Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTAR_REPORT_JBS_27_SEPT_2019Report entitled: Phase H Remote -Sensing Archaeological Survey of the Western Extremity of Jay Bird Shoals Near the Mouth of the Cape Fear River, Brunswick County, North Carolina Submitted to: Geodynamics 310A Greenfield Drive Newport, North Carolina 28570 Submitted by: Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc. P. O. Box 2494 Washington, North Carolina 27889 27 September 2019 Abstract Geodynamics of Newport, North Carolina is working for Moffatt and Nichol (M&N) of Wilmington, North Carolina to plan and permit a borrow area at the western end of Jay Bird Shoals (JBS) near the mouth of the Cape Fear River in Brunswick County. In order to determine the effects of proposed dredging on potentially significant submerged cultural resources, Geodynamics contracted with Tidewater Atlantic Research (TAR) of Washington, North Carolina to assist with a remote -sensing survey deigned to identify and assess magnetic and acoustic signatures that could be associated with submerged cultural resources. Field research for the project was conducted between 14 and 16 June 2019. Analysis of the remote -sensing data generated during the survey identified a total of 254 magnetic anomalies. Twenty-eight magnetic anomalies were identified outside the survey border. Twenty-three magnetic anomalies were associated with a low -intensity, long -duration linear feature. That feature could be geological and may represent a deposit of magnetic material such as magnetite. Conversely, the feature could be associated with a deteriorated pipeline of armored cable. A buffer has been established to prevent dredging in the event that material associated with the feature represents a hazard. The remaining 203 magnetic anomalies appear to represent small and moderate ferrous objects. Material generating those anomalies could be modern debris such as fish and crab traps, pipes, small diameter rods, cable, wire rope, chain, small boat anchors and possibly ordnance. Analysis of the sonar data identified 11 acoustic targets. Eight of those are located in, or around, the northeast corner of the survey area and are wire or cable. The remaining three acoustic targets appear to be bottom surface debris. Analysis of the subbottom profiler data confirmed that no subbottom features are associated with the magnetic anomalies or sonar targets. Likewise, there are no subbottom features that represent relict landforms considered to be potentially associated with prehistoric habitation. Based on the survey data no submerged cultural resources that are eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places will be impacted by proposed dredging in the survey area. Consequently, no additional investigation of the proposed JBS borrow site is recommended. H Table of Contents Abstract.................................................................................................................................................... i Listof Figures....................................................................................................................................... iii Introduction.............................................................................................................................................1 ProjectLocation......................................................................................................................................2 ResearchMethodology...........................................................................................................................4 Literature and Historical Research.....................................................................................................4 Remote -Sensing Survey.....................................................................................................................4 HistoricalBackground............................................................................................................................ 8 Federal Improvements to Cape Fear Entrance Channel........................................................................18 Remote -Sensing Data Analysis.............................................................................................................19 Descriptionof Findings.........................................................................................................................20 Conclusions and Recommendations.....................................................................................................29 Unexpected Discovery Protocol............................................................................................................30 ReferencesCited................................................................................................................................... 31 Appendix A: Shipwreck Inventory....................................................................................................... 35 Appendix B: Magnetic Anomaly Table................................................................................................37 Appendix C: Sonar Target Reports.......................................................................................................44 111 List of Figures Figure 1. Project location mapped on NOAA Chart 11536-1.................................................................2 Figure 2. Border points for JBS survey area........................................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Geodynamics survey vessel 4 Points....................................................................................... 5 Figure 4. Marine Magnetics magnetometer (bottom) and EdgeTech sonar (top)...................................5 Figure 5. Sidescan sonar and magnetometer tow cable on deck winch .................................................. 6 Figure 6. EdgeTech 512i subbottom profiler transducer........................................................................ 6 Figure 7. Computer navigation and data collection system located at the research vessel helm ............ 7 Figure 8. As -run remote -sensing survey tracklines..............................................................................21 Figure 9. Distribution of magnetic anomalies in the JBS survey area..................................................22 Figure 10. JBS magnetic data sub-areas...............................................................................................23 Figure 11. JBS Sub -Area A magnetic contours and anomalies............................................................24 Figure 12. JBS Sub -Area B magnetic contours and anomalies............................................................25 Figure 13. JBS Sub -Area C magnetic contours and anomalies............................................................26 Figure 14. JBS Sub -Area D magnetic contours and anomalies............................................................27 Figure 15. Sonar coverage mosaic and acoustic targets........................................................................28 Figure 16. Sample of subbottom profiler data of linear magnetic feature............................................29 Introduction Geodynamics of Newport, North Carolina is working for Moffatt and Nichol (M&N) of Wilmington, North Carolina to plan and permit a borrow area at the western end of Jay Bird Shoals (JBS) near the mouth of the Cape Fear River in Brunswick County. In order to determine the effects of proposed dredging on potentially significant submerged cultural resources, Geodynamics contracted with Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc. (TAR) of Washington, North Carolina to assist with a remote -sensing survey deigned to identify and assess magnetic and acoustic signatures that could be associated with submerged cultural resources. The JBS remote -sensing investigation conducted by Geodynamics was designed to provide accurate and reliable identification, assessment, and documentation of submerged cultural resources in the study area. The survey and assessment methodologies employed by Geodynamics and TAR were developed to comply with the criteria of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 11-190), Executive Order 11593, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Procedures for the protection of historic and cultural properties (36 CFR Part 800), the updated guidelines described in 36 CFR 64 and 36 CFR 66 and survey guideline requirements adopted by the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (NCDCR). The results of the investigation were designed to furnish M&N and Geodynamics with the archaeological data required to comply with submerged cultural resource legislation and regulations. The survey was carried out utilizing both magnetic and acoustic remote -sensing equipment. An Overhauser effect magnetometer, high -resolution digital sidescan sonar, and chirp subbottom profiler were utilized to generate magnetic and acoustic data. Analysis of the remote -sensing data generated during the survey identified a total of 254 magnetic anomalies. Twenty-eight magnetic anomalies were identified outside the survey border. Twenty-three magnetic anomalies were associated with a low -intensity, long -duration linear feature. That feature could be geological and may represent a deposit of magnetic material such as magnetite. Conversely, the feature could be associated with a deteriorated pipeline of armored cable. A buffer has been established to prevent dredging in the event that material associated with the feature represents a hazard. The remaining 203 anomalies appear to represent small and moderate ferrous objects. Material generating those magnetic anomalies could be modern debris such as fish and crab traps, pipes, small diameter rods, cable, wire rope, chain, small boat anchors, and possibly ordnance. Analysis of the sonar data identified 11 acoustic targets. Eight are located in, or around, the northeast corner of the survey area and appear to be wire or cable. The remaining three targets appear to be bottom surface debris. Analysis of the subbottom profiler data confirms that no subbottom features are associated with the magnetic anomalies or sonar targets. Likewise, there are no subbottom features that represent relict landforms considered to be potentially associated with prehistoric habitation. 2 Field activities were conducted between 14 and 16 June 2019. Project personnel consisted of Geodynamics project administrator Chris Freeman, project manager -chief hydrographer Dave Bernstein, principal surveyor -vessel captain Ben Sumners and surveyors Nick Damm and Davis Batten. Gordon P. Watts, Jr. served as principal archaeological investigator. Robin Arnold and Dr. Watts carried out historical and literature research. Dr. Watts analyzed remote -sensing data. Ms. Arnold and Dr. Watts prepared this report. Project Location The JBS remote -sensing survey area is situated off the mouth of Cape Fear River. The center of the survey area is located on the western side of JBS approximately 8,000 feet south of Oak Island. The area surveyed is polygonal in shape measuring 6,000 feet in north -south length and 6,000 feet in east -west width. The area covers 783 acres (Figure 1). 