals Borrow Area
Ponar
Sample
Gravel
%
Granular
%
Sand
%
Fines
%
Carbonate
%
Mean
mm
Mean
hi
Wet
Munsell
Dry
Munsell
2022-01- B-01
0.33
0.14
96.85
2.68
13.56
0.17
2.55
10YR-3/1
10YR-6/2
2022-01- B-02
0.09
0.14
97.19
2.58
4.69
0.16
2.64
10YR-3/2
10YR-6/2
2022-01- B-06
0.05
0.88
55.66
43.41
2.64
0.25
2.01
10YR-2/1
10YR-5/2
2022-01- B-07
0.00
0.00
97.68
2.32
4.06
0.16
2.68
10YR-3/2
10YR-6/1
2022-01JB-08
0.00
0.15
57.04
42.81
4.45
0.13
2.91
10YR-2/1
10YR-5/2
2022-OI JB-
11A
0.23
0.46
96.63
2.68
3.82
0.18
2.51
10YR-4/2
10YR-6/1
2022-01- B-12
0.28
0.28
97.45
1.99
4.48
0.18
2.45
10YR-4/2
10YR-6/2
2022-01- B-13
0.00
0.05
94.04
5.91
4.28
0.23
2.12
10YR-4/2
10YR-5/2
2022-01- B-17
0.10
0.24
40.91
58.75
4.54
0.23
2.09
10YR-2/1
10YR-5/2
2022-OI- B-18
0.00
0.00
19.34
80.66
2.01
0.11
3.15
10YR-3/1
10YR-5/2
2022-01- B-20
0.00
0.10
97.20
2.70
6.38
0.22
2.17
10YR-4/2
10YR-6/1
2022-01- B-21
0.09
0.19
15.98
83.74
1.90
0.16
2.62
10YR-2/1
10YR-5/2
2022-01- B-23
0.00
0.24
96.16
3.60
5.28
0.18
2.48
10YR-3/2
10YR-6/1
2019 Native
0.45%
0.71%
96.96%
1.88%
9.72%
0.27
1.89
NCAC
Criteria
<_6%
<_11%
NA
<_7%
<_25%
NA
NA

4700 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 300
,", Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] Fax: [phone]
m o f f a t t& N c h o l www.moffattnichol.com
The USACE (ERDC) study titled `Beneficial Use of Dredged Material with Increased Fine Sediment Content. -
A Case Study at Egmont Key, Florida" dated June 2019 provides details of the process described above
and the resultant low fines content on the beach (Appendix 3).
As an extra measure of protection, the Town of Oak Island will commit to collecting additional
sediment samples for each of the first seven days of project start and request the Contractor to
provide analyses within 48 to 72 hours to ensure only beach compatible material is placed on the
beach.
Per Condition #32, we will schedule a meeting with the District, NMFS-HCD, and state agencies to
review the results summarized in this memo and corresponding appendices. Meanwhile, please email
(smorrisonkmoffattnichol.com) or call me (919-781-4626) with any immediate questions or
concerns.
Sincerely,
Sam Morrison, Technical Director of Dredge Services
Moffatt & Nichol
7

TI Coastal Services, Inc.
387-B N Green Meadows Dr.
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] (o)
[phone] (f)
Oak Island Beach Renourishment 2021/2022
Surveyor's Report
Borrow Area BD Surveys — Jay Bird Shoals
January 12, 2022
Report of Survey: Jefferson W. Canoy, PSM PLS
TI Coastal Services, Inc.
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr., Wilmington, NC 28405
Project: Hydrographic surveys of borrow areas associated with the beach renourishment
effort on Oak Island, NC.
Date and Location: January 5 —January 6, 2022
Jay Bird Shoals Borrow Area
Personnel: PSM: Jefferson W. Canoy, PSM PLS
Boat Operator: Joseph Taylor
Hydrographer: Matt Smith
Processor: Abram Lambertson
Datums: Horizontal Coordinates referenced to North Carolina Plane Coordinate System
Zone 3200 North, North American Datum of 1983 Realization 2011 and Epoch
2010.00
Elevations are referenced to NAVD88 (Geoid 12B)

TI Coastal Services, Inc.
387-B N Green Meadows Dr.
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] (o)
[phone] (f)
Survey Site Control:
GNSS RTK Corrections provided by NCGS VRS Network
CORS: NCCH
Control Monumentation:
GAR 2 RESET
PID: DD0054
N: 62525.00
E: 2298273.02
Z: 18.09
RED
PID: DD0112
N: 60209.52
E: 2271232.70
Z: 13.23
Field Instrumentation:
Survey Vessel: Intrepid
GNSS-RTK Rover: Trimble 461 GLASS Receiver
Echosounder: Reson T50 Dual Frequency Multi -Beam
Heave Compensation: POS MV Wavemaster

TI Coastal Services, Inc.
387-B N Green Meadows Dr.
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] (o)
[phone] (f)
til
0-
I R► #►
Field Procedures: These surveys were performed utilizing the NCGS VRS Network. Before each
day's survey events the vessel's GNSS and sonar systems calibrations were checked using a tide
check and sound velocity casts. Tide checks were performed at a known point set by TIC
personnel at Safe Harbor Marina. Sound velocity was acquired through the entire water column
at the project site using a Teledyne Digibar S probe. Hypack version 2019 was used as the data
acquisition software. This software is able to utilize the sound velocity file, antenna and draft
offsets, and GNSS information to stream in real time the results of raw soundings during the
course of surveying. During data collection these raw soundings were viewed by the
hydrographer on board to ensure each pass lined up, vertically, with previous observations and
that the echosounder was continuously tracking the ocean floor. They hydrographer is also
ensured that at least 50% coverage overlap adjacent passes is achieved to so that 200% total
coverage of the project area was achieved. At the conclusion of each day's work, a sound
velocity cast and tide check were again taken to ensure no major changes or variations in speed
of sound or GNSS readings.
Data Processing: Survey data was processed in the office after the completion of the entire
survey using Hypack version 2019 or later. Each ping strip was observed and errant
observations were removed. Once the full DTM had been processed the sounding were
averaged based on a 3x3 and 5x5 grid. The average depth in each block was used to determine
the elevation at each grid location. During the course of processing quality control procedures
were utilized to ensure accuracy and consistency between methods and survey dates.
Overlapping areas at every profile between topographic and hydrographic surveys were
analyzed to ensure agreement between methods and the completed, merged survey lines were
compared with available historical data.
Notes:
1. Horizontal Datum: NC State Plane North —Zone 3200, NAD83 (2011)
2. Vertical Datum: NAVD88, Geoid 12B
3. Units: Survey Feet
4. Data collected by TI Coastal personnel between January 5 and .January 7, 2022 and
represent conditions at that time.
5. Borrow area bathymetry data expressed as depths in feet and tenths unless otherwise
specified.

TI Coastal Services, Inc.
387-B N Green Meadows Dr.
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] (o)
[phone] (f)
Certification Statement:
I, Jefferson W. Canoy, a Professional Licensed Surveyor in the state of North Carolina hereby state
that to the best of my professional knowledge, information, and belief that the bathymetric
surveys included with this submission and performed by TI Coastal personnel between January 5
and January 6, 2022 along Oak Island Beach were conducted in compliance with the most recent
editions of the USACE Engineering Manual 1110-2-1003, Hydrographic Surveys and the
Engineering Manual 1110-1-1005, Topographic Surveys. These surveys were conducted for the
Oak Island Beach Renourishment effort. This submission includes XYZ files, metadata files and an
8.5x11" PDF drawing showing contours and track lines of the survey.
Regards,
Jefferson Canoy, PLS PSM
\�\\IIIII11/1
\�.0,�� CAROB%%,
O.oFtiss�o,�li�
j--5292
�t S U R`��. ' �o
SON W `
/f i�19-
Jefferson W Canoy — LS7199
Date:1/12/2022

Granularmetric Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
T
I T1 "�� oasta
s E R v t c E= s, t N c.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
ph 910.821.1358
fax [phone]
Project Name: GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Sample Name: 2022-0I-JB-01
Analysis Date: 01-13-22
Analyzed By: PRD
Easting (ft):
2,286,593
Northing (ft):
47,361
Coordinate System:
North Carolina State Plane
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SIP
Munsell:
Wet - 1 OYR-3/1
Dry - 1 OYR-6/2
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
212.50
Wash Weight (g):
207.20
Pan Retained (g):
0.00
Sieve Loss (%):
0.19
Fines (%):
#230 - 2.68
Organics (%):
Carbonates (%):
13.56
Shells (%):
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3"
-6.25
76.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.375"
-3.25
9.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4
-2.25
4.76
0.70
0.33
0.70
0.33
5
-2.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.70
0.33
7
-1.50
2.83
0.10
0.05
0.80
0.38
10
-1.00
2.00
0.20
0.09
1.00
0.47
14
-0.50
1.41
0.50
0.24
1.50
0.71
18
0.00
1.00
0.70
0.33
2.20
1.04
25
0.50
0.71
1.90
0.89
4.10
1.93
35
1.00
0.50
4.60
2.16
8.70
4.09
45
1.50
0.35
7.80
3.67
16.50
7.76
60
2.00
0.25
13.20
6.21
29.70
13.98
70
2.25
0.21
13.80
6.49
43.50
20.47
80
2.50
0.18
24.60
11.58
68.10
32.05
100
2.75
0.15
40.60
19.11
108.70
51.15
120
3.00
0.13
56.90
26.78
165.60
77.93
170
3.50
0.09
37.50
17.65
203.10
95.58
200
3.74
0.07
3.20
1.51
206.30
97.08
230
4.00
0.06
0.50
0.24
206.80
97.32
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
3.48
3.17
2.97
2.73
2.35
2.08
1.12
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
2.55
0.17
0.74
-2.49
13.85

Granularmetric Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
T
I T1 "�� oasta
s E R v t c E= s, t N c.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
ph 910.821.1358
fax [phone]
Project Name: GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Sample Name: 2022-0I-JB-02
Analysis Date: 01-13-22
Analyzed By: PRD
Easting (ft):
2,288,597
Northing (ft):
48,365
Coordinate System:
North Carolina State Plane
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SIP
Munsell:
Wet - 1 OYR-3/2
Dry - 1 OYR-6/2
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
213.10
Wash Weight (g):
207.70
Pan Retained (g):
0.00
Sieve Loss (%):
0.05
Fines (%):
#230 - 2.58
Organics (%):
Carbonates (% ):
4.69
Shells (% ):
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3"
-6.25
76.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.375"
-3.25
9.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4
-2.25
4.76
0.20
0.09
0.20
0.09
5
-2.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.09
7
-1.50
2.83
0.10
0.05
0.30
0.14
10
-1.00
2.00
0.20
0.09
0.50
0.23
14
-0.50
1.41
0.20
0.09
0.70
0.33
18
0.00
1.00
0.40
0.19
1.10
0.52
25
0.50
0.71
0.90
0.42
2.00
0.94
35
1.00
0.50
1.60
0.75
3.60
1.69
45
1.50
0.35
3.70
1.74
7.30
3.43
60
2.00
0.25
9.20
4.32
16.50
7.74
70
2.25
0.21
9.60
4.50
26.10
12.25
80
2.50
0.18
22.20
10.42
48.30
22.67
100
2.75
0.15
63.40
29.75
111.70
52.42
120
3.00
0.13
67.30
31.58
179.00
84.00
170
3.50
0.09
25.60
12.01
204.60
96.01
200
3.74
0.07
2.70
1.27
207.30
97.28
230
4.00
0.06
0.30
0.14
207.60
97.42
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
3.46
3.00
2.93
2.73
2.52
2.34
1.68
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
2.64
0.16
0.55
-2.96
20.63

Granularmetric Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
T
I T1 "�� oasta
s E R v t c E= s, t N c.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
ph 910.821.1358
fax [phone]
Project Name: GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Sample Name: 2022-0I-JB-06
Analysis Date: 01-13-22
Analyzed By: PRD
Easting (ft):
2,287,596
Northing (ft):
46,365
Coordinate System:
North Carolina State Plane
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
Munsell:
Wet - 1 OYR-2/1
Dry - 1 OYR-5/2
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
216.10
Wash Weight (g):
122.70
Pan Retained (g):
0.10
Sieve Loss (%):
0.14
Fines (%):
#230 - 43.41
Organics (%):
Carbonates (%):
2.64
Shells (%):
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3"
-6.25
76.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.375"
-3.25
9.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4
-2.25
4.76
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
5
-2.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.05
7
-1.50
2.83
0.60
0.28
0.70
0.32
10
-1.00
2.00
1.30
0.60
2.00
0.93
14
-0.50
1.41
2.80
1.30
4.80
2.22
18
0.00
1.00
3.70
1.71
8.50
3.93
25
0.50
0.71
4.90
2.27
13.40
6.20
35
1.00
0.50
6.90
3.19
20.30
9.39
45
1.50
0.35
11.50
5.32
31.80
14.72
60
2.00
0.25
16.20
7.50
48.00
22.21
70
2.25
0.21
10.00
4.63
58.00
26.84
80
2.50
0.18
12.70
5.88
70.70
32.72
100
2.75
0.15
16.50
7.64
87.20
40.35
120
3.00
0.13
18.70
8.65
105.90
49.01
170
3.50
0.09
14.30
6.62
120.20
55.62
200
3.74
0.07
1.90
0.88
122.10
56.50
230
4.00
0.06
0.20
0.09
122.30
56.59
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
3.07
2.15
1.59
0.24
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
2.01
0.25
1.1
-1.11
3.93

Granularmetric Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
T
I T1 "�� oasta
s E R v t c E= s, t N c.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
ph 910.821.1358
fax [phone]
Project Name: GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Sample Name: 2022-0I-JB-07
Analysis Date: 01-13-22
Analyzed By: PRD
Easting (ft):
2,288,605
Northing (ft):
46,352
Coordinate System:
North Carolina State Plane
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SIP
Munsell:
Wet - 1 OYR-3/2
Dry - 1 OYR-6/1
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
215.20
Wash Weight (g):
210.20
Pan Retained (g):
0.00
Sieve Loss (%):
0.00
Fines (%):
#230 - 2.32
Organics (%):
Carbonates (% ):
4.06
Shells (% ):
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3"
-6.25
76.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.375"
-3.25
9.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4
-2.25
4.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5
-2.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7
-1.50
2.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
-1.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
14
-0.50
1.41
0.30
0.14
0.30
0.14
18
0.00
1.00
0.40
0.19
0.70
0.33
25
0.50
0.71
0.90
0.42
1.60
0.74
35
1.00
0.50
1.70
0.79
3.30
1.53
45
1.50
0.35
3.40
1.58
6.70
3.11
60
2.00
0.25
9.20
4.28
15.90
7.39
70
2.25
0.21
13.30
6.18
29.20
13.57
80
2.50
0.18
28.10
13.06
57.30
26.63
100
2.75
0.15
61.90
28.76
119.20
55.39
120
3.00
0.13
32.60
15.15
151.80
70.54
170
3.50
0.09
56.10
26.07
207.90
96.61
200
3.74
0.07
2.10
0.98
210.00
97.58
230
4.00
0.06
0.20
0.09
210.20
97.68
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
3.47
3.26
3.09
2.70
2.47
2.30
1.72
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
2.68
0.16
0.54
-1.64
8.56

Granularmetric Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
T
I T1 "�� oasta
s E R v t c E= s, t N c.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
ph 910.821.1358
fax [phone]
Project Name: GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Sample Name: 2022-0I-JB-08
Analysis Date: 01-13-22
Analyzed By: PRD
Easting (ft):
2,289,601
Northing (ft):
46,353
Coordinate System:
North Carolina State Plane
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
Munsell:
Wet - 1 OYR-2/1
Dry - 1 OYR-5/2
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
206.50
Wash Weight (g):
119.10
Pan Retained (g):
0.90
Sieve Loss (%):
0.05
Fines (%):
#230 - 42.81
Organics (%):
Carbonates (%):
4.45
Shells (%):
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3"
-6.25
76.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.375"
-3.25
9.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4
-2.25
4.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5
-2.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7
-1.50
2.83
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
10
-1.00
2.00
0.20
0.10
0.30
0.15
14
-0.50
1.41
0.30
0.15
0.60
0.29
18
0.00
1.00
0.50
0.24
1.10
0.53
25
0.50
0.71
0.80
0.39
1.90
0.92
35
1.00
0.50
0.90
0.44
2.80
1.36
45
1.50
0.35
1.00
0.48
3.80
1.84
60
2.00
0.25
1.50
0.73
5.30
2.57
70
2.25
0.21
1.10
0.53
6.40
3.10
80
2.50
0.18
3.40
1.65
9.80
4.75
100
2.75
0.15
23.20
11.23
33.00
15.98
120
3.00
0.13
29.00
14.04
62.00
30.02
170
3.50
0.09
47.70
23.10
109.70
53.12
200
3.74
0.07
7.80
3.78
117.50
56.90
230
4.00
0.06
0.60
0.29
118.10
57.19
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
3.43
2.91
2.75
2.51
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
2.91
0.13
0.6
-3.22
18.42

Granularmetric Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
T
I T1 "�� oasta
s E R v t c E= s, t N c.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
ph 910.821.1358
fax [phone]
Project Name: GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Sample Name: 2022-0I-JB-11A
Analysis Date: 01-13-22
Analyzed By: PRD
Easting (ft):
2,288,596
Northing (ft):
45,358
Coordinate System:
North Carolina State Plane
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SIP
Munsell:
Wet - 1 OYR-4/2
Dry - 10YR-6/1
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
216.20
Wash Weight (g):
210.70
Pan Retained (g):
0.00
Sieve Loss (%):
0.14
Fines (%):
#230 - 2.68
Organics (%):
Carbonates (% ):
3.82
Shells (% ):
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3"
-6.25
76.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.375"
-3.25
9.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4
-2.25
4.76
0.50
0.23
0.50
0.23
5
-2.00
4.00
0.30
0.14
0.80
0.37
7
-1.50
2.83
0.30
0.14
1.10
0.51
10
-1.00
2.00
0.40
0.19
1.50
0.69
14
-0.50
1.41
0.40
0.19
1.90
0.88
18
0.00
1.00
0.80
0.37
2.70
1.25
25
0.50
0.71
2.30
1.06
5.00
2.31
35
1.00
0.50
6.50
3.01
11.50
5.32
45
1.50
0.35
8.10
3.75
19.60
9.07
60
2.00
0.25
12.90
5.97
32.50
15.03
70
2.25
0.21
13.80
6.38
46.30
21.42
80
2.50
0.18
26.80
12.40
73.10
33.81
100
2.75
0.15
40.30
18.64
113.40
52.45
120
3.00
0.13
60.40
27.94
173.80
80.39
170
3.50
0.09
32.90
15.22
206.70
95.61
200
3.74
0.07
3.30
1.53
210.00
97.13
230
4.00
0.06
0.40
0.19
210.40
97.32
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
3.48
3.12
2.95
2.72
2.32
2.04
0.95
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
2.51
0.18
0.78
-2.4
12.27

Granularmetric Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
T
I T1 "�� oasta
s E R v t c E= s, t N c.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
ph 910.821.1358
fax [phone]
Project Name: GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Sample Name: 2022-0I-JB-12
Analysis Date: 01-13-22
Analyzed By: PRD
Easting (ft):
2,289,595
Northing (ft):
45,352
Coordinate System:
North Carolina State Plane
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SIP
Munsell:
Wet - 1 OYR-4/2
Dry - 10YR-6/2
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
216.10
Wash Weight (g):
212.20
Pan Retained (g):
0.00
Sieve Loss (%):
0.19
Fines (%):
#230 - 1.99
Organics (%):
Carbonates (% ):
4.48
Shells (% ):
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3"
-6.25
76.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.375"
-3.25
9.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4
-2.25
4.76
0.60
0.28
0.60
0.28
5
-2.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.28
7
-1.50
2.83
0.20
0.09
0.80
0.37
10
-1.00
2.00
0.40
0.19
1.20
0.56
14
-0.50
1.41
0.80
0.37
2.00
0.93
18
0.00
1.00
1.50
0.69
3.50
1.62
25
0.50
0.71
3.70
1.71
7.20
3.33
35
1.00
0.50
6.40
2.96
13.60
6.29
45
1.50
0.35
8.70
4.03
22.30
10.32
60
2.00
0.25
13.50
6.25
35.80
16.57
70
2.25
0.21
11.10
5.14
46.90
21.70
80
2.50
0.18
23.60
10.92
70.50
32.62
100
2.75
0.15
58.10
26.89
128.60
59.51
120
3.00
0.13
56.50
26.15
185.10
85.65
170
3.50
0.09
24.70
11.43
209.80
97.08
200
3.74
0.07
1.80
0.83
211.60
97.92
230
4.00
0.06
0.20
0.09
211.80
98.01
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
3.41
2.98
2.90
2.66
2.33
1.95
0.78
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
2.45
0.18
0.79
-2.36
11.17