0 a 75000 2280000 2285000 2290000 2295000 2300000 O SOUTHPORT o -- _ i , G��� a D+-jt��py,,TANK + m a ^-r"1 �I �9F ��`fs_eABSPIRE r , H dfSh'` OVD PWR CAB m a C^ A0 2y F N i'v Iso R6S 39ft Y`\�� �o'/.Q'1i% o + +•' OD R 65 4n (Night) + .15.' o _ . ,00 .q \ °1 TANK , o h rr� oe ........... � `• 1lz22a�m9rrth �I 1 0`b o A ub r :0..: 1, 'Wk .a,.•,�.RJ2Q \\ 2 PII 1.5 O 6 �2 P-11 .G + b s + + 1\ F c 24 FIY6s20 9 �� ............................... ` Priv 20 :11 8 2404 CGS AN o62�4 45 F1�1 20 9 S ....ZF 27 13 9 PA;+�:bar Chan .... e taro �' + + stern 13 13 6 16 29 21 19 Fl G 4s 3p 14Rk 8 5 3 S110a�5 �1.� 28 10 " 27 24SU Ar a— Iso 2s 23 32 .10 11 9 t + 3031 + Jy 11 7 +111'. 34 26 1 ja 29 6 t 6 2G,1 21 19 4 F FIR 2.5s 32 31 8 3 ®ad 36 S Sh ppFHri d 3 0 34 26:Obstn 19 19 1 FI 3 10 4 Brea 33 7 y 39 2 0bs� 15i 32 31 23 15 Rk 35 11 1*' .11 S o + + + 31 25 2 22 + Y"A o 39 28 Fly S Sh 33 37 34 v7 2 / 5 R .81. 24 21 FIR 2.5s 34 31 \ 35 G T 28AA + 36 40 I 38FIG2. � + 32 2+ + c 37 � � m " 36 c° / 34 31 39 39 i R "6" 2275000 2290000 2285000 2290000 2295000 2300000 Figure 1. Project location mapped on NOAA Chart 11536-1. 3 The survey boundaries defined in North Carolina State Plane Coordinates, based on NAD 83, U.S. Survey Foot are identified in Table 1. A map illustrating the JBS border point sites is shown in Figure 2. 4584.7 49382.1 B 2290583.5 49332.1 2290583.5 43383.3 D 2235599.6 43355.8 E 2235591.4 45363.E F 1 2284584.7145380.111 Table 1. JBS survey area border point coordinates. A 19 B 21 14Rk 8 10 24 G7 10 131 `� 11 E E 26 1 o C Figure 2. Border points for JBS survey area. Research Methodology Literature and Historical Research TAR conducted a literature search of primary and scholarly secondary sources to assess the potential to find significant historical/cultural resources within the proposed dredge site. A background history of Oak Island and the lower Cape Fear was prepared from an extensive collection of primary sources at TAR. Wreck -specific information was collected from sources that include; Disasters to American Vessels, Sail and Steam, 1841-1846 (Lockhead 1954), Encyclopedia of American Shipwrecks (Berman 1972), Shipwrecks of the Civil War (Shomette 1973), Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States 1790 - 1868 (Lytle and Holdcamper 1975), Shipwrecks of the Americas (Marx 1983), and Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion (National Historical Society [NHS] 1987). The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) online database (National Park Service n.d.), and the Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System (NOAA n.d.) were also queried for shipwreck information. Personnel at the Underwater Archaeology Branch (UAB) of the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (Fort Fisher), the North Carolina Maritime Museum (Southport), the Brunswick County Library, and the Smith Island Museum of History were previously contacted for specific shipwreck data associated with JBS and the lower Cape Fear River. Books, documents, manuscripts, and Federal records associated with the current project archived at East Carolina University (Greenville NC) and University of North Carolina at Wilmington were consulted in person on several occasions from June to late August 2019. Remote -Sensing Survey In order to identify submerged cultural resources, Geodynamics conducted a systematic remote -sensing survey of the proposed dredge site. Underwater survey activities were conducted from the 25-foot survey vessel 4 Points (Figure 3). In order to fulfill the requirements for survey activities in North Carolina, magnetic and acoustic remote -sensing equipment were employed. Equipment included a Marine Magnetics magnetometer, EdgeTech sidescan sonar, and EdgeTech subbottom profiler. Data collection was controlled using a differential global positioning system (DGPS). DGPS produces highly accurate coordinates that are necessary to support a sophisticated navigation program and assures reliable target location. A Marine Magnetics Overhauser SeaSPY magnetometer was used to collect magnetic data (Figure 4). SeaSPY's resolution is 0.001nT; meaning that if an ideal noise -free magnetometer signal were being measured, variations as small as 0.001nT would be detected. SeaSPY is capable of sub -second repeatability but 1-second data collection is considered to be sufficient at vessel speeds of three to five knots. Due to significant variations in water depth within the project area, the magnetometer sensor was towed behind the sonar transducer using a cable counter equipped winch to control elevation. Magnetic data were recorded as a RAW data file on the navigation/survey digital system running HYPACK software. 5 Figure 3. Geodynamics survey vessel 4 Points. Figure 4. Marine Magnetics magnetometer (bottom) and EdgeTech sonar (top). An EdgeTech 4200-HFL sidescan sonar system was employed to collect acoustic data in the investigation area (Figure 4). The 4200-HFL uses full -spectrum CHIRP technology to deliver wideband, high-energy pulses coupled with high -resolution and superb signal to noise ratio echo data. The sonar package included a portable laptop configuration running DISCOVER acquisition software and a 300/600 kHz dual frequency, dual channel towfish running in high definition mode. Dual frequency provided a differential aid to interpretation. The sidescan sonar transducer was maintained between 12 and 18 feet above the bottom surface using a deck mounted winch with a cable counter (Figure 5). Acoustic data were collected using range scale of 162 feet (50 meters). The survey line spacing was designed to achieve total bottom coverage with more than 200% overlap. The digital sidescan data were merged with positioning data via the computer navigation system and logged to disk for post -processing using EdgeTech's DISCOVER software. R Figure 5. Sidescan sonar and magnetometer tow cable on deck winch. An EdgeTech 512i towfish (Figure 6) was employed with a Full Spectrum Sub -bottom Topside Unit to collect seismic data. sw ' f nil 5r' f� COASTAL N(jC�'f i-! Al1V RTL Figure 6. EdgeTech 512i subbottom profiler transducer. 7 The sub -bottom profiler sends an acoustic signal through the ocean bottom to record surface and subsurface geological features. Each distinct layer in the bottom sediment is indicated as a surficial trace, which is recorded in an electronic format onboard the survey vessel. The chart shows the presence of the sediment surface and other distinct layers or features within the sediment, such as buried river channels. The topside unit was utilized to control the 512i towfish and to display and archive the data, which was merged with positioning data via the computer navigation system and logged to disk for post -processing using EdgeTech's DISCOVER software. A combination of TRIMBLE DGPS and RTK were used to control navigation and data collection in the survey area. That system has an accuracy of plus or minus three feet, and can be used to generate highly accurate coordinates for the computer navigation system on the survey vessel (Figure 7). The DGPS and RTK were employed in conjunction with an onboard laptop loaded with HYPACK navigation and data collection software. Positioning data generated by the navigation system were tied to magnetometer records by regular annotations to facilitate target location and anomaly analysis. All data is related to the North Carolina State Plane Coordinate System, NAD 83. Figure 7. Computer navigation and data collection system located at the research vessel helm. Historical Background Documented European settlement of the present-day Cape Fear region commenced ca. 1521 when Spanish lawyer -nobleman Lucas Vasquez de Ayll6n (1475-1526) led an expedition there from a Florida outpost. One Spanish vessel was recorded lost near the mouth of the Cape Fear River, referred to by the Spanish as El Rio Jordan. During the brief existence of the Spanish settlement, the area was known as the "Land of Ayll6n" (Lee 1965:3-4). The next known attempt to settle the Cape Fear region came almost a century and a half later with the arrival of the English. Settlers from New England colonies came to the area eager to establish a Puritan colony in the less harsh climate of the south. Under the leadership of Captain William Hilton, a group arrived by sea in summer 1662 to find a suitable location. Debarking at the river called "Cape Fear" by Hilton, the Puritans remained for three weeks during which time they purchased the surrounding area from Native Americans. The Puritan settlers that followed during the winter of 1662 remained in the Cape Fear vicinity for only a brief time before abandoning the area (Lee 1965:4-5). In early 1663, King Charles Il granted territory south of Virginia to eight noblemen in tribute for restoring the Stuart dynasty to the monarchy. That conveyance included the area from Georgia to the Albemarle Sound region of North Carolina. The territory was divided into three counties; Albemarle [Albemarle Sound area], Clarendon [Cape Fear region], and Craven [South Carolina]. Shortly thereafter, the Lords Proprietors received a proposal from a Barbadian group for a settlement within the Cape Fear region. In late spring 1664, 200 settlers, under the command of John Vassall, established a colony at the confluence of the Charles River [modern Cape Fear] and Town Creek (Potter 1993:5-6). The capital of Charlestown was the first English town in Carolina (Lee 1965:5). That colony reached a population of 800 and extended some 60 miles along the river at its zenith. In October 1665, a second expedition by the Barbadians was launched with the intent of establishing a colony in the vicinity of Port Royal. A small fleet consisting of a frigate, sloop and a flyboat, under command of Sir John Yeamans, stopped at the Charlestown settlement after an arduous journey from Barbados. While entering the river, the flyboat, carrying the new colony's armament, ran aground on the shoals on the west side of the channel [modern JBS] and was lost (Potter 1993:9, 29). The loss of this important cargo abruptly ended the Port Royal venture. Within two years, Charlestown would also be abandoned. Difficulty in obtaining supplies, differences between the proprietors and settlers over land policies, and hostilities with the Natives resulted in the colony being deserted by late 1667 (Potter 1993:10-11). In 1726, South Carolina and upper North