Granularmetric Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
T
I T1 "�� oasta
s E R v t c E= s, t N c.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
ph 910.821.1358
fax [phone]
Project Name: GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Sample Name: 2022-0I-JB-13
Analysis Date: 01-13-22
Analyzed By: PRD
Easting (ft):
2,289,603
Northing (ft):
44,357
Coordinate System:
North Carolina State Plane
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
Munsell:
Wet - 1 OYR-4/2
Dry - 1 OYR-5/2
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
216.70
Wash Weight (g):
204.20
Pan Retained (g):
0.00
Sieve Loss (%):
0.14
Fines (%):
#230 - 5.91
Organics (%):
Carbonates (% ):
4.28
Shells (% ):
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3"
-6.25
76.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.375"
-3.25
9.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4
-2.25
4.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5
-2.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7
-1.50
2.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
-1.00
2.00
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
14
-0.50
1.41
0.40
0.18
0.50
0.23
18
0.00
1.00
0.90
0.42
1.40
0.65
25
0.50
0.71
3.70
1.71
5.10
2.35
35
1.00
0.50
10.80
4.98
15.90
7.34
45
1.50
0.35
24.30
11.21
40.20
18.55
60
2.00
0.25
38.40
17.72
78.60
36.27
70
2.25
0.21
21.90
10.11
100.50
46.38
80
2.50
0.18
30.00
13.84
130.50
60.22
100
2.75
0.15
40.50
18.69
171.00
78.91
120
3.00
0.13
15.60
7.20
186.60
86.11
170
3.50
0.09
16.70
7.71
203.30
93.82
200
3.74
0.07
0.60
0.28
203.90
94.09
230
4.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
203.90
94.09
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.93
2.70
2.32
1.68
1.39
0.77
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
2.12
0.23
0.74
-0.68
3.42

Granularmetric Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
T
I T1 "�� oasta
s E R v t c E= s, t N c.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
ph 910.821.1358
fax [phone]
Project Name: GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Sample Name: 2022-0I-JB-17
Analysis Date: 01-13-22
Analyzed By: PRD
Easting (ft):
2,285,602
Northing (ft):
46,346
Coordinate System:
North Carolina State Plane
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
Munsell:
Wet - 1 OYR-2/1
Dry - 1 OYR-5/2
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
203.90
Wash Weight (g):
84.40
Pan Retained (g):
0.00
Sieve Loss (%):
0.15
Fines (%):
#230 - 58.7
Organics (%):
Carbonates (%):
4.54
Shells (%):
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3"
-6.25
76.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.375"
-3.25
9.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4
-2.25
4.76
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.10
5
-2.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.10
7
-1.50
2.83
0.10
0.05
0.30
0.15
10
-1.00
2.00
0.40
0.20
0.70
0.34
14
-0.50
1.41
0.90
0.44
1.60
0.78
18
0.00
1.00
1.90
0.93
3.50
1.72
25
0.50
0.71
6.60
3.24
10.10
4.95
35
1.00
0.50
10.10
4.95
20.20
9.91
45
1.50
0.35
7.10
3.48
27.30
13.39
60
2.00
0.25
5.90
2.89
33.20
16.28
70
2.25
0.21
3.10
1.52
36.30
17.80
80
2.50
0.18
5.60
2.75
41.90
20.55
100
2.75
0.15
9.50
4.66
51.40
25.21
120
3.00
0.13
8.40
4.12
59.80
29.33
170
3.50
0.09
20.50
10.05
80.30
39.38
200
3.74
0.07
3.70
1.81
84.00
41.20
230
4.00
0.06
0.10
0.05
84.10
41.25
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.74
1.95
0.51
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
2.09
0.23
1.19
-0.74
2.77

Granularmetric Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
T
I T1 "�� oasta
s E R v t c E= s, t N c.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
ph 910.821.1358
fax [phone]
Project Name: GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Sample Name: 2022-0I-JB-18
Analysis Date: 01-13-22
Analyzed By: PRD
Easting (ft):
2,285,601
Northing (ft):
47,358
Coordinate System:
North Carolina State Plane
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
Munsell:
Wet - 1 OYR-3/1
Dry - 1 OYR-5/2
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
213.50
Wash Weight (g):
41.90
Pan Retained (g):
0.20
Sieve Loss (%):
0.19
Fines (%):
#230 - 80.6E
Organics (%):
Carbonates (%):
2.01
Shells (%):
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3"
-6.25
76.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.375"
-3.25
9.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4
-2.25
4.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5
-2.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7
-1.50
2.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
-1.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
14
-0.50
1.41
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
18
0.00
1.00
0.20
0.09
0.30
0.14
25
0.50
0.71
0.20
0.09
0.50
0.23
35
1.00
0.50
0.20
0.09
0.70
0.33
45
1.50
0.35
0.20
0.09
0.90
0.42
60
2.00
0.25
0.20
0.09
1.10
0.52
70
2.25
0.21
0.10
0.05
1.20
0.56
80
2.50
0.18
0.50
0.23
1.70
0.80
100
2.75
0.15
1.90
0.89
3.60
1.69
120
3.00
0.13
6.40
3.00
10.00
4.68
170
3.50
0.09
23.90
11.19
33.90
15.88
200
3.74
0.07
6.80
3.19
40.70
19.06
230
4.00
0.06
0.60
0.28
41.30
19.34
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
3.51
3.01
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
3.15
0.11
0.52
-3.94
24.47

Granularmetric Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
T
I T1 "�� oasta
s E R v t c E= s, t N c.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
ph 910.821.1358
fax [phone]
Project Name: GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Sample Name: 2022-0I-JB-20
Analysis Date: 01-13-22
Analyzed By: PRD
Easting (ft):
2,286,591
Northing (ft):
48,363
Coordinate System:
North Carolina State Plane
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SIP
Munsell:
Wet - 1 OYR-4/2
Dry - 10YR-6/1
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
207.30
Wash Weight (g):
202.90
Pan Retained (g):
0.00
Sieve Loss (%):
0.58
Fines (%):
#230 - 2.70
Organics (%):
Carbonates (% ):
6.38
Shells (% ):
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3"
-6.25
76.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.375"
-3.25
9.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4
-2.25
4.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5
-2.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7
-1.50
2.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
-1.00
2.00
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.10
14
-0.50
1.41
0.50
0.24
0.70
0.34
18
0.00
1.00
0.70
0.34
1.40
0.68
25
0.50
0.71
2.10
1.01
3.50
1.69
35
1.00
0.50
7.20
3.47
10.70
5.16
45
1.50
0.35
20.40
9.84
31.10
15.00
60
2.00
0.25
41.70
20.12
72.80
35.12
70
2.25
0.21
27.40
13.22
100.20
48.34
80
2.50
0.18
34.50
16.64
134.70
64.98
100
2.75
0.15
26.00
12.54
160.70
77.52
120
3.00
0.13
23.70
11.43
184.40
88.95
170
3.50
0.09
15.50
7.48
199.90
96.43
200
3.74
0.07
1.80
0.87
201.70
97.30
230
4.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
201.70
97.30
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
3.40
2.89
2.70
2.27
1.75
1.52
0.98
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
2.17
0.22
0.7
-0.7
4.13

Granularmetric Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
T
I T1 "�� oasta
s E R v t c E= s, t N c.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
ph 910.821.1358
fax [phone]
Project Name: GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Sample Name: 2022-0I-JB-21
Analysis Date: 01-13-22
Analyzed By: PRD
Easting (ft):
2,287,593
Northing (ft):
48,359
Coordinate System:
North Carolina State Plane
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
Munsell:
Wet - 1 OYR-2/1
Dry - 1 OYR-5/2
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
216.50
Wash Weight (g):
36.30
Pan Retained (g):
0.60
Sieve Loss (%):
0.23
Fines (%): Organics (%):
#230 - 83.7
Carbonates (%):
1.90
Shells (%):
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3"
-6.25
76.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.375"
-3.25
9.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4
-2.25
4.76
0.20
0.09
0.20
0.09
5
-2.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.09
7
-1.50
2.83
0.20
0.09
0.40
0.18
10
-1.00
2.00
0.20
0.09
0.60
0.28
14
-0.50
1.41
0.20
0.09
0.80
0.37
18
0.00
1.00
0.40
0.18
1.20
0.55
25
0.50
0.71
0.70
0.32
1.90
0.88
35
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.46
2.90
1.34
45
1.50
0.35
1.20
0.55
4.10
1.89
60
2.00
0.25
1.40
0.65
5.50
2.54
70
2.25
0.21
1.00
0.46
6.50
3.00
80
2.50
0.18
2.10
0.97
8.60
3.97
100
2.75
0.15
4.30
1.99
12.90
5.96
120
3.00
0.13
8.10
3.74
21.00
9.70
170
3.50
0.09
11.60
5.36
32.60
15.06
200
3.74
0.07
2.20
1.02
34.80
16.07
230
4.00
0.06
0.40
0.18
35.20
16.26
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
3.72
2.63
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
2.62
0.16
1.03
-2.37
9.74