Carolina colonists established permanent settlements on the lower Cape Fear (Lee 1977:7). On the west bank of the river, about 12 miles above its mouth and several miles below a shoal in the river called "the Flats," Maurice Moore established the town of Brunswick. A shoal located at the mouth of Town Creek impeded larger ships from venturing further upstream. Situated below "the Flats" Brunswick was accessible to vessels of large or small size (Lee 1977:12). In April 1733, another community was established 15 miles upstream from Brunswick. The new settlement became X known as New Town or Newton to distinguish it from the "old town" of Brunswick. In 1740, the town was incorporated and the name was changed to Wilmington (Lee 1977:12). As hostilities with France and Spain grew during the 1740s Governor Gabriel Johnston authorized the construction of a fort along the lower Cape Fear to protect the burgeoning towns of Brunswick and Wilmington. Construction began in July 1745 on a small bluff overlooking the mouth of the river. Johnston's Fort, as it was called, was still uncompleted in 1748 when two Spanish vessels entered the river and raided Brunswick (Carson 1992:20). Efforts to finish construction intensified after the raid and in less than a year the fort was completed. The resulting structure was small and poorly constructed. It was manned by only three men and armed with four rusty cannons (Carson 1992:20). In 1751, the fort was assigned to double as a quarantine station. Development based upon a maritime economy played a major role in the growth of both Wilmington and Brunswick during the eighteenth century. Vessels of varying size entered the Cape Fear from other coastal ports, the West Indies and Europe. Larger vessels, unable to cross over "the Flats," called at Brunswick, while vessels of smaller size could travel further up the river to Wilmington. Consequently, Brunswick was established as the center for overseas shipping and Wilmington as the center for local and West Indian trade (Lee 1977:16-17). Rice, cattle, swine, lumber and naval stores made up the majority of the exports from the port district of Brunswick. Prior to the Revolution numerous ships left the Cape Fear River for other ports. The West Indies served as the main destination of these ships with English ports following a close second. A lesser number carried cargo to coastal ports, mostly in the northern colonies, but occasionally some ventured south, down the coast to Charleston (Lee 1977:33). The Cape Fear region played a minor role in the events of the American Revolution. In June 1775, Royal Governor Martin fled from New Bern to Fort Johnston, then under the protection of the British man-of-war Cruizer. Growing patriot activity in the area forced the governor to relocate to the warship a month later. All portable materials were transferred to the ship and the fort's guns were spiked and pushed into the river (Carson 1992:22). Local forces later burned the fort and its outbuildings. Knowing that a large number of Loyalists inhabited the interior of the colony Governor Martin initiated a plan to subjugate the region using a combination of British and Loyalist forces (Sprunt 2005:113). British reinforcements arrived off the North Carolina coast by the end of March, but by then the opportunity to subdue the colony had passed. On 27 February 1776, Colonel James Moore and the First North Carolina Continentals with a group of militia defeated a contingent of Scottish Loyalists at the battle of Moore's Creek Bridge. This battle, called the "Lexington and Concord of the south," kept the British from occupying the South at the beginning of the war (Powell 1989:180-182). 10 Naval operations were of limited importance in the Cape Fear region. In mid-1776, British warships began taking up regular station over the mouth of the river. By May of the following year two British men-of-war entered the river and destroyed a number of Colonial vessels at anchor (Watson 1992:29). To counter the threat posed by British warships the General Assembly voted to purchase and arm three brigs for the defense of the Cape Fear River. However, these vessels proved inadequate for the task and suggestions were made for either selling them or sending them on trading or privateering expeditions (Watson 1992:29). The lower Cape Fear remained relatively peaceful until 1781 when Lord Cornwallis dispatched Major James H. Craig from his Charleston station to take Wilmington. Craig, with a force of 18 vessels and 400 troops, quickly captured the defenseless town (Sprunt 2005:114). From Wilmington, Craig dispatched armed parties throughout the countryside to rally local Loyalists and to obtain supplies for Cornwallis's troops, the latter then marching through North Carolina. After being checked by Colonial forces in the battle of Guilford Courthouse the British retreated to Wilmington to recoup and replenish supplies. Later, when Lord Cornwallis moved north to suppress Virginia, Craig remained behind in Wilmington to disrupt Colonial activity in that region. News of Cornwallis's surrender at Yorktown made the British position in Wilmington untenable and on 17 November Major Craig evacuated the North Carolina seaport. After the conclusion of the war there was a shift in the maritime development of the Cape Fear region. Almost all the ships that cleared Cape Fear now went to Charleston and few to England or the West Indies (Lee 1977:33). Inbound ships now sailed up to Wilmington. This modification brought about the decline of Brunswick as was indicated by the change in name of the "Port of Brunswick" to the "Port of Wilmington" (Lee 1977:34). During the last decades of the eighteenth century the area that would become the town of Southport consisted of little more than the remains of Fort Johnston and the homes of local river pilots. The region's potential, however, was realized by three men from Wilmington, Joshua Potts, John Brown and John Husk, who the viewed the area, with its salubrious sea breezes, as an ideal spot for a new town. Though the men's initial petition was rejected in 1790 the group persevered and on 15 November 1792, the General Assembly issued a charter for the establishment of a town on the bluff overlooking the mouth of the river. The town was named Smithville, after Benjamin Smith who introduced the bill into the legislature. The town was laid out with lots offered for sale in Wilmington and Fayetteville newspapers. The charter specified that no person could purchase more than six lots in their name and the purchase price of lots was to be 40 shillings per lot (Carson 1992:26). The town plan also reserved space for Fort Johnston, which was rebuilt in 1804. With the growing amount of vessel traffic sailing up to Wilmington there arose a need for improvements in the navigability of the river. As early as 1784, measures were taken to improve the conditions of the lower Cape Fear River (Lee 1977:36). Improvements were needed at the treacherous entrances to the river, at the Bar and upstream at New Inlet. Three major shoals between Wilmington and the sea also caused problems for ships trying to navigate the river. The "upper shoal," located near the foot of Clarks Island, off the southern 11 tip of Eagles Island, had eight and one-half feet of water. The "middle shoal," also known as "the Flats," had nine feet. The "lower shoal," at the foot of Campbell Island, had nine and one-half feet. The main channel of the river was then located in a narrow passage between Campbell Island, Clarks Island and the west bank (Lee 1978:112). In addition to the shoals, ships deliberately sunk during the American Revolution as obstructions needed to be removed (Lee 1977:36-37). Around 1819, Hamilton Fulton, a noted English engineer, was hired to make improvements on the Cape Fear River mainly between Wilmington and the ocean where a system of jetties was planned. Work continued for six years until financial limitations halted this project. Some improvements were made on the river up until the start of the Civil War with sporadic financing by the state and local Wilmington businessmen (Lee 1977:37). Steam vessels first appeared on the Cape Fear River in 1817. The first steamboat to arrive was the side -wheel Prometheus, built in Beaufort for a firm in Wilmington that intended to run the vessel from Wilmington to Fayetteville and Southport. The following year the Clarendon Steamboat Company was established at Wilmington. The company held the exclusive right to operate steamboats on the Cape Fear for a period of seven years provided that it kept one boat in service. In addition to the Prometheus, the side -wheel Henrietta, also made regular runs between Wilmington and Fayetteville (Lee 1977:37-38). By 1822, a second steamship venture, the Cape Fear Steamboat Company, had begun service on the river. With time the number of steamboats on the river increased significantly (Lee 1977:38). By the 1850s, nearly a hundred vessels of all types were in Wilmington at the same time. Many of the ships were large square-rigged foreign craft, while others were side -wheel steamers. Most, however, were American schooners engaged in the coastal trade (Lee 1978:116). Development of the Cape Fear region was soon disrupted by the Civil War. After Confederate forces in South Carolina attacked the U.S. garrison at Fort Sumter, President Abraham Lincoln declared a state of open rebellion and called for volunteers to preserve the Union. Lincoln also issued a proclamation on 19 April 1861 establishing a blockade of Confederate ports in South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. Eight days later, Lincoln extended the blockade to include ports in Virginia and North Carolina. With North Carolina's withdrawal from the Union, Governor John W. Ellis ordered the occupations of forts Johnston and Caswell. Union naval forces were inadequate to properly enforce the blockade at the onset of the war. In 1861, U.S. navy registers listed 90 vessels, 50 of which were propelled by sail and were considered obsolete for the task at hand. The remaining 40 were steam, but several of the deep draft vessels proved unsuitable for the shallow southern waters. Eight others were laid up while 22 vessels remained at station off foreign shores and would require at least six months travel to reach the United States (Browning 1980:24). However, within a few months of Lincoln's proclamation, Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles took steps to implement an effective blockade off the southern coastline. 