Granularmetric Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
T
I T1 "�� oasta
s E R v t c E= s, t N c.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
ph 910.821.1358
fax [phone]
Project Name: GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Sample Name: 2022-0I-JB-23
Analysis Date: 01-13-22
Analyzed By: PRD
Easting (ft):
2,289,600
Northing (ft):
48,355
Coordinate System:
North Carolina State Plane
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SIP
Munsell:
Wet - 1 OYR-3/2
Dry - 1 OYR-6/1
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
211.00
Wash Weight (g):
204.10
Pan Retained (g):
0.00
Sieve Loss (%):
0.33
Fines (%):
#230 - 3.60
Organics (%):
Carbonates (% ):
5.28
Shells (% ):
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3"
-6.25
76.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.375"
-3.25
9.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4
-2.25
4.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5
-2.00
4.00
0.20
0.09
0.20
0.09
7
-1.50
2.83
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.09
10
-1.00
2.00
0.30
0.14
0.50
0.24
14
-0.50
1.41
0.20
0.09
0.70
0.33
18
0.00
1.00
0.40
0.19
1.10
0.52
25
0.50
0.71
1.20
0.57
2.30
1.09
35
1.00
0.50
2.90
1.37
5.20
2.46
45
1.50
0.35
8.40
3.98
13.60
6.45
60
2.00
0.25
20.00
9.48
33.60
15.92
70
2.25
0.21
16.10
7.63
49.70
23.55
80
2.50
0.18
35.20
16.68
84.90
40.24
100
2.75
0.15
58.00
27.49
142.90
67.73
120
3.00
0.13
26.20
12.42
169.10
80.14
170
3.50
0.09
32.60
15.45
201.70
95.59
200
3.74
0.07
1.60
0.76
203.30
96.35
230
4.00
0.06
0.10
0.05
203.40
96.40
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
3.48
3.12
2.90
2.59
2.27
2.00
1.32
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
2.48
0.18
0.63
-1.63
8.97

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
C
m
m 60
0
T
7
50
W
m 40
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
Z
rn
a)
40
T
m
N
50
(0
0
U
60 aa)
2
m
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
2022-0I-JB-01
•
Sp
#230-2.68
13.56
2.73
2.55
-2.49
13.85
0.74
Project Name:
GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01-13-22
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
PRD
TI oasta I
S E R V I C E S, I N C.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
h 910.821.1358
lax 910.821.1359
Easting (X, ft):
2,286,593
Northing (Y, ft):
47,361
Horizontal System:
NAD 1983
Vertical System:
NAVD 88

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
m
m 60
0
T
7
50
W
m 40
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
Z
rn
a)
40
T
m
N
50
m
0
U
60 aa)
2
m
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
2022-0I-JB-02
•
Sp
#230-2.56
4.69
2.73
2.64
-2.96
20.63
0.55
Project Name:
GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01-13-22
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
PRD
TI oasta I
S E R V I C E S, I N C.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
h 910.821.1358
lax 910.821.1359
Easting (X, ft):
2,288,597
Northing (Y, ft):
48,365
Horizontal System:
NAD 1983
Vertical System:
NAVD 88

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
C
m
m 60
0
T
7
50
W
m 40
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
Z
rn
a)
40
T
m
N
50
m
0
U
60 aa)
2
m
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
2022-0I-JB-06
•
230-43.41
2.64
3.07
2.01
-1.11
3.93
1.1
Project Name:
GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01-13-22
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
PRD
TI oasta I
S E R V I C E S, I N C.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
h 910.821.1358
lax 910.821.1359
Easting (X, ft):
2,287,596
Northing (Y, ft):
46,365
Horizontal System:
NAD 1983
Vertical System:
NAVD 88

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
C
m
m 60
0
T
7
50
W
m 40
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
Z
rn
a)
40
T
m
N
50
m
0
U
60 aa)
2
m
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
2022-0I-JB-07
•
Sp
#230-2.32
4.06
2.7
2.68
-1.64
8.56
0.54
Project Name:
GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01-13-22
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
PRD
TI oasta I
S E R V I C E S, I N C.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
h 910.821.1358
lax 910.821.1359
Easting (X, ft):
2,288,605
Northing (Y, ft):
46,352
Horizontal System:
NAD 1983
Vertical System:
NAVD 88

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
C
m
m 60
0
T
7
50
W
m 40
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
Z
rn
a)
40
T
m
N
50
(0
0
U
60 aa)
2
m
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
2022-0I-JB-08
•
230-42.81
4.45
3.43
2.91
-3.22
18.42
0.6
Project Name:
GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01-13-22
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
PRD
TI oasta I
S E R V I C E S, I N C.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
h 910.821.1358
lax 910.821.1359
Easting (X, ft):
2,289,601
Northing (Y, ft):
46,353
Horizontal System:
NAD 1983
Vertical System:
NAVD 88

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
C
m
m 60
0
T
7
50
W
m 40
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
Z
rn
a)
40
T
m
N
50
m
0
U
60 aa)
2
m
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
2022-0I-JB-11A
•
Sp
#230-2.68
3.82
2.72
2.51
-2.4
12.27
0.78
Project Name:
GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01-13-22
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
PRD
TI oasta I
S E R V I C E S, I N C.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
h 910.821.1358
lax 910.821.1359
Easting (X, ft):
2,288,596
Northing (Y, ft):
45,358
Horizontal System:
NAD 1983
Vertical System:
NAVD 88

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
C
m
m 60
0
T
7
50
W
m 40
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
Z
rn
a)
40
T
m
N
50
m
0
U
60 aa)
2
m
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
2022-0I-JB-12
•
Sp
#230 - 1.99
4.48
2.66
2.45
-2.36
11.17
0.79
Project Name:
GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01-13-22
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
PRD
TI oasta I
S E R V I C E S, I N C.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
h 910.821.1358
lax 910.821.1359
Easting (X, ft):
2,289,595
Northing (Y, ft):
45,352
Horizontal System:
NAD 1983
Vertical System:
NAVD 88

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
C
m
m 60
0
T
7
50
W
m 40
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
Z
rn
a)
40
T
m
N
50
(0
0
U
60 aa)
2
m
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
2022-0I-JB-13
•
#230-5.91
4.28
2.32
2.12
-0.68
3.42
0.74
Project Name:
GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01-13-22
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
PRD
TI oasta I
S E R V I C E S, I N C.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
h 910.821.1358
lax 910.821.1359
Easting (X, ft):
2,289,603
Northing (Y, ft):
44,357
Horizontal System:
NAD 1983
Vertical System:
NAVD 88

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
C
m
m 60
0
T
7
50
W
m 40
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
Z
rn
a)
40
T
m
N
50
(0
0
U
60 aa)
2
m
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
2022-0I-JB-17
•
230-58.7
4.54
2.09
-0.74
2.77
1.19
Project Name:
GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01-13-22
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
PRD
TI oasta I
S E R V I C E S, I N C.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
h 910.821.1358
lax 910.821.1359
Easting (X, ft):
2,285,602
Northing (Y, ft):
46,346
Horizontal System:
NAD 1983
Vertical System:
NAVD 88

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
C
m
m 60
0
T
7
50
W
m 40
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
Z
rn
a)
40
T
m
N
50
m
0
U
60 aa)
2
m
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
2022-0I-JB-18
•
230-80.6
2.01
3.15
-3.94
24.47
0.52
Project Name:
GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01-13-22
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
PRD
TI oasta I
S E R V I C E S, I N C.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
h 910.821.1358
lax 910.821.1359
Easting (X, ft):
2,285,601
Northing (Y, ft):
47,358
Horizontal System:
NAD 1983
Vertical System:
NAVD 88

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
C
m
m 60
0
T
7
50
W
m 40
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
Z
rn
a)
40
T
m
N
50
m
0
U
60 aa)
2
m
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
2022-0I-JB-20
•
Sp
#230-2.70
6.38
2.27
2.17
-0.7
4.13
0.7
Project Name:
GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01-13-22
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
PRD
TI oasta I
S E R V I C E S, I N C.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
h 910.821.1358
lax 910.821.1359
Easting (X, ft):
2,286,591
Northing (Y, ft):
48,363
Horizontal System:
NAD 1983
Vertical System:
NAVD 88

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
C
m
m 60
0
T
7
50
W
m 40
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
Z
rn
a)
40
T
m
N
50
m
0
U
60 aa)
2
m
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
2022-0I-JB-21
•
230-83.7
1.90
2.62
-2.37
9.74
1.03
Project Name:
GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01-13-22
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
PRD
TI oasta I
S E R V I C E S, I N C.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
h 910.821.1358
lax 910.821.1359
Easting (X, ft):
2,287,593
Northing (Y, ft):
48,359
Horizontal System:
NAD 1983
Vertical System:
NAVD 88

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
C
m
m 60
0
T
7
50
W
m 40
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
Z
rn
a)
40
T
m
N
50
(0
0
U
60 aa)
2
m
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
2022-0I-JB-23
•
Sp
#230-3.60
5.28
2.59
2.48
-1.63
8.97
0.63
Project Name:
GLDD - OI Construction 2022
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01-13-22
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
PRD
TI oasta I
S E R V I C E S, I N C.
TI Coastal Services, Inc
387-B N. Green Meadows Dr
Wilmington, NC 28405
h 910.821.1358
lax 910.821.1359
Easting (X, ft):
2,289,600
Northing (Y, ft):
48,355
Horizontal System:
NAD 1983
Vertical System:
NAVD 88

US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Engineer Research and
Development Center
"'ERDC�
I 1 ENGINEER RESEARCH& DEVELOPMENT CENTER
Beneficial Use of Dredged Material with
Increased Fine Sediment Content: A Case
Study at Egmont Key, Florida
Katherine E. Brutsche, Coraggio K. Maglio, Zachary J. Tyler,
Jase D. Ousley, and Ping Wang
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
June 2019

The U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) solves
the nation's toughest engineering and environmental challenges. ERDC develops
innovative solutions in civil and military engineering, geospatial sciences, water
resources, and environmental sciences for the Army, the Department of Defense,
civilian agencies, and our nation's public good. Find out more at
www.erdc.usace.army.mil.
To search for other technical reports published by ERDC, visit the ERDC online library
at http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/default.

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
June 2019
Beneficial Use of Dredged Material with
Increased Fine Sediment Content: A Case Study
at Egmont Key, Florida
Katherine E. Brutsch6 and Zachary J. Tyler
Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Coraggio K. Maglio
Galveston District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2000 Fort Point Road
Galveston, TX 77550
Jase D. Ousley
Portland District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
333 SW 1st Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Ping Wang
University of South Florida
School of Geosciences
4202 E. Fowler Avenue
Tampa, FL 33620
Final report
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington, DC 20314-1000
Under Project 456009, "Sand Enhancement from the Dredging Process"

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
Abstract
In November 2014, Tampa Harbor Entrance Channel was dredged, and
material was placed onto Egmont Key. Although the material contained
quantities of fine sediment that were greater than the State of Florida
"Sand Rule" criteria, an exception was made to allow placement of the
sediment directly onto the beach due to the critically eroding west
shoreline of the island. Material was placed in a traditional beach
nourishment template at the northern portion of the island and in a cross -
shore swash zone placement approximately o.8 kilometer south of that.
Beach profile surveys were collected to document morphology change of
the two types of nourishments and to illustrate cross -shore location of
each sediment sample. Core borings and surface sediment samples were
collected and analyzed to quantify fines loss from sediment source to
placement site. Although the core borings taken in the dredging area
indicated an average Of 20.7% fines, the surface sediment samples on the
dry beach only yielded 1.9% fines on average, which is within the Florida
"Sand Rule" regulation. The post -construction surface sediment samples
had a similar color to the pre -construction samples.
DISCLAIMER: The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes.
Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.
All product names and trademarks cited are the property of their respective owners. The findings of this report are not to
be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.
DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED. DO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINATOR.

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
Contents
Abstract.................................................................................................................................... ii
Figuresand Tables..................................................................................................................iv
Preface...................................................................................................................................... v
Unit Conversion Factors.........................................................................................................A
1 Introduction......................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background........................................................................................................1
1.2 Objectives...........................................................................................................2
1.3 Approach............................................................................................................2
2 Study Area......................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 General setting..................................................................................................3
2.2 Geologic setting.................................................................................................4
2.3 Meteorological and oceanographic conditions................................................5
2.3.1 Winds...........................................................................................................................5
2.3.2 Waves.......................................................................................................................... 6
2.3.3 Tides............................................................................................................................ 8
3 2014-2015 Dredging and Placement Operations......................................................9
4 Methodology...................................................................................................................11
4.1 Geotechnical core borings..............................................................................11
4.2 Surface sediment sampling............................................................................14
4.2.1 Collection methods...................................................................................................14
4.2.2 Sieving.......................................................................................................................15
4.2.3 Munsell Color............................................................................................................15
5 Results and Discussion.................................................................................................17
5.1 Core borings.....................................................................................................17
5.2 Beach profile surveys and surface sediment samples.................................17
5.3 Core boring and sediment sample summary.................................................21
6 Conclusions....................................................................................................................22
References............................................................................................................................. 23

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
iv
Figures and Tables
Figures
Figure 1. Egmont Key study area located at the mouth of Tampa Bay, along the
west coast of Florida (upper left inset). Red "X" indicates approximate location of
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Gauge 8726520..................... 4
Figure 2. Study area wind rose as observed from NOAA station 8726520,
St. Petersburg, FL....................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Study area wave height, average period, peak period, and direction as
observed from NDBC Station 42098, Egmont Channel......................................................... 7
Figure 4. Study area tidal regime as predicted for NOAA station 8726520
St. Petersburg, FL, for January 2016........................................................................................ 8
Figure 5. The Dodge Island, a GLDD hopper dredge, pumping out material to
Egmont Key on 16 December 2014......................................................................................... 9
Figure 6. Traditional beach placement at northern end of Egmont Key, Florida,
26 December 2014. (Photo courtesy of GLDD.)...................................................................10
Figure 7. Shore based pipeline and CSSZ placement in center of Egmont Key,
Florida, 21 February 2015. (Photo courtesy of GLDD.)........................................................10
Figure 8. USACE Wilmington District M/V SNELL..................................................................11
Figure 9. All Egmont Channel and Mullet Key Channel core locations...............................12
Figure 10. Vibracoring apparatus deployment, Egmont Channel........................................13
Figure 11. Beach profile locations, Egmont Key, Florida, established 23 August
2012. Red circles indicate sediment sampling transects....................................................16
Figure 12. Profile line R-25 across the northern tip of Egmont Key in the
traditional placement area......................................................................................................18
Figure 13. Profile line R-23 across the widest part of the traditional fill area
onEgmont Key..........................................................................................................................18
Figure 14. Profile line R-21 across the southern taper of the traditional fill area
onEgmont Key..........................................................................................................................19
Figure 15. Profile line R-19 across the southern taper area of the traditional fill
areaon Egmont Key . ................................................................................................................
19
Figure 16. Profile line R-12 across the point of the CSSZ placement on Egmont
Key..............................................................................................................................................
20
Figure 17. Profile line R-11 moving south alongthe CSSZ placement area taper
onEgmont Key..........................................................................................................................20
Figure 18. Profile line R10 across the southern most portion of the CSSZ area
onEgmont Key..........................................................................................................................20
Figure 19. Example Munsell Color chart for reference (image from
http:Z/blop-.stephens.edu/arh101glossaryZ?glossary=value) .............................................
21
Tables
Table 1. Test methods used in the analysis of core sediment samples .............................14

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
Preface
This study was conducted for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
under Project 45600g, "Sand Enhancement from the Dredging Process."
Funding was provided by the USACE, Jacksonville District; the Engineer
Research and Development Center (ERDC), Dredging Operations and
Environmental Research Program; and the Regional Sediment
Management Program in collaboration with the University of South
Florida Coastal Research Laboratory. Appreciation is expressed to the
Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company for its cooperation in field data
collection efforts.
At the time of the study, the work was performed by the Coastal
Engineering Branch and the Field Data Collection and Analysis Branch
(CEERD-HNF) of the Navigation Division (CEERD-HN), U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics
Laboratory (ERDC-CHL). At the time of publication, Ms. Lauren Dunkin
was Chief, CEERD-HNC; Mr. William Butler was Acting Chief, CEERD-
HNF; Dr. Jackie Pettway was Chief, CEERD-HN; and Mr. Eddie Wiggins
was the Technical Director for Navigation and Civil Works. The Deputy
Director of ERDC-CHL was Mr. Jeffrey R. Eckstein, and the Director was
Dr. Ty V. Wamsley.
COL Ivan P. Beckman was the Commander of ERDC, and Dr. David W.
Pittman was the Director.

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
Unit Conversion Factors
Multiply
By
To Obtain
cubic feet
0.02831685
cubic meters
cubic inches
1.6387064 E-05
cubic meters
cubic yards
0.7645549
cubic meters
degrees Fahrenheit
(F-32)/1.8
degrees Celsius
feet
0.3048
meters
inches
0.0254
meters
microns
1.0 E-06
meters
miles (U.S. statute)
1,609.347
meters
miles per hour
0.44704
meters per second
square feet
0.09290304
square meters
square inches
6.4516 E-04
square meters
square miles
2.589998 E+06
square meters
square yards
0.8361274
square meters
yards
0.9144
meters

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
1
1 Introduction
When considering borrow areas for beach and nearshore placement,
coastal project managers are required to ensure that placement sediment
is compatible with the native sediment. Often this means that there is a
certain maximum allowable percentage of fines for a borrow area to be
considered for use in beach nourishment. For example, in the State of
Florida, the "Sand Rule" (Florida Administrative Code (FAQ 62B-41.007
(2)0)(k)) allows a maximum of 10% fines (defined as sediment passing the
0.063 millimeter sieve) for maintenance dredging material from
navigation channels to be placed onto a beach. In current practice, the
assumption is that from sediment source to placement site, there is a o
loss of fine sediment from the dredged material. However, it has been
qualitatively recognized that hopper dredges that allow overflow, or
economic loading of the hopper, during operations coarsen the hopper
load due to the preferential loss of fines suspended in the overflow. The
study herein attempts to quantify the loss of fine sediment from the
Tampa Harbor Federal navigation channel to placement site during the
dredging operations at Egmont Key, Florida.
1.1 Background
On 19 November 2014, Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company (GLDD)
began dredging the Tampa Harbor Entrance Channel and continued
maintenance dredging until early March 2015, with beach placement
occurring onto Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge. Due to the severe
erosion on the westward facing beaches of Egmont Key and the fact that it
is a state park, an allowance for material exceeding the Florida
Administrative Code (FAC) 6213-41.007 (2)0)(k) was made. This fines
content exceedance has been accepted at Egmont Key for previous
maintenance dredging projects in 2000, 2006, and 2011.
The constructed project involved beach placement of material using a
traditional trapezoidal placement template methodology and a unique
placement methodology referred to as "cross shore swash zone placement"
(CSSZ). The traditional trapezoidal placement is characterized by a high
(1.2 meter [m] North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [NAVD88]), wide
(~6o m), and flat berm slope with tapers on the ends to transition to
unfilled portions of the beach. The CSSZ placement methodology involves

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
2
discharging material directly into the swash zone of the beach until a
salient begins to form and then extending the discharge offshore until a
point feature has been created in the shoreline. For this Tampa Harbor
maintenance dredging event with placement onto Egmont Key, the
traditional trapezoidal placement and the CSSZ placement operations
occurred with a o.8 kilometer (km) separation between their respective
nearest placement extents (Maglio et al. 2015).
1.2 Objectives
The overall study of the Tampa Harbor Maintenance Dredging and
subsequent beneficial use of dredged material on Egmont Key included
several research goals including comparing the two types of nourishments
and the concerns associated with dredging material with excessive fines.
The objectives of this report are to quantify fines loss from the sediment
source to the placement site at Egmont Key, Florida. Findings from this
study may lead to cost savings in dredging and placement by allowing the
use of sediment sources that were previously thought to be incompatible.
Color change of sediment is included in the discussion as that is also an
important indicator of sediment compatibility and can be impacted by the
presence of fines. Morphology change will be discussed only within the
context of sediment sample locations along beach profiles.
1.3 Approach
Sediment samples were taken in Tampa Harbor Entrance Channel prior to
dredging. Samples were analyzed to determine sediment grain size and
quantify fines content. Following placement onto the beach, surface
sediment samples were taken and analyzed for sediment grain size and
fines content. Locations of surface sediment samples were recorded along
beach profile transects to determine cross -shore characteristics of fines
content. All samples were also analyzed for Munsell color. Channel
sediment samples were compared to beach sediment samples to determine
changes in fines content from dredging site to placement area.