12 The U.S. Navy bought or leased nearly any vessel that could be of service. In nine months, Federal agents purchased 136 ships, constructed 52, and commissioned and repaired another 76 (Engle and Lott 1975:180). The subsequent Union blockade in turn gave rise to the practice of blockade running. At the beginning of the blockade, practically any vessel was considered suitable for breaking through the Atlantic squadrons to carry cargo in or out of isolated Southern ports. The most successful of the early runners were steamers that had belonged to the Southern Coasting Lines and were idle due to the outbreak of the war. The illicit trade carried on by these ships reaped considerable profit, but failed to compare with the great capital resources brought in during the latter part of the war. Wilmington provided North Carolina with a deepwater port. By 1860, Wilmington had emerged as a modern shipping center with excellent internal communication. Three railroads ran through the city and daily steamboat service to Charleston and New York, as well as, up the Cape Fear River to Fayetteville. With the capture of New Bern, Roanoke Island and Beaufort, Wilmington was the only North Carolina port left open for the importation and exportation of goods. As long as supplies were imported through the two inlets of the Cape Fear River and transported along the railroad lines, which connected with Lee's army in Virginia, the Confederacy had a lifeline. Wilmington soon became the most vital seaport in the "Southern Cause" (Pleasants 1979:15). Wilmington became the key port for "runners" largely because of the area's topography. Located 28 miles from the mouth of the Cape Fear River, the port had access to the Atlantic through two separate entrances; eastward through New Inlet and southward through the river mouth. Although the two entrances were only six miles apart, Smith's Island, a strip of sand and shoal, lay in between. Continuing along Cape Fear were the dangerous Frying Pan Shoals, which extended 10 miles further into the Atlantic, making the distance by water between the two entrances a little less than 40 miles (Soley 1883:91). This geographical configuration proved highly advantageous for blockade runners and the initial blockade of Wilmington proved ineffective. When the Daylight arrived (the first and at the time the only Union vessel sent to blockade these waters), it immediately experienced the difficulties associated with guarding the dual entrances of the Cape Fear River. While pursuing a steamer out of the western bar entrance, the Daylight inadvertently allowed several other small vessels to pass out of the New Inlet entrance. Within three months of the Daylight's arrival, 42 vessels either entered or cleared Wilmington (Browning 1980:27). During a relative two-year period (January 1863-November 1864), Confederate naval sources listed numerous vessel stations on the Cape Fear. These vessels were identified as: the ironclad sloop North Carolina, the floating battery Artic, the steam gunboat Yadkin, the steam gunboat Equator, the torpedo boat Squib, and the ironclad sloop Raleigh. Two one -gun cutters were also utilized. In November 1864, Confederate Secretary of the Navy Stephen (CSN) reported to Confederate President Jefferson Finis Davis that two new torpedo boats were under construction at Wilmington (U.S. Navy [USN], ser. II, v. 2, 1921:630, 528-532, 630,743-745). 13 The capture of Wilmington proved difficult because powerful fortifications (and lesser works) guarded both entrances to the Cape Fear. Collectively, those fortifications became known as the Lower Cape Fear Defense System. The central point of that system was Fort Fisher, located on Confederate Point. That fortification was originally a small earthworks constructed to protect New Inlet. By 1864, Fort Fisher became the largest seacoast fortification in the Confederacy. Shaped like an inverted "L," Fort Fisher's land face ran 628 yards and was guarded by 20 of the heaviest seacoast guns. The sea face included a 130- pound Armstrong rifle and a 170-pound Blakely, both imported from England (Browning 1980:35). Extending from the land face was a string of torpedoes, which could be exploded from inside of the fort (Pleasants 1979:22). Mound Battery, towering to a height of 60 feet with two mounted heavy guns, stood near the end of Confederate Point. Augusta Battery, which stood behind Mound Battery, was located near the river (Pleasants 1979:24). Fort Holmes, on the other side of New Inlet on Smith's Island, shared the protection of Smith's Inlet in the Cape Fear River with the batteries at Oak Island. Oak Island, located opposite Fort Holmes, held another series of forts and batteries, such as Fort Campbell, Fort Caswell and Battery Shaw (Pleasants 1979:24). Fort Caswell guarded the western bar entrance. Captured by Confederate militia on 14 April 1861, Caswell was renovated into a strong casemated work with new armament consisting of seven 10-inch, four 8-inch Columbiads, and a 9-inch Dahlgren gun (Browning 1980:35; Pleasants 1979:24). Both Forts Caswell and Holmes were responsible to shell Union vessels in the Middle Ground area, including the tug Violet stranded off the Western Bar Channel in early August 1864. After his tug struck the subject shoal Ensign Thomas Stothard requested assistance from the nearby 866-ton brig USS Vicksburg to attempt to re -float the Violet. Despite its quick response, the extra manpower and effort proved fruitless as Stothard was ordered to fire the Violet after midnight. In response to a court of enquiry [sic] investigation, Stothard submitted an incident report to Captain B.F. Sands of the USS Fort Jackson and offered this account: After all preparations for sending officers, crew, and ship's effects off in boats that he [Lieutenant -Commander Braine of the USS Vicksburg] and Acting Volunteer Lieutenant Williams, of the Emma, had sent, all of which I did, sending property, a list of which you will find enclosed, also a list of crew, I made preparations for her destruction as follows: I put a lighted slow match to a powder tank in the magazine and closed the door, then filled a large, fine drawer with shavings and straw taken from pillows and mattresses, partially covered it with another, and sprinkled two quarts of spirits of turpentine over all and on the woodwork around it; hung up an oilcloth from the table, one corner hanging in the shavings, which I touched with a lighted match (in the wardroom), after all the boats, but mine in waiting, had left the side, and I followed about 2:00 o'clock a.m. this morning. The explosion of the magazine containing about 200 pounds of powder occurred within half an hour afterwards, and by daylight she was effectually consumed. One 12-pounder was thrown overboard, one left on the forecastle, spiked with rat-tail file, and the 24-pounder was directly over the magazine aft when it exploded, so that it was thrown into the sea (NHS, series I, v. 10, 1987:343,344). 14 Rear -Admiral S.P. Lee recommended that no action be taken to discipline the acting officer of the Violet. Lee remarked to Union Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles, that: "Stothard is a very intelligent and efficient officer, notwithstanding this casualty" (NHS 1987, series I, 10:344). Prior to its destruction, the Violet (ex -Martha) was described as a fourth -rate, wooden screw steamer measuring 85 feet in length, with a beam of 19 feet. The 166-ton tug housed one, inverted, direct -acting engine with a 30-inch diameter cylinder and one return flue boiler (U.S. Navy 1921, series II, 1:233). Farther up river from the Violet wreck site, a series of forts and batteries were used as secondary defenses for Wilmington and as protection for blockade runners outbound from Smith's Inlet. Fort Lamb was located on the west side of the Cape Fear River on Reeve's Point. Above Fort Lamb was Fort Anderson, the most important of the secondary defenses. Partially built from the ruins of Old Brunswick Town, Anderson consisted of a series of trenches and earthworks approximately a mile long. Three smoothbore 24-pounders, three rifled 32-pounders and six smoothbore 32-pounders comprised the fort's armaments. By 1864, Fort Anderson had become an inspection station for all craft heading up the Cape Fear River to Wilmington (Pleasants 1979:25). Several lesser forts, including Stokes, Lee, French, Campbell, Strong and Sugarloaf, were situated on the east side of the river (Pleasants 1979:25). In addition to this impressive array of forts, a naval construction program was initiated in Wilmington to contribute to the defenses of the harbor. The success of the ironclad ram CSS Virginia in the March 1862 battles at Hampton Roads demonstrated the superiority of armored warships to naval officers of both the North and South. In late March 1862, CSN Stephen R. Mallory sent "instructions relative to gunboats" to Commander William T. Muse; the ranking Confederate naval officer at Wilmington. Shortly thereafter, the Confederates began building two ironclads in the city; the Raleigh at James Cassidy's shipyard at the foot of Church Street, and the North Carolina at the Beery shipyard on Eagle Island (Still 1985:5- 17, 79-92). Both vessels utilized a design based on plans conceived by esteemed Confederate Naval Constructor John Luke Porter. The plans called for a tightly framed hull, with a slight deadrise and a hard chine. The vessels were to be 174 feet long (150 feet between perpendiculars) with a draft of 13 feet. Amidships, a 105-foot long casemate, angled at thirty-five degrees and covered with 4 inches of iron plate, protected the gun deck. Two boilers provided steam for the vessel's two horizontal engines, which were geared to a single 10-foot screw. The first ironclad built on this design, the CSS Richmond, was completed in Richmond in 1862. Known as the Richmond class, this group, consisting of five vessels, was numerically the largest standardized class of ironclads constructed by the Confederacy (Holcombe 1993:63-64). The two Cape Fear ironclads entered active service by spring 1864 (North Carolina in December 1863; Raleigh in April 1864) after numerous delays resulting from material shortages, labor strikes and epidemics. However, the usefulness of these two vessels to the Confederacy's war effort was limited. Raleigh grounded on a shoal near the mouth of New Inlet and was destroyed after a sortie against the blockading squadron on 7 May 1864, less 15 than a month after entering service. The North Carolina, on the other hand, was reduced to serving as a floating battery; its deep draft and lack of motive power rendered the vessel ineffective as a ram. The ironclad was further hampered by the use of unseasoned timber in its construction. Warping and splitting timbers caused the ship to leak incessantly and an infestation by Teredo (wormlike bivalve mollusk) further weakened the hull. For most of its career, the ironclad remained at anchor near Smithville, positioned to support the nearby forts in the defense of Wilmington. The North Carolina finally sank at its moorings in September 1864. Though useless as an offensive weapon, the