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
3
2 Study Area
2.1 General setting
Egmont Key is located in west -central Florida at the entrance to Tampa
Bay (Figure 1). The island is approximately 3 km long by 0.5 km wide and
is situated in the main tidal entrance to the bay. To the north of the island
is Egmont Channel (also called Tampa Bay Entrance Channel), Tampa
Bay's federally maintained shipping channel. Immediately across Egmont
Channel is Mullet Key, a right-angle barrier island. To the south of Egmont
Key is Southwest Passage, an unmodified channel. Farther to the south is
Anna Maria Island, a barrier island. Between Egmont Key and Anna Maria
Island exists an ephemeral sand body, Passage Key, whose size and
subaerial extent change over time scales of months to years but generally
develops in the same location. The location of Egmont Key at the mouth of
Tampa Bay has rendered it historically useful, economically beneficial, and
ecologically important.
Egmont Key is owned by a number of departments and resource agencies
of the federal and Florida State governments. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service owns the southern third of the island and manages the area as a
wildlife refuge. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) owns the northern two-thirds of the island and manages the area
as a recreational and historical state park. The island's only resident is an
FDEP ranger. The U.S. Coast Guard owns and operates a lighthouse on the
northern end of the island. The Tampa Bay Pilots Association operates a
compound that facilitates pilot operations around Tampa Bay on the east -
central portion of the island.

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
4
Figure 1. Egmont Key study area located at the mouth of Tampa Bay, along the west
coast of Florida (upper left inset). Red "X" indicates approximate location of National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Gauge 8726520.
sbur
�F
fr `
•
Tampa Bay Entrance Channel
Egmont Key ' ' f
An..kia Maria Island - - -
2.2 Geologic setting
The Egmont Key study area is located on an ancient carbonate platform
that is one of the broadest and most extensively submerged continental
margin systems in the world (Hine 1997). The inner west -central Florida
platform is characterized by a veneer of unconsolidated sediments
(approximately 3 centimeters [cm] to 3 m thick) overlaying an irregular
base of Miocene limestone bedrock of the Arcadia Formation in the
Hawthorne Group (Brooks 2003; Hine et al. 2003). The sediment veneer
is mostly reworked Plio-Pleistocene quartz sand, skeletal carbonate debris
with minimal tertiary limestone (Doyle and Sparks 198o). Subsequently,
the region is classified as a mixed siliciclastic/carbonate regime (Ginsburg
and James 1974)•
Locally, the Egmont Key study area exists within the Egmont Ebb -Tidal
Delta, which is a large sediment complex that extends approximately
10 km into the Gulf of Mexico. Located to the east of the ebb delta is
Tampa Bay, a y-shaped estuary that is approximately 55 km long and

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
15 km wide. The Tampa Bay entrance between Mullet Key and Anna Maria
Island is approximately 8 km wide and has an average depth of 7 to 8 m
mean low water (MLW) but is naturally scoured to approximately 25 In
below MLW in several locations within the federal navigation channel.
Similar to the regional sedimentary regime, the area is characterized by a
veneer of unconsolidated sediments with increased fines content on top of
limestone bedrock (Ferguson and Davis 2003).
2.3 Meteorological and oceanographic conditions
2.3.1 Winds
The west -central Florida region is dominated by local wind -generated
waves. Consequently, wind speed, direction, and duration are significant
factors that control coastal morphodynamics. Wind speed and direction as
measured from NOAA Station (8726520) at St. Petersburg, FL (Figure 2),
which is 20 km northeast of Egmont Key, from 2000 - 2016 are
summarized in Figure 2. Since the Egmont Key shoreline is oriented
approximately north to south, easterly wind is directed offshore and does
not have significant influence on nearshore processes. During the 16-year
period, from 2000 to 2016, an offshore wind occurs 61% of the time. While
local wind -generated waves are usually the cause of wave -induced coastal
changes, swell waves are not uncommon and are generally a result of the
distal passage of tropical cyclones.
Winds that are directly out of the north (o °) occur 5.1 % of the time. These
northerly winds are associated with the passage of winter cold fronts.
Winds that approach the study area out of the west are relatively evenly
distributed with respect to time and are less frequent as easterly winds.

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
6
Figure 2. Study area wind rose as observed from NOAA station 8726520,
St. Petersburg, FL.
60/0 _
4%
Z"Yo =
WEST = FAST, Wind Speed mfs
�16-18
14- 16
0 12-14
❑ 10-12
M4-6
02-4
MO-2
2.3.2 Waves
Wave height, period, and direction are the dominant factors that control
nearshore morphodynamics. Wave data for study area were obtained NOAA
National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) Station 42o98, located 15 km due west
of the seaward entrance to Egmont Channel. The wave gauge has been
operational since June 2015, and data from June 2015 through July 2o16
are presented in Figure 3. A distinct seasonal difference was observed in the
wave data. During the summer months, waves are generally less than 2 m in
height, with peak periods <_ 8 seconds (Figure 3). During the winter months,
higher energy wave events associated with cold fronts occur approximately
every 10 to 14 days. These passing fronts produce wave heights slightly
greater than 4 m with average periods slightly less than 8 seconds. The
largest waves have recorded peak wave period that exceed to seconds.

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
7
Figure 3. Study area wave height, average period, peak period, and direction as
observed from NDBC Station 42098, Egmont Channel.
5
E 4
s 3
ap
x 2
m
a
m
1
Wave Height
v
5/31/2015 7/30/2015 9/28/2015 11/27/2015 1/26/2016 3/26/2016 5/25/2016
Date
Average Wave Period
8
v, 7
0 6
m
a 5
m
m 4
m
Q 3
2
5/31/2015
7/24/2016
7/30/2015 9/28/2015 11/27/2015 1/26/2016 3/26/2016 5/25/2016 7/24/2016
Date
Peak Wave Period
14
12
y 10
0 8
a
a 6
Y
m 4
a
2
0
5/31/2015 7/30/2015 9/28/2015 11/27/2015 1/26/2016 3/26/2016 5/25/2016 7/24/2016
Date
Wave Direction
360
y 300
c 240
0
180
L_
C 120
a
a
60
0
5/31/2015 7/30/2015 9/28/2015 11/27/2015 1/26/2016 3/26/2016 5/25/2016 7/24/2016
Date

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
8
2.3.3 Tides
The study area experiences a mixed tide regime in that it has diurnal and
semidiurnal components of unequal magnitudes. Spring tides are diurnal
and have an approximate range of o.8 to 1.2 m. Neap tides are semidiurnal
with an approximate range of 0.4 to 0.5 In (Wang et al. 2011). An example
tidal record as observed from St. Petersburg, FL (NOAA Station 8726520)
for January 2016 (Figure 4) illustrates this spring/neap tidal cycle. Tidal
range in the study area is less than 2 m and classified as micro -tidal.
Although the tidal range is relatively small, tides play an important role in
the nearshore morphodynamics of the study area. This is mainly due to the
large water body area (1,03o km2) and tidal prism (6.466 x 109 m3) of
Tampa Bay (Galperin et al. 1991; Goodwin 1984; Lewis and Estevez 1988).
The large tidal prism drives strong tidal flows through the two inlets,
Egmont Channel and Southwest Passage, at both ends of Egmont Key.
These tidal flows can potentially have significant influence on the
morphodynamics of Egmont Key.
Figure 4. Study area tidal regime as predicted for NOAA station 8726520
St. Petersburg, FL, for January 2016.

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
9
3 2014-2015 Dredging and Placement
Operations
The 2014-2015 Tampa Harbor dredging project was conducted by the
GLDD hopper dredges the Dodge Island (November and December 2014)
and the Padre Island (January through March 2015). Both dredges used
bow pump -out capabilities to send material to the placement areas using a
pipeline (see Figure 5). Material was dredged from Tampa Harbor
Entrance Channel and placed in two portions of Egmont Key, with two
different types of nourishment styles. A traditional beach nourishment was
constructed at the north end of the island, while a CSSZ nourishment was
constructed just south of the midpoint of the island (Figure 1).
Figure 5. The Dodge Island, a GLDD hopper dredge, pumping out material to
Egmont Key on 16 December 2014.
The traditional trapezoidal fill template at the northern end of Egmont
Key used a Y-valve and two placement cells with longitudinal dikes with
intermediate spurs to increase settlement and minimize material lost to
the active swash zone, see Figure 6. The use of this placement design with
a Y-valve with two cells allows for one side to be closed down for
extending outfall pipes without having to stop discharge. Placement of
dredged material occurred at the north end of the island from 19
November to 28 December 2014 and then from 21 January to 5 February
2015. Total volume of this placement was approximately 244,000 m3.
Approximately o.8 km south of the traditional beach nourishment, the
CSSZ placement was constructed. Geomorphic features created by the
CSSZ placement method were designed to function as a feeder beach to
areas adjacent to the nourishment. The CSSZ placement occurred from
8 February to 6 March 2015, with a total volume of approximately
82,000 m3. Figure 7 shows the completed northern beach placement as
well as the CSSZ placement being constructed.

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
10
Figure 6. Traditional beach placement at northern end of Egmont Key, Florida,
26 December 2014. (Photo courtesy of GLDD.)
Figure 7. Shore based pipeline and CSSZ placement in center of Egmont Key,
Florida, 21 February 2015. (Photo courtesy of GLDD.)

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
11
4 Methodology
4.1 Geotechnical core borings
As part of preparation for the 2014-2015 Tampa Harbor Entrance
Channel Operation and Maintenance Project, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE), Jacksonville District, collected vibracores to
characterize the shoaled sediments in the dredge prism for the Egmont
Key nourishment. The investigation consisted of 39 vibracore borings
collected along the margins of the authorized federal navigation channels
(Egmont and Mullet Key). The cores were collected to provide samples for
the physical analysis of grain size, visual shell percentage, and carbonate
content. Analysis of the cores was completed by the University of South
Florida Coastal Research Laboratory (USF CRL).
Vibracoring was conducted by the USACE multi -purpose vessel (M/V)
SNELL (Figure 8). The SNELL is approximately 32 m x to m with a draft
Of ~2 m. The vessel carries a 35-ton crane that deploys the vibracoring
apparatus. During the period of 2-3 April 2014, the SNELL obtained 39
cores: 34 cores from Egmont Channel Cut 1, 1 core from Egmont Channel
Cut 2, and 4 cores from Mullet Key Channel (Figure 9).
Figure 8. USACE Wilmington District M/V SNELL.

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
12
N
Figure 9. All Egmont Channel and Mullet Key Channel core locations.
Egmont Channel Cuts 1, 2 & Mullet Key Channel
Mullet Hey
CutChanhe2 Cut z llgti peY Channel -
ChanPe 1 -
E9mont pit :a:i4...�----"_". _ 7w - -_- _-
Egmont Key
South-W—t Passage
Miles Anna Maria Island
0 0.75 1.5 3 4.5 6
DU,, ,,- uE20O NOA4 NOEC j a car 1--
All borings were drilled using an International Construction Equipment
Model 2 hydraulic vibratory driver fitted with a 4-inch outer diameter drill
stem, clear plastic liner, sediment retainer, drilling shoe, and a model 50
power unit (Figure 10). Borings were sited using a Furuno NavNet 3D
global positioning system located on the crane and linked to HYPACK©
with DREDGEPACK©. Elevations of the borings were determined using
the horizontal position of the boring(s) projected onto the Lower Tampa
Bay Examination Survey FY13. The vibratore apparatus was modified to
limit the maximum depth of penetration to 1.5 In. Sample depth was
constrained so that samples captured the shoaled material within the
dredging prism along with the upper portion of the channel substrate
while reducing sampling below the needed strata. All borings were
measured to ensure a minimum of 8o% recovery. The average penetration
for the borings was 1.4 In.

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
13
Figure 10. Vibracoring apparatus deployment,
Egmont Channel.
Upon delivery to the USF CRL, all cores were stood vertically. Next, any
excess core pipe was cut just above the sediment surface, packed with
paper towels, and recapped. The cores were then cut lengthwise in half
with a circular saw using a plastic cutting blade. Once cut, each core was
carefully split using metal hand scrapers. One half was immediately
cleaned by scraping a level surface, photographed, wrapped in plastic,
labeled and archived. The other half was set aside for visual classification
and sampling and subsequently wrapped in plastic and archived as well.
All cores were visually classified in accordance with the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice Designation D2488-

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
14
o9a. Visual shell estimates were appended to this procedure. A total of 80
samples were taken from the 39 cores following the methods presented in
Table 1. Sampled layers were defined based on visual change in color
and/or texture of the sediment.
Table 1. Test methods used in the analysis of core sediment samples.
Test/ Procedure
Method
Standard Practice for Description and Identification
of Soils (Visual - Manual Procedure)
D2488
Grain Size Sieve Analysis (Using Sieve Sizes No.
3/4", 5/8", 7/16", 5/16", 3.5, 4, 5, 7, 10, 14, 18,
25, 35, 45, 60, 80, 120, 170, 200, 230)
D6913
Munsell Color
Munsell Soil Color Charts
Carbonate Content, Non-ASTM
Twenhofel and Tyler (1941)
Modified D2488 to include
Visual Percent Shell
visual shell estimates
4.2 Surface sediment sampling
4.2.1 Collection methods
To document detailed changes in morphology and locations of surface
sediment samples, beach profile transects at 28 locations (Figure 11)
along the Gulf-, Channel-, and Bay -facing beaches were established by
the USF CRL. Horizontal and vertical survey controls (benchmarks) were
established using a Real Time Kinematic Global Positioning System in
August 2012. Profile spacing was approximately 120 m, and most of the
profiles were along the Gulf facing beaches. Beach profile measurement
followed standard level -and -transit procedures using a Topcon GTS-
24oNW electronic total survey station and a 4 m prism pole. Most of the
beach profiles extended at least 50 m seaward to the short-term depth of
closure (Wang and Davis 1998). Ten beach profile surveys were
conducted along the 28 transects from August 2012 to August 2015 to
capture the short-term beach changes and beach nourishment evolution.
For the purposes of this report, focus will remain on the pre -
construction, post -construction, and 5 months post -construction (August
2015) surveys. Although outside the scope of this report, detailed
information on the morphology change of the two types of nourishments
can be found in Tyler (2o16).

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
15
Surface sediment samples along 11 of the 28 beach profile transects were
collected using a to cm polyvinyl chloride pipe capped at one end
(Figure 11). Samples were taken from the surface to a depth no more than
10 cm. Similar to the measurement method used for beach profile
surveying, the sampling scheme was based on morphology characteristics,
with samples collected from the dune to the short-term depth of closure. On
average, seven samples were taken from each profile with approximately
half being taken on the subaerial beach and the other half from the
subaqueous portion of the profile. Surface sediment samples were collected
three times: pre -construction of the nourishment (September 2014),
immediately post -construction (March 2015), and 5 months following
construction (August 2015). Sediment characteristics at these three times
were compared to examine the redistribution of different size fractions of
the sediment.
4.2.2 Sieving
Surface sediment samples were processed and analyzed with the same
procedure used for the cored channel sediments, following ASTM D6913.
Sieves used for analysis ranged from the three -quarter -inch to the No. 230
sieve. Mean grain size and sorting were calculated using the Moment
Method (Folk and Ward 1957)•
4.2.3 Munsell Color
To evaluate sediment color at the placement sites, dry beach samples were
collected both prior to and following construction and analyzed for
Munsell Color values (Munsell 20o0). Additionally, Munsell Color analysis
was conducted on samples collected from the regions of the channel where
the dredged material was sourced. Munsell color classifies color by hue,
chroma and value. The Munsell color hue indicates the relationship of the
color to red, yellow, green, blue, and purple. The Munsell color chroma
relates the color strength or departure from a neutral of the same
lightness. The Munsell color value ranges from 1 to 8 and relates to the
darkness of the sediment; the lower the number, the darker the material.
Munsell color was determined by a digital colorimeter.

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
16
Figure 11. Beach profile locations, Egmont Key, Florida, established 23 August 2012.
Red circles indicate sediment sampling transects.
9=
25
R24
23
R28
R22 R27
21 s
MdIPW
R to
R17
R16
R1�J
R14
R13
12
fZ17
_ r
R9
R3
P2
Rif
Island Imagey: USACE OCtr7jer 3 201 a
New snare Baihymetry: JALETCX J u n a B 20.12 L
Value
2
1
=1
-.2
-3
matBY$
N
r
1 Kilwrw*r
1

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
17
5 Results and Discussion
5.1 Core borings
USACE Jacksonville District collected 39, 1.5 m vibracore borings in
shoaled areas of Cut 1, Cut 2, and the Mullet Key Cut in the Tampa Harbor
Entrance Channel in 2014. The percentage of fines in the in situ samples
ranged from 0.5% to 80.7%. The average composited fines percentage was
20.7%. Cores were also analyzed for color, and a composite Munsell Color
value of 4.36 was obtained. It was assumed that the dredging process
would homogenize the dredged sediment and a composite Munsell would
accurately represent the in situ sediment color.
5.2 Beach profile surveys and surface sediment samples
The USF CRL collected cross -shore profile surveys along Egmont Key
prior to construction in September 2014 and following construction in
March and August 2015 (Figure 12—Figure 18). Surface sediment samples
were taken along the cross shore profile lines.
Figure 12—Figure 18 indicate the percentage of fines for each of the surface
sediment samples taken along the profiles. The pre -construction profiles
in the traditional nourishment template contained less than 2 % fines on
the subaerial beach. Higher percentages of fines were typically found with
distance offshore. A maximum fines content of 17.9 % was measured at the
toe of the foreshore along R21; however, generally the sediment samples
contained less than approximately 5 % fines. Immediately post -
construction in March 2015, samples on the subaerial beach contained 5%
or less of fine material. Again, the highest percentage of fines was found at
the toe of the foreshore with up to 34.3% at R19 (Figure 15). This is also at
the edge of the fill, which may have had an impact on the anomalous
concentration of fines seen here.

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11 18
Figure 12. Profile line R-25 across the northern tip of Egmont Key in the traditional placement area.
R23
r
R21
.t
R19
R25 Profiles with % Fines
—Sept 2014 ■ Sept 2014 Samples —Mar 2015 % Mar 2015 Samples —Aug 2015 • Aug 2015 Samples
3
2
_ 1
i=
oo
a0
z
o -1
d
w -2
-3
-4
0 20 40
60 80 100 120 0.5% 140
Distance from Monument (m)
Figure 13. Profile line R-23 across the widest part of the traditional fill area on Egmont Key.
R25
R23 Profiles with % Fines
R23 3 —Sept 2014 ■ Sept 2014 Samples —Mar 2015 x Mar 2015 Samples Aug 2015
.6%
�1 2
2.1% 2.8%
•r�F. � 1
eo
0 0.8%
R21 f: y > 0
< 2.0%
R19— -z 1.6
�
3.5% 8%
' £ -3 8.4%
A r q4t.
-4
0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance from Monument (m)
js

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11 19
Figure 14. Profile line R-21 across the southern taper of the traditional fill area on Egmont Key.
R25
R21 Profiles with % Fines
_
-Sept 2014
■ Sept 2014 Samples -Mar 2015 % Mar 2015 Samples -Aug 2015 • Aug 2015 Samples
R23
3
0.6%
.1R�y
2
1.4%
0.5% 6%
4.3% 2.5%
tl
3.4%
0.4% 5.2
1.0
z 0
`o
-
1.9%
R19
2% 2.1%
3.2%
• .e
-2
E t;
2.1% 2.8%
�-•
e }?'
0 20
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
r�
Distance from Monument (m)
Figure 15. Profile line R-19 across the southern taper area of the traditional fill area on Egmont Key.
R25
R19 with % Fines
-
_
-Sept 2014 ■ Sept 2014 Samples
-Mar 2015 % Mar 2015 Samples -Aug 2015 • Aug 2015 Samples
R23-
3
1. %
2
� 1 g%0.4% 0.4%
R21 -
C 0.5%
1.8% 0.9
R19
e
?
c 1.0%
0 2.0% 1.1
3 9%
0.9%
-2
3.9%
3.09
2.9% 34.3% 0.7%
4.2% 5.5%
e M,'
3
0 20 40
60 80 100 120 140 160
P.
{
Distance from Monument (m)
Similar to the traditional nourishment site, the highest concentration of
fines at the CSSZ placement was found at the farthest offshore extent of
the fill (toe of fill). The toe of fill showed higher fines content at the CSSZ
transects (24.5%-83.8%) compared to the traditional placement.
However, by the next sampling event (5 months later), the fine sediment
content had dropped below 5% in these areas. In fact, the August 2015
sampling period showed that all surface samples across the dry beach
transect contained less than 5% fine material.