North Carolina served as a deterrent, preventing the U.S. Navy from entering and seizing the lower Cape Fear until the fall of Fort Fisher in the closing days of the war. When hostilities ended in 1865 so did some of the regular river trade. The prewar steamer service between Wilmington, Charleston and Savannah was not resumed, since rail service had been established. Steamship service did, however, resume to the northern cities of Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York (Lee 1977:91). The coastal trade also revived and was conducted mainly by schooners ranging between 150 and 600 tons. Because of the decimation of American shipping during the war international commerce was carried in foreign bottoms, usually of British, German or Scandinavian origins (Sprunt 2005:501). Industry had been severely interrupted during the war, but was beginning to make a comeback. Naval stores and lumber continued to be the principal exports with the addition of some cotton. Exports recorded for the year 1871 amounted to some 95,000 bales of cotton, 100,000 bushels of peanuts, 112,024 barrels of spirits of turpentine, 568,441 barrels of rosin, 37,867 barrels of tar and 17,963 barrels of turpentine (Sprunt 2005:513-514). Without the use of slave labor the rice industry declined dramatically (Lee 1977:86-87). By the turn of the century, a decrease in the availability of pine trees resulted in a decline of the naval stores industry. With improvements in cultivation and transportation, cotton became a major industry in Wilmington until its decline in the 1930s. Guano from the West Indies was brought in for the new fertilizer plants. Production of creosote impregnated wood also helped increase shipping in the region (Lee 1977:87-88). During the last quarter of the nineteenth century efforts were undertaken to develop Smithville into a viable port city. In 1886, the North and Southern Railroad Company announced plans to extend rail service from Wilmington to Smithville. Developers, envisioning a port that would rival Charleston and Norfolk, requested that the town's name be changed to Southport to draw attention to the "Port of the South" (Carson 1992:61). In anticipation of the expected development the town's dirt roads were paved in crushed shell and the dredge boat Woodbury began deepening and straightening the channel to accommodate increased vessel traffic. However, the proposed rail line did not materialize and Southport remained a small town relying on fishing and tourism for its economic livelihood. The Wilmington, Brunswick and Southport Railroad eventually extended a line to the town in 1911. Improvements to navigation on the Cape Fear River had deteriorated during the American Civil War. Continual silting reduced the navigable channel. By 1870, federally financed projects were re -started to improve navigable conditions of the river. One project was the 16 artificial closure of one of the two inlets. New Inlet was closed in 1881 with the belief that the increased force of the concentrated flow would sweep out the channel. The closure was accomplished by placing a rock dam that extended for more than a mile from Federal Point to Zeke's Island. The dam was completed in 1881 and later became known as "the Rocks". Another rock barrier was later built between Zeke's Island and Smith's Island. In addition, the channel depth was dredged to accommodate deeper draft vessels (Lee 1977:91). Two life-saving stations were established near the mouth of the Cape Fear River during the 1880s. Those stations included the Cape Fear station (b. 1882) at east end of Bald Head Island and the Oak Island station (b. 1889) located west of Fort Caswell. Each station was equipped with line -throwing guns and self-righting surfboats (Sprunt 2005:527). Surfinen maintained a constant vigil of the sea from the station house and conducted regular nightly beach patrols; additional patrols were conducted in daylight during stormy weather. Both stations remained active until the 1930s when new Coast Guard facilities were constructed to replace them. On 20 July 1895, the U.S. Marine Hospital Service appropriated $25,000 for the construction of a quarantine station at Southport. The new station was to be located on the river on the east side of the channel between the upper end of Battery Island and Price's Creek Lighthouse (Carson 1992:73). Impressive for the period, the entire station was to be built on a pier 600 feet long consisting of a hospital building, disinfecting house, attendant's quarters, and kitchen. The station opened for service by mid-1897 with Dr. J. M. Eager appointed as its first quarantine officer. A report for Federal fiscal year 1907 illustrated the level of activity at the station. [Eighty six] vessels spoken and passed; 19 steamers and 1 sailing vessels inspected and passed; 2 steamers and 3 sailing vessels disinfected; and 485 crew on steamers, 125 crew on sailing vessels, and 3 passengers on sailing vessels inspected. The vessels disinfected were from Bahia, Portobello, Santos, Rios, and Barbados (Brown 1974). By 1937 the station became obsolete and was placed on caretaker status. As the facility was located on water and not a navigation hazard it was left to deteriorate and on 19 August 1951, the now abandoned station was destroyed by fire (Brown 1974). Fishing provided the financial stamina for the economy on the lower Cape Fear during the early years of the twentieth century. The principal source of income for Southport was the collective menhaden fisheries. Most catches were processed in to a desirable oil, which was used in the manufacture of paints, linoleum, tanning solutions, soaps, and waterproof fabrics (Carson 1992:96). Leftover scrap was ground up for fertilizer and feed for livestock. The Southport Fish Scrap and Oil Company and the Brunswick Navigation Company established processing plants along the Elizabeth River while additional plants could be found above the town on the Cape Fear River. World War I initiated a revitalization of the economy with the establishment of the Carolina Shipyard in May 1918. At about the same time, the Liberty Shipyard started producing steel ships as well as experimental concrete ships. The success of the shipyards was short-lived 17 and the economy fluctuated for several years until it fell during the 1930s. Though Wilmington saw moderate success in shipping and shipbuilding after the war, most of the yards had closed by the mid-1920s and competition from Norfolk and Charleston slowly relegated the city to an import distribution center catering mainly to regional trade (Watson 1992:145). This trade averaged 200,000 or more tons through most of the 1920s, but with the coming of the Great Depression, the amount fell to 94,007 tons by 1932 (Watson 1992:150). Wilmington's economy would not fully recover from the effects of the depression until the end of the decade. Despite this economic uncertainty, foundations were laid for future development. By the beginning of World War II, Wilmington boasted 54 wharves, piers and docks and the opening of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway expanded the city's trade with its hinterland and increased its role in the coastal trade (Watson 1992:148-9). With war in Europe and German submarines prowling the east coast during the early 1940s protection and defense of the coast became a top priority in Washington. The vulnerability of the Cape Fear had been confirmed during World War I and U.S. Navy officials were anxious to be prepared for future enemy intrusions (Gannon 1990:242-243). On 17 November 1941, the U.S. Navy reacquired the 248.8-acre Fort Caswell reservation, sold into private hands in 1929. The old fort grounds were to be used for training, communications and submarine tracking (Carson 1992:126). The U-boat threat finally reached the Cape Fear region in early 1942. On 16 March, the 11,641-ton tanker John D. Gill was torpedoed in the coastal waters off the mouth of the river. As a result of the high number of vessel losses during the early stages of the war, defensive measures were put into place. Coastal communities were systematically blacked out, a more efficient convoy system was devised and additional planes and patrol vessels were put into service along the North Carolina coast (Stick 1952:237-239). In addition to the menace that Axis submarines and aircraft represented during the conflict, a significant hurricane struck the project area in late summer 1944. On 1 August, the tropical storm made landfall near Southport and the Oak Island coast guard station reported maximum wind speeds of 80 miles per hour. To the north, "substantial damage" occurred in Wilmington and Wrightsville Beach and the combined losses of real estate and crops amounted to two million dollars (Galecki 2005:133-134). World War II also brought renewed growth to the shipyards and relief to the area (Lee 1977:88-90). The increased jobs and higher wages allowed Wilmington's economy to increase and become stable. After the war many of the people brought in to build ships chose to stay and make Wilmington their home. In 1945, the State Port Authority was formed, promoting ports in Wilmington and Morehead City and creating new jobs. In 1955, the military established the Sunny Point Army Terminal [Military Ocean Terminal at Sunny Point]. The facility continues to serve in the twenty-first century as a premier terminal for shipping military hardware and ammunition to American forces around the globe. The base is a major employer in the area and local service and retail industries serving the military contribute to the economic prosperity of the region. By 1960, the population of Southport was reported as 2,034 residents. At that time, the town boasted a popular bookmobile, a new water tank, a "lighted" athletic field, and a picnic area at the community park. Maritime news included the launch of a "big, new charter boat," the Riptide. Herman Sellers constructed the vessel for Glenn Trunnell of Southport. Other local commercial fishermen commenced discussions on the merits to install an artificial reef near the town. In September 1960, Hurricane Donna struck the region and fortunately caused only minimal damage in Brunswick County (Reaves 1999:169,172). In early February 1970, the Atomic Energy Commission approved construction of a 385 million dollar nuclear power plant to be situated north of Southport. The downtown also experienced a significant economic boost when First -Citizens elected to build a bank in Southport, its first branch in Brunswick County. At the same time, waterfront interests offered services to the public such as the 150-seat restaurant Herman's, and a new 450-foot long "fishing and pleasure pier" (Reaves 1999:243). Today, the region presents a strong economy with a state port facility that is daily frequented by international cargo vessels. The economy is further augmented by the military and commercial fisheries, which provide an important source of income to area residents. In addition, the coastal communities on Oak Island, Bald Head Island Resort, and Southport are popular tourist destinations. The area's offshore waters are a sportsman's paradise catering to recreational boaters and sport fishermen alike. Federal Improvements to Cape Fear Entrance Channel (1870-1973) In 1870, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) initiated a project to improve navigation on the Cape Fear River. An examination of the river conducted by a commission appointed by the War Department suggested that priorities at that time should be given to closing off the channel between Smith's and Zeke's Islands (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] 1870:70). By 1874, the closing off of New Inlet increased the flow of water in the main navigation channel and scouring effects were noted to be deepening the channel over Bald Head Bar (USACE 1874:88-89). The contemporary officer in charge of operations stated that a suction dredge was employed at Bald Head Bar to assist in the scouring process. Furthermore, the officer's report also noted that there were two channels into the river: a western channel with two bars (an outer with 14 feet at low water and an inner or "rip" with 10 feet at low water) and the Bald Head channel (USACE 1874:69). It was suggested that since the Bald Head channel was the natural channel all efforts should be directed towards maintaining a 12-foot level of water over it and that the western channel be disregarded. In 1889, the project was modified to provide for a 20-foot depth, at low water, from Wilmington to the Atlantic Ocean. Surveys conducted during the fiscal year ending 30 June 1890 reported that the depth of water over bar had reached 16 feet (USACE 1890:131). The wreck of a Civil War gunboat was uncovered during dredging activities on the bar in 1891. The boiler from the wreck reduced water depths in the channel to 13.5 feet providing a serious impediment to navigation (The Messenger [TM] 16 May 1891). Examinations of the 19 wreck indicated that it was a wooden -hull vessel approximately 110 tons and 100 to 110 feet long (USACE 1893 Appendix L:1451). Flue and boiler sections were removed on behalf of the Federal government in 1890. On 20 May 1893, Messrs. Johnston and Townsend were awarded a contract to remove the rest of the wreck structure (USACE 1893, Appendix L:1451). The wreck site was dynamited and remaining sections of boiler recovered for disposal. Inspections of the wreck area by First Lieut. E. W. V. Lucas, E. D. Thompson and Robert Merritt revealed no trace of the hull and soundings in the vicinity indicated a depth of water of 22 feet (TM7 July 1893; USACE 1893, Appendix L:1451). The River and Harbor Act of 2 March 1907 provided for additional dredging for completing the channel to the mandated 20-foot depth level. In addition, the Act also authorized for improvements in excess of 20 feet as appropriations permitted (USACE 1912:459). The project was modified again in the River and Harbor Act of 25 July 1912. Those modifications called for a channel of 26 feet deep at low water with widths of 300 feet in the river, increasing to 400 feet across the bar and in curves in the river (USACE 1912:459-460). The controlling depths of the channel were increased to 30 feet in the River and Harbor Act of 2 March 1919. In 1922, the USACE discontinued the then current entrance channel and authorized for a new one over the bar with the same dimensions as the previous one (USACE 1922:682-683). The new channel was to run in a southwesterly direction from Bald Head Point. These improvements were noted as being completed in 1932. In the River and Harbor Act of 2 March 1945, the controlling dimensions for the navigation channels on the Cape Fear River were increased further. Water depths from the outer end of the bar to Wilmington were increased to 32 feet and all channels were now to maintain a width of 400 feet throughout (USACE 1945:632-631). The project was estimated to be 65 per cent complete by the end of the fiscal year. In 1950, the controlling depths over the ocean bar were increased to 35 feet (USACE 1950:653-654). Additional modifications to the navigation channels were authorized in the River and Harbor Act of 23 October 1962. Among the provisions of that Act was the deepening and widening of the entrance channel to 40 feet deep and 500 feet wide (USACE 1962:360-361). The channel was to maintain those dimensions as far as Southport were they were reduced to 38 feet deep and 400 feet wide up to Wilmington. The project was reported as being complete in 1973 (USACE 1979:6-9). Remote -Sensing Data Analysis To ensure reliable target identification and assessment, analysis of the magnetic and acoustic data was carried out on a line -by-line basis. The magnetic data was examined for anomalies, which were then isolated and analyzed in accordance with intensity, duration, areal extent and signature characteristics. Sonar records were analyzed to identify acoustic targets on the basis of configuration, areal extent, target intensity and contrast with background, elevation and shadow image, and were also reviewed for possible association with identified magnetic anomalies. Analysis of each signature included consideration of magnetic and sonar signature characteristics previously demonstrated to be reliable indicators of historically significant submerged cultural resources. Assessment of each target includes avoidance options and 20 possible adjustments to avoid potential cultural resources. Where avoidance is not possible the assessment includes recommendations for additional investigation to determine the exact nature of the cultural material generating the signature and its potential NRHP significance. Historical evidence was developed into a background context and an inventory of shipwreck sites that identified possible correlations with magnetic targets (Appendix A). A magnetic contour map and a sonar coverage mosaic were produced to aid in the analysis of each target. Description of Findings Analysis of the remote -sensing data generated on 100-foot line spacing (Figure 8) identified a total of 254 magnetic anomalies (Figure 9; Appendix B). To better illustrate those magnetic anomalies the survey area was divided into four sub -areas (Areas A, B, C, and D) on four maps (Figure 10) that identify magnetic contours and the associated anomalies (Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13; Figure 14). Twenty-eight magnetic anomalies were identified outside the survey border. Twenty-three magnetic anomalies were associated with a low -intensity, long -duration linear feature. That feature could be geological and may represent a deposit of magnetic material such as magnetite. Conversely, the feature could be associated with a deteriorated pipeline of armored cable. A buffer has been established to prevent dredging in the event that material associated with the feature represents a hazard. The remaining 203 magnetic anomalies appear to represent small and moderate ferrous objects. Material generating those anomalies could be modern debris such as fish and crab traps, pipes, small diameter rods, cable, wire rope, chain, small boat anchors, and possibly ordnance. 21 Figure 8. As -run remote -sensing survey tracklines. 22 0 0 0 0 LO 0 0 0 00 a 0 2285000 2286000 2287000 2288000 2289000 2290000 + ++ +Lf+ + + + io + ++ + ++ 4 + + +++ ++ + +++ 44 + { + + + + + + 0 375 750 1,500 2,250 3,000Fe amok J 2235000 2286000 2287000 2288000 2289000 2290000 Figure 9. Distribution of magnetic anomalies in the JBS survey area. 23 2285000 2286000 2287000 2288000 2289000 2290000 2291000 c + + + + + c t e CD c + + + — + + CD o un in 19 0 0 0 0 o rn v a14Rk CD CD C + Co a a CD 0 S20 + a a CD ( 0 0 0 � a CD o LO LO le a 0 0 26 CD v v � + +_CD 14 N +21 + + + + + N 2285000 2286000 2287000 2288000 2289000 2290000 2291000 + + + + + + + Area q + + A+ea B I I I + + + + area C + + A a D + + + + + + + Figure 10. JBS magnetic data sub -areas. 0 C. C. 0 LO 0 0 0 CO v 0 0 0 0 2285000 12-pm-20.9g-34. 0.3 -13-c 00074-pm- g-47. 0 0 m-13. 0 nm- .5 -52.5f \\ 0008-5-do-5.ga-11 2285000 2286000 1f Area A Magnetic Data IL 0 3 7-51.1 g-2 .3f 11a- f n 010 -28.8f 0002-1- 0102- -pm-3.3g-18.3f 2286000 24 2287000 0 0 0 0 N Ln 1.91' 4.8g-20f N\, 0091 0 2287000 Figure 11. JBS Sub -Area A magnetic contours and anomalies. 0 0 0 0 v 25 0 0 0 0 u� 0 0 0 w I* 2288000 2289000 2290000 N Area B Magnetic Data 0030-2-pm-11.1 g-18.4f 44-1-nm-5.8g-1 0041-3-dp-5. Sg-23.6f 0029-6-pm-4.5g-14.8f 0099-2-nm-5.2g-11 f 0024-2-pm- .2g 7.7f 0046- m-225.7g-24.6 -dp-1 .4g-2 f 0 -n - - 6 45- - 1 g-72. + + 45- nm- .4g-8. 0029-4- 8.4g- f 9- c- Ag-1 f+ 0099-1-nm .3g-3 01 5-pm- . g-4 8 021-3- - g- 8.2f 04 6.6g-40.5f 0 -1-dp- 6 - 040-2-dp-8.7g-2 f 00 dp 3 3-g=3 2 0 p-7. g-34. g-16. 0 1 39.31 - -dp- 7 m g-64. �030- m-2 3 13-d 4 7f 20-2-p -4.7g- .Sf 0020-3-p 8f0 -2-mar--9 8g-16.4f + 41- -dp-18. g-40. 0 1-1-pm-2.89-23.3f 0 -4-nm- - f 4-2-nm- . g-82. g-23. 95-2- 22.9 8.3f o2-dp-24 p-45g 0 20 pm-4.8g-17. f O 39.8f a 0014- - - - f - 2g-1 0094-3-nm-20.6g- 0 2-dp- 0027-1-d -17.4 0. f �093-5-dp-6.2g-20.5f 0 1-pm- 9 -277. 00-1-pm-. g-13. 0028-1-p 3.5g-140,yjQ029- pm-2. g-95. -dp- 0.9 19.7f + 0029 g-17. 098-3-pm .1 .8 4-1-p 107. 08 -dP- g-2 . f -1- g-1 f 0097-2-pm 5.2g-23.6 0 0-4-me g-46.9f ® 0 m-5.4g-2 f ♦ 00 -1 m- 240 29-1 89- dp-7.9g- 3.6f g-22. 009 - - m- . g-25.1f 01 - 6g- 00 - -20 -25.7f � -pm .3 1.3f -1 nm-3 g-23. .8 7 8 _pm-14.2g-13.1 2 1 9-pm-7.7g P P -Pm-49 090 m-6. - 0 -2 g 90-2-dp-19.7g-35f 02 - - 91--pm-3j5g-90.9f 6- -4. 237f 1- -5.9 -1 0092-4-dp-14.1g-16 008 6- -1 121.3f 0 PI-dP \ \ 00 8- 0 0009-2-pm-6.8g- 8 -Pm -15 . 0005;1-pm-9Wg-178f dp-4. 8f d P 1�0 2288000 2289000 2290000 Figure 12. JBS Sub -Area B magnetic contours and anomalies. 0 0 0 0 uO 0 0 0 0 v C. 0 0 m a 26 2285000 2286000 2287000,,7 0 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 a 0 CD a 0 0 v 0 0 �00 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 M 2285000 2286000 2287000 0 -2-d 0003 1-pm-2 g- � 00 -3- 6.Sf 5. 0- - f 7 04- 0. 0 8- 8-dp-16.9 8.7 �086- -pm- g-28.8f _ 1 00 1-n - -1 . 0011- p-17. -Cl 0002-1- -4. 57. 00 -2-pm .4g- " 01 4 0102--pm-3.3g-18.3f 0096- f l\\` 0 -pm 1 1 �8 - - g-65.4f _1 -pm-5. -� 0093-3-pm}9g 90. t t 4 1 37.3g-3Q.2 39`� . � 0�6-3-pm-2.8g-44.3f 97 1g 2f 010-5-pm-9.6g- \' 11. - .2 0093-2-pm-1 6g-74. f �J 01 m-7.6g- 3 1 - 26. m -2'�.5 1 -4- �f 7®- 0105 -d - 3.9g- S�f 00-1- 9 01 -nm- - �4- - �29- 1 104-2-mc-46. g 1 1. 0 -p 46 g 0102- 11.6g-3 -dp-4.9g-23.8 + + / \ 0 3o m-17 g-5 . 01 5-2- -8.5g- - .4g-1 / . 009J-5-nm-27.9g-44. 