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
20
Figure 16. Profile line R-12 across the point of the CSSZ placement on Egmont Key.
R12 Profiles with % Fines
-Sept 2014 ■ Sept 2014 Samples -Mar 2015 % Mar 2015 Samples -Aug 2015 a Aug 2015 Samples
1 2
j^
1.5
/ 1
E 0.5
p 0
R12 i -0.s
e
R11
-2
-2.5
R10 e?; -r
-3
.' 0 50 100 150 200 250
.w} Distance from Monument (m)
4
0
.1%1.2%
0.3
1.0% .6%
4.z%
24.5% 1.5%
� o.s% z.3%
1.8%
Figure 17. Profile line R-11 moving south along the CSSZ placement area taper
on Egmont Key.
R11 Profiles with %Fines
a ;^ -Sept 2014 ■ Sept 2014 Samples -Mar 2015 % Mar 2015 Samples -Aug 2015 a Aug 2015 Samples
-`
1.5
1
E
w 0.5
0
R12
0
io -0.5
R11 M
-1
1.5
R10
-2
1.5%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Distance from Monument (m)
Figure 17. Profile line R-11 moving south along the CSSZ placement area taper
on Egmont Key.
R11 Profiles with %Fines
a ;^ -Sept 2014 ■ Sept 2014 Samples -Mar 2015 % Mar 2015 Samples -Aug 2015 a Aug 2015 Samples
-`
1.5
1
E
w 0.5
0
R12
0
io -0.5
R11 M
-1
1.5
R10
-2
1.5%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Distance from Monument (m)
.5 0.3%
Figure 18. Profile line R10 across the southern most portion of the CSSZ area
on Egmont Key.
R10 Profiles with % Fines
-Sept 2014 ■ Sept 2014 Samples -Mar 2015 -Aug 2015 % Mar 2015 Samples a Aug 2015 Samples
2
0.2% 0.3%
era 0.7% 0.6%
1
0.2% 1.5% 0.4% 0.9% 1.6%
E 0
0.9% 0.6%
R12 ";" : a 0.6% 97
str z -169 2.3%
s, 0
dt 2 3.1%
R11 - e r w o.si
IL
3 4 8% 83.8% 3.--
R10 _4 5.3%
0 20 40 60 8100 120 140
Distance from Monument (m)

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
21
5.3 Core boring and sediment sample summary
Sieve analysis showed that the pre -construction beach had 0.7 fines
present and the channel material had over 20.7% fine material by weight.
The composite dry beach samples showed that the dredged and placed
material had 1.9 % fines, which was well within the io% fines criteria for
the beneficial use of channel material allowed by the "Sand Rule."
Composite sieve analyses of the surface samples from the post -
construction beaches demonstrated that there was an approximate tenfold
decrease in fines percentage from the channel to the final beach placement
fill. It is of note that the material used for the CSSZ placement contained a
higher percentage of fines than that used for the traditional beach
nourishment, which may explain the higher percentage of fines found at
the CSSZ nourishment toe.
The in situ channel material was darker (Munsell Value [MV]=4.36) than
the existing native beach (MV=5.9), likely due to higher content of darker
color fines and organic material. Due to fines and organics loss during
dredging and placement, composite samples of the post -construction
beach was lighter in color value than the parent channel material
(MV=5.3). The CSSZ Munsell value was identical to the pre -construction
beach while the traditional placement site had a darker value of 5.o. An
image referencing the different color values is found in Figure 19.
Figure 19. Example Munsell Color chart for reference (image from
http://blog.stephens.edu/arhIOlgiossary/?glossarn-value).
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DARK MIDDLE LIGHT

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
22
6 Conclusions
In November 2014, Tampa Harbor Entrance Channel was dredged, and
material was beneficially placed onto Egmont Key. Although the material
contained an increased amount of fines according to the State of Florida
"Sand Rule," (an average of 20.7%), an exception was made to allow
placement of the sediment directly onto the beach due to the highly
erosive nature of the island. Material was placed in a traditional beach
nourishment template at the northern portion of the island and in a CSSZ
placement approximately o.8 km south of that. Core borings and surface
sediment samples were collected to quantify fines loss from sediment
source to placement site. Based on core borings, the channel contained an
average of 20.7% fines with a maximum of over 8o% fines. Surface
sediment samples taken from the dry beach pre -construction contained
only 0.7% fines. Post construction, the dry beach contained approximately
1.9% fines, indicating that although the sediment source contained an
increased amount of fines, limited fines ended up on the surface of the dry
beach. The resulting nourishment is within the State of Florida "Sand
Rule" regulations (i.e., less than 1o% fines are allowable to place onto a
beach during a maintenance dredging project). The color of the
constructed nourishment sediment was very similar to the pre -
construction sediment color in both the traditional beach nourishment
and CSSZ placement.

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
23
References
Brooks, G. R., L. J. Doyle, R. A. Davis, N. T. DeWitt, and B. C. Suthard. 2003. Patterns
and controls of surface sediment distribution: West -central Florida inner shelf.
Marine Geology 200(1-4): 307-324•
Doyle, L. J., and T. N. Sparks.1980. Sediments of the Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida
(MAFLA) continental shelf. Journal of Sedimentary Research 50(3): 905-915•
Ferguson, T. W., and R. A. Davis. Jr. 2003. Post -Miocene stratigraphy and depositional
environments of valley -fill sequences at the mouth of Tampa Bay, Florida.
Marine Geology 200(1-4); 157-170.
Folk, R. L., and W. C. Ward. 1957. Brazos River bar: A study in the significance of grain
size parameters. Journal of Sedimentary Research 27(1): 3-26.
Galperin, B., A. F. Blumberg, and R. H. Weisberg.1991. A time -dependent three-
dimensional model of circulation in Tampa Bay. In Proceedings of the Tampa
Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium, Vol. 2, 77-97.
Ginsburg, R. N., and N. P. James. 1974. Holocene carbonate sediments of continental
shelves. In The Geology of Continental Margins. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Goodwin, C. R.1984. Changes in Tidal Flow, Circulation, and Flushing Caused by
Dredge and Fill in Tampa Bay, Florida. Water Supply Paper 2282. No. 84-447•
Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.
Hine, A. C.1997. Structural and paleoceanographic evolution of the margins of the
Florida Platform. The Geology of Florida. Gainesville, FL: University Press of
Florida.
Hine, A. C., G. R. Brooks, R. A. Davis, D. S. Duncan, S. D. Locker, D. C. Twichell, and G.
Gelfenbaum. 2003. The west -central Florida inner shelf and coastal system: A
geologic conceptual overview and introduction to the special issue. Marine
Geology 200(1): 1-17.
Lewis III, R. R., and E. D. Estevez. 1988. The Ecology of Tampa Bay, Florida: An
Estuarine Profile (No. BR-85 (7.18)). Mangrove Systems, Inc., Tampa, FL; Mote
Marine Lab., Sarasota, FL.
Loeb, W. A. 1994• Beaches of Pinellas County, Florida; A History of their Comings and
Goings (circa 185o present). No. 94-565. Reston, VA: U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
U.S. Geological Survey.
Maglio, C. K., J. D. Ousley, A. G. Hershorin, and M. A. Mora. Tampa harbor maintenance
dredging with Egmont key beneficial reuse of high silt content material using a
traditional template versus cross shore swash zone placement. In Proceedings of
the Western Dredging Association and Texas A&M University Center for
Dredging Studies, "Dredging Summit and Expo 2o15."Houston, TX, 22-25
June 2015.
Munsell Soil Color Charts. 2000. New Windsor, NY: Gretagmacbeth.

ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
24
Twenhofel, W. H., and S. A. Tyler. 1941. Methods of Study of Sediments. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Tyler, Z. J. 2016. Morphodynamics of Egmont Key at the Mouth of Tampa Bay: West -
Central Florida. Master's thesis, University of South Florida.
Wang, P., and R. A. Davis, Jr. 1998. A beach profile model for a barred coast: Case study
from Sand Key, West -Central Florida. Journal of Coastal Research 14(3): 981-
991
Wang, P., T. M. Beck, and T. M. Roberts. 2011. Modeling regional -scale sediment
transport and medium -term morphology change at a dual -inlet system examined
with the Coastal Modeling System (CMS): A case study at Johns Pass and Blind
Pass, West -central Florida. Journal of Coastal Research 49-6o.

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Form ed
OMB No.07040188
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect
of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations
and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE
2. REPORT TYPE
3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
June 2019
Final Report
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Beneficial Use of Dredged Material with Increased Fine Sediment Content: A Case Study
at Egmont Key, Florida
51b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S)
5d. PROJECT NUMBER
456009
Katherine E. Brutsch6, Coraggio K. Maglio, Zachary J. Tyler, Jase D. Ousley, and Ping
5e. TASK NUMBER
Wang
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) (see reverse)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
ERDC/CHL TR-19-11
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USACE
Washington, DC 20314-1000
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT
In November 2014, Tampa Harbor Entrance Channel was dredged, and material was placed onto Egmont Key. Although the material
contained quantities of fine sediment that were greater than the State of Florida "Sand Rule" criteria, an exception was made to allow
placement of the sediment directly onto the beach due to the critically eroding west shoreline of the island. Material was placed in a
traditional beach nourishment template at the northern portion of the island and in a cross -shore swash zone placement approximately 0.8
kilometer south of that. Beach profile surveys were collected to document morphology change of the two types of nourishments and to
illustrate cross -shore location of each sediment sample. Core borings and surface sediment samples were collected and analyzed to
quantify fines loss from sediment source to placement site. Although the core borings taken in the dredging area indicated an average of
20.7% fines, the surface sediment samples on the dry beach only yielded 1.9% fines on average, which is within the Florida "Sand Rule"
regulation. The post -construction surface sediment samples had a similar color to the pre -construction samples.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
Beach nourishment, Dredging, Dredged material, Dredged material -Management, Dredging spoil, Egmont Key (Fla.)
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:
17. LIMITATION OF
ABSTRACT
18. NUMBER OF
PAGES
19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT
b. ABSTRACT
c. THIS PAGE
Unclassified
Unclassified
Unclassified
SAR
34
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)
601-634-4174
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Galveston District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2000 Fort Point Road
Galveston, TX 77550
Portland District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
333 SW 1st Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
University of South Florida
School of Geosciences
4202 E. Fowler Avenue
Tampa, FL 33620