01 dp-12.5g- .7 0089-3-nm 5 0 0-1-dp-6.8g-50.2f � 00®-1-d g-18.9 r 89-2-pm-3.9g-15. y �- � 1-dp-12.2g-32 8f 0087 1-dp�.6g-28. f 0097-4- -2,7g- w 0093-dp-5.9�12f '0 0077-1-d 15.4 -53.2I 0092 1-dp-7.4 -1 -1-*- S - - 0089-1-dp-5.1g-43.3f � 7-2- m-7. Area C N�agnetic Data _ + 0 195 390 780 1,170 1,560 Feet Figure 13. JBS Sub -Area C magnetic contours and anomalies. 27 2288000 2289000 2290000 98-3-pm .1g 8 0097-2-pm- 5.2g-23.6 08 -dp- g-2 . f 00 Pm- 7g-1 1Q029- 0 0-4-mc g-46.9f ® 0 m-5.4g-2 . f 0 8- pm- g-245g-22.800 089- dp-7.9g- 3.6f 009 - - m-5. g-25.1f 01 - 6g- 6.4g-23.1 -_20 -25.7f m .3 1.3f OS-pm-14.2g-13.1 2g 1 9-pm-7.7g 1 dp 0095-1 p-9. 33.9 9 -Pm-49- 0 -2- 090 m-6.CD g 902 c 0 -2-dp-19.7g-35f 91A-Pm-3. g-90.9f -1- -59 -1J2,PO092-4-dp-14.1g-16 (� 008 6- -1 9- - .38-121.3f \ 00 8- - - . g-2 92- -m 61.9 f 093-3 c-8 _ 1-dp- i 0 - _ i 0009-2-pm-6.8g- 4.5g- f -pm -15 . 94-2 0005-1-Prtf 99- 8f 0 dp-4. .8f dp- 16 0006-1'pm-8. -2 1.7f -8 -2 d 14.8g- 8 m I, 00091-pm- .5g-27 1g 1 -1-pm 3g-23. op 1- - f \ c h 00 - -n 45.3g-31.8f 0 d g- c LO e a - - 79 0008-1-pm-6. g- . f ��- 0009-1-dp-1 g- .5 8 -5 -12 4 1 p 2.6 c- 5 3 2 .2f 006-1-pm-5.9 - 6f 8 P - 9- 1- 9 4 6f 93-1- 11-5. g-22. f 0 P 9- p 0- P- 8 - 088- -mc 1.7g-75f 7 1- -8. f p ov (� 1- -dp-15 g-23. a dp-5g-20.41 0 1- -' 2.5g 7f 88 - - -29.8 O 1-dp 8 10 - - m- 8g-43.9f 00 1-d 7. g-26. f 2 9 f 000 1- 5.3g 113f 8-3-d f C 0 3-1-dp-15. - 8.9f 0 dp-25 RPM g-31. -3 P4 ./ 3.7g- 005-1-nm-7.9g-49.2f +0004-1-dp-1024.7g-34.5f 0083-3-pm-5.2*47.6f 0088-1-dp-11.4g-23. M\ Area "agnetic Data \ 0083-1-dp-1829.9g-51.6 M a v 0 195 390 780 1,170 1, 0 eet 2288000 2289000 2290000 Figure 14. JBS Sub -Area D magnetic contours and anomalies. 28 Analysis of the sonar data identified 11 acoustic targets (Figure 15). Eight of those are located in, or around, the northeast corner of the survey area and appear to be wire or cable. The remaining three acoustic targets appear to be bottom surface debris. 2285000 2286000 2287000 2288000 2289000 2290000 2291000 StE) N f c + - + + + o W) S SSS083-2 9 SsS -.�- o o o QSA sS sS v 0 0 0 0 w co v v o 0 0 0 0 0 n r- v v o o o 09_ o v a o +.. " 5ollo + + o v a 0 0 o + o v a v a oAll O M + + + 9 0 387.5 775 1,550 2,325 3,100 eet N 2 1 + + + + N v a 2285000 2286000 2287000 2288000 2289000 2290000 2291000 Figure 15. Sonar coverage mosaic and acoustic targets. 29 Analysis of the subbottom profiler data confirmed that no subbottom features are associated with the magnetic anomalies or sonar targets (Figure 16). Likewise, there are no subbottom features that represent relict landforms considered to be potentially associated with prehistoric habitation. Figure 16. Sample of subbottom profiler data of linear magnetic feature. Conclusions and Recommendations A survey of select archival and archaeological literature and extensive background research confirmed evidence of sustained historical maritime activity associated with the entrance to the Cape Fear River that continues into the twenty-first century. Documented transportation activities in the vicinity of Oak Island and neighboring waterways date from the first half of the sixteenth century. The Cape Fear River region became a focus for European activities as early as 1526 when De Ayll6n led an historic expedition from Florida into the region. Permanent settlement along the banks of the Cape Fear River began during the second decade of the eighteenth century. As a consequence of nearly 400 years of navigation in the coastal region of Brunswick County and settlement along the banks of the Cape Fear River since the eighteenth century, there is a high probability that historically significant submerged cultural resources are located in the area. While no shipwrecks in the project area have been listed on the NRHP or with the UAB, previously identified vessel remains document that they exist. There are at least 27 shipwrecks recorded in the coastal waters near JBS and the mouth of the Cape Fear 30 River (Appendix A). Because of their association with the broad patterns of North Carolina history, the remains of sunken vessels preserve important information about the maritime heritage of the its coast. Numerous shipwrecks, including the earliest known vessel lost in North Carolina, have occurred at the mouth of the Cape Fear River. In spite of what is clearly a high priority area for submerged cultural resources, the data generated by the current JBS survey identified no evidence of historical vessel remains in the survey area. Out of the 254 magnetic anomalies, twenty-eight were located outside the survey area border and twenty-three were associated with a low -intensity, long -duration linear feature indicative of a geological feature of the remains of a deteriorated cable or pipeline. The remaining 203 magnetic anomalies have signature characteristics that appear to reliably represent small and moderate ferrous objects such as fish and crab traps, pipes, small diameter rods, cable, wire rope, chain, small boat anchors and possibly ordnance. None of those signatures have characteristics, individually or collectively, that are generally considered to be associated with shipwreck remains. Likewise, no sidescan sonar targets have signature characteristics generally considered to be associated with shipwreck remains. Finally, the subbottom profiler data has no identifiable association with either the magnetic or acoustic signatures or with relict landforms that could represent sites of prehistoric habitation. Unexpected Discovery Protocol Based on magnetic and acoustic data generated by the current investigation, no submerged cultural resources will be impacted by proposed dredging in the JBS survey area. Therefore, no additional investigation is recommended in conjunction with the project. However, in the event that undiscovered submerged cultural resources are encountered during dredging, those operations should be immediately shifted away from the site. The respective Point of Contact for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -Wilmington District, North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, Brunswick County, and Moffat & Nichol should be immediately notified. Prior to resuming any activities, an assessment of the previously unknown resource should be made. In the event that material at the site is eligible for nomination to the NRHP, and the site cannot be avoided, a mitigation plan should be developed. Mitigation should be designed to preserve the historic and/or archaeological value of the resource. 31 References Cited Berman, Bruce D. 1972 Encyclopedia ofAmerican Shipwrecks. Mariners Press, Boston, MA. Brown, Landis G. 1974 Cape Fear Quarantine Station: Origin and Disease Barrier. Brunswick County Historical Society Newsletter 14(2). Browning, Robert M. 1980 The Blockade of Wilmington, North Carolina: 1861-1865. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of History, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC. Carson, Susan S. 1992 Joshua's Dream: The Story of Old Southport, A Town with Two Names. Southport Historical Society, Southport, NC. Engle, Eloise, and Arnold S. Lott 1975 America's Maritime Heritage. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD. Galecki, Bryan 2005 Rum Runners, U-Boats, & Hurricanes: The Complete History of the Coast Guard Cutters Bedloe and Jackson. Pine Belt Publishing, Wilmington, NC. Gannon, Michael 1991 Operation Drumbeat: The Dramatic True Story of Germany's First U-Boat Attacks Along the American Coast in World War IT Reprint of 1990 edition. HarperPerennial, New York, NY. Holcombe, Robert 1993 The Evolution of Confederate Ironclad Design. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of History, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC. Lee, Lawrence 1965 The Lower Cape Fear in Colonial Days. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1977 New Hanover County: A Brief History. Division of Archives and History, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh. 1978 The History of Brunswick County North Carolina. Board of County Commissioners, Brunswick County, NC. 32 Lockhead, John L. (compiler) 1954 Disasters to American Vessels, Sail and Steam, 1841-1846. Compiled from the New York Shipping and Commercial List, Mariners Museum, Newport News, VA. Lytle, William M., and Forrest R. Holdcamper 1975 Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States 1790-1868 "The Lytle-Holdcamper List." Edited by C. Bradford Mitchell. Steamship Historical Society of America, Staten Island, New York, NY. Marx, Robert F. 1983 Shipwrecks in the Americas. Bonanza Books, New York, NY. National Historical Society (NHS) 1987 Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion, ser. 1, v. 12. Historical Times, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) n.d. Query for Jay Bird Shoal Vicinity in: AWOIS. Coast Survey's Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System <https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/data/wrecks-and- obstructions.html>, last revised 8 June 2018, last accessed 27 September 2019. National Park Service n.d. Query for Brunswick County, North Carolina Nominations and Listings. National Register of Historic Places <www.nps.gov>, last updated 14 August 2019, last accessed 27 September 2019. Pleasants, James A. 1979 A Brief History of the Lower Cape During the Civil War. Ms. on file, Tidewater Atlantic Research, Washington, NC. Potter, Greg L. 1993 Report of Findings: The Yeamans' Expedition Flyboat. Submitted to the Underwater Archaeology Unit, Division of Archives and History, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Fort Fisher. Powell, William. 1989 North Carolina Through Four Centuries. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Reaves, William 1999 Southport (Smithville), A Chronology (1941-1970). Southport Historical Society, Southport, NC. Shomette, Donald G. 1973 Shipwrecks of the Civil War, The Encyclopedia of Union and Confederate Naval Losses. Donic Ltd., Washington, D.C. 33 Soley, James Russell 1883 The Navy in the Civil War: The Blockade and the Cruisers. Charles Schribner's, London, England. Sprunt, James 2005 Chronicles of the Cape Fear River. Second Edition. Dram Tree Books, Wilmington, NC. Stick, David 1952 Graveyard of the Atlantic: Shipwrecks of the North Carolina Coast. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Still, Jr. William N. 1985 Iron Afloat: The Story of the Confederate Armorclads. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia. The Messenger [Wilmington NC] 1891 The Messenger, 16 May 1891, 7 July 1892. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1870-1979 Annual Reports of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Navy 1921 Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion, ser. II, v. 1. U.S. Navy Department, Washington, DC. Watson, Alan D. 1992 Wilmington: Port of North Carolina. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia. Appendix A: Shipwreck Inventory Known Shipwreck Losses At and Near the Mouth of Cape Fear River Vessel Type Use Date of Loss Location Disposition Spanish Vessel 1526 Mouth of the Cape Fear River Sir John Fly Boat Oct. 1665 Middle Ground Unknown Feb. 1767 Cape Fear River Bar Enter rise 15 Feb. 1768 Mouth of the Cape Fear River Clementine March 1775 Middle Ground Salvaged(?) Unknown Feb. 1784 Mouth of the Cape Fear River Neptune Brig 26 Jan. 1789 Middle Ground Sabine Privateer 11 Sept. 1814 Florie Blockade Runner Oct. 1864 Inside Bar Geor Tana McCaw Blockade Runner 2 June 1864 SW of Baldhead Light Violet U.S.S. Gunboat 7 Aug. 1864 Western Bar Possibly cleared by USACE Frying Pan Shoals Lightship Light Ship 20 Dec. 1861 North of Fort Caswell Sunk by U.S.S. Mount Vernon Ellen Schooner Blockade Runner 26 June 1862 Burned while ashore at Bald Head Channel Taken in tow by U.S.S. Victoria. Sunk in 15 minutes. Emily Schooner Blockade Runner 26 June 1862 Burned under the guns of Fort Caswell Lizzie Sloop Blockade Runner 1 August 1862 Captured and burned by U.S.S. Penobscot off Bald Head. Ella Steamer Blockade Runner 3 Dec. 1864 Run ashore on Bald Head Beach. Partially Salvaged Agnes Emily Frye Steamer Blockade Runner 27 Dec. 1864 Lost 2 miles south of Fort Caswell off Old Inlet Pine Sloop May 1868 Cape Fear Bar Alex S runt Lighter Feb. 1872 Felicitus Bark (Ger.) July 1874 Main Bar Salvaged Maria Needham Bark Br. 14 Jan. 1874 Middle Ground Salvaged Vapor Schooner 5 Nov. 1895 Cape Fear Bar San Antonio Bark Br. 13 Jan. 1890 Salvaged 0 it Bark Nor. 10 Nov. 1894 Middle Ground Salvaged Clarence H Schooner 9 Dec. 1902 South of Cape Fear Bar Col. Thos. F. Austin Schooner 24 Feb. 1916 Middle Ground Unknown Bark 13 June 1930 Middle Ground Appendix B: Magnetic Anomaly Table Appendix B: Magnetic Anomaly Table Anomaly X Coordinate Y Coordinate Line # Anomaly # Signature Intensity Duration Identification Assessment 0001-1-pm-7.4g-16.9f 2290367.9 48479.5 1 1 Positive Monopolar 7.4g 16.9f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0002-1-dp-8.3g-32.8f 2288563.5 43944.4 2 1 Dipolar 8.3g 32.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0002-1-nm14.9g-34.7f 2290493.9 48450.2 2 1 Negative Monopolar 14.9g 34.7f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0002-1-pm-4.7g-57.1f 2285743.3 46055.8 2 1 Positive Monopolar 4.7g 57.1f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0003-1-dp-250.1g-70.1f 2290434.5 48577.6 3 1 Dipolar 250.1g 70.1f Moderate Ferrous Object Debris 0003-1-dp-5.3g-31.3f 2289038.9 43541 3 1 Dipolar 5.3g 31.3f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0003-1-pm-22.5g-86.7f 2285453.2 46513.6 3 1 Positive Monopolar 22.5g 86.7f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0003-2-dp-7.6g-49.7f 2285304 46680.1 3 2 Dipolar 7.6g 49.7f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0003-2-pm-3.5g-49f 2285000.7 48147.1 3 2 Positive Monopolar 3.5g 49f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0004-1 -dp-1 024.7g-34.5f 2289413.6 43314 Dipolar 1024.7g 34.5f Moderate Ferrous Object Out of Area 0004-1-pm-7.2g-20.2f 2287770.6 44005.7 4 1 Positive Monopolar 7.2g 20.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0004-2-dp-8.5g-28.9f 2287268.3 44567.3 4 2 Dipolar 8.5g 28.9f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0004-3-pm-7.2g-24f 2286118.2 45885.8 4 3 Positive Monopolar 7.2g 24f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0004-4-pm-40.1g-24.2f 2285612.2 46454.4 4 4 Positive Monopolar 40.1g 24.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0005-1-nm-7.9g-49.2f 2288493.7 Negative Monopolar Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 0005-1-pm-9.1g-178f 2287609.1 45451.2 5 1 Positive Monopolar 9.1g 178f Moderate Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0005-2-dp-5.6g-12f 2288243.9 43552.7 5 2 Dipolar 5.6g 12f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0005-3-pm-2.7g-22.7f 2287924.8 43944.1 5 3 Positive Monopolar 2.7g 22.7f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0005-4-pm-5.3g-58.3f 2286997.5 44993.6 5 4 Positive Monopolar 5.3g 58.3f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0005-5-dp-5g-55.1f 2285934.4 46207.8 5 5 Dipolar 5g 55.1f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0006-1-pm-5.9g-29.6f 2287539.5 44515.5 6 1 Positive Monopolar 5.9g 29.6f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0006-1-pm-8.2g-201.7f 2287758.9 45406 6 1 Positive Monopolar 8.2g 201.7f Moderate Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0006-2-dp-11.8g-80.4f 2287024.5 45080 6 1 2 Dipolar 11.8g 80.4f Small Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0006-2-pm-4.4g-20.4f 2287199.7 46059.1 6 2 Positive Monopolar 4.4g 20.4f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0006-3-nm-5.3g-21f 2285687.3 46611.9 6 3 Negative Monopolar 5.3g 21f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0006-4-pm-5.6g-36.3f 2284966.8 47432 6 4 Positive Monopolar 5.6g 36.3f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0007-1-nm-1.3g-19.5f 2287117.9 46267.1 7 1 Negative Monopolar 1.3g 19.5f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0007-1-pm-5.3g-69.6f 2286295.2 46027.3 7 1 Positive Monopolar 5.3g 69.6f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0007-2-nm-10.9g-52.2f 2286036.4 47515.4 7 2 Negative Monopolar 10.9g 52.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0007-2-pm-23.4g-42.2f 2285301.5 47168.9 7 2 Positive Monopolar 23.4g 42.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0007-3-nm-5.5g-52.5f 2285011.6 48664.5 7 3 Negative Monopolar 5.5g 52.5f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0007-4-pm-1 3.1 g-47.6f 2284618.2 49084.6 7 4 Positive Monopolar 13.1g 47.6f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0008-1-dp-13.8g-50.8f 2289489.8 43690.6 8 1 1 Dipolar 13.8g 50.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0008-1-pm-6.6g-21.5f 2287573.2 44670.7 8 1 Positive Monopolar 6.6g 21.5f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0008-2-pm-4.9g-15.9f 2287244 46280.9 8 2 Positive Monopolar 4.9g 15.9f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0008-3-dp-6.2g-68.2f 2286902.3 46661.1 8 3 Dipolar 6.2g 68.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0008-4-pm-4.7g-17.3f 2286071.6 47612.3 8 4 Positive Monopolar 4.7g 17.3f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0008-5-dp-5.9g-11.7f 2285165.4 48606 8 5 Dipolar 5.9g 11.7f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0008-6-pm-13.5g-29.7f 2284900.1 48961.6 8 6 Positive Monopolar 13.5g 29.7f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0009-1-dp-14.7g-23.5f 2287743.9 44642.3 9 1 Dipolar 14.7g 23.5f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0009-1-pm-11.5g-27.5f 2288201.1 45317.9 9 1 Positive Monopolar 11.5g 27.5f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0009-2-dp-11.5g-31.2f 2287456.1 44963.3 9 2 Dipolar 11.5g 31.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0009-2-pm-6.8g-133.1f 2287987.4 45545.6 9 2 Positive Monopolar 6.8g 133.1f Moderate Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0009-3-mc-6.2g-46.5f 2286930.3 46759.4 9 3 Multicomponent 6.2g 46.5f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0009-4-dp-7.3g-29.7f 2286227.2 47564.1 9 4 Dipolar 7.3g 29.7f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0010-1-dp-37.3g-30.2f 2287460.3 45090.1 10 1 Dipolar 37.3g 30.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0010-2-dp-4.8g-13.6f 2286840.5 45783.8 10 2 Dipolar 4.8g 13.6f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0010-3-dp-6g-16.5f 2286650 46006.5 10 3 Dipolar 6g 16.5f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0010-4-dp-145.7g-27.3f 2286572.2 46080.5 10 4 Dipolar 145.7g 27.3f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0011-1-dp-13.8g-168.9f 2288130.8 45691.7 11 1 Dipolar 13.8g 168.9f Moderate Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0011-2-dp-17.6g-43.6f 2287696.6 46163.6 11 2 Dipolar 17.6g 43.6f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0014-1-pm-3g-23.6f 2290466.7 45212.1 14 1 Positive Monopolar 3g 23.6f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0014-2-nm-6.7g-35.6f 2289718.2 46084 14 2 Negative Monopolar 6.7g 35.6f Small Ferrous Object Debris 001 4-3-pm-4.7g-1 98.5f 2289347 46501.3 14 3 Positive Monopolar 4.7g 198.5f Moderate Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0014-4-dp-23.8g-60.4f 2288563.2 47419.4 14 4 Dipolar 23.8g 60.4f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0014-5-pm-6.3g-49.8f 2287443.5 48671.5 14 5 Positive Monopolar 6.3g 49.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0014-6-pm-3g-24f 2287096.9 49083.2 14 6 Positive Monopolar 3g 24f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0014-7-pm-31.7g-34.3f 2286772.4 7 Positive Monopolar Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 0015-1-pm-12.2g-31.4f 2289560.3 46356.2 15 1 Positive Monopolar 12.2g 31.4f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0015-2-dp-7.6g-26.7f 2289451.9 46500 15 2 Dipolar 7.6g 26.7f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0015-3-dp-3.4g-30.7f 2288145.4 48007.1 15 3 Dipolar 3.4g 30.7f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0015-4-nm-7g-19.4f 2286818.4 49460.3 if I Negative Monopolar 7g 19.4f Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 0016-1-pm-4.9g-23.7f 2289917.6 46051.7 16 1 Positive Monopolar 4.9g 23.7f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0016-2-nm-11.2g-39.3f 2287997.5 48270.9 16 2 Negative Monopolar 11.2g 39.3f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0016-3-dp-2.8g-34.8f 2287756.7 48518.1 16 3 Dipolar 2.8g 34.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0016-4-dp-12.9g-47.1f 2287160.4 49198.3 16 4 Dipolar 12.9g 47.1f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0018-1-pm-5.5g-240.6f 2289646.4 46592.9 18 1 Positive Monopolar 5.5g 240.6f Moderate Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0019-1-dp-6.2g-36.3f 2287251.5 49440.5 19 Dipolar 6.2g 36.3f Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 0020-1 -pm-4.8g-1 7.4f 2288969.5 47529.5 20 1 Positive Monopolar 4.8g 17.4f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0020-3-pm-31.7g-29.8f 2288531.8 48053.4 20 3 Positive Monopolar 31.7g 29.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0021-1-pm-2.8g-23.3f 2288871.9 47773 21 1 Positive Monopolar 2.8g 23.3f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0021-2-nm-9.8g-16.4f 2288715.9 47930.2 21 2 Negative Monopolar 9.8g 16.4f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0021-3-pm-4g-38.2f 2288087.5 48668.3 21 3 Positive Monopolar 4g 38.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0023-1-pm-8g-171.3f 2289941.9 46770.2 23 1 Positive Monopolar 8g 171.3f Moderate Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0023-2-pm-11.1g-30.7f 2288439.2 48489.7 23 2 Positive Monopolar 11.1g 30.7f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0024-1 -pm-3.7g-1 07.7f 2289959.3 46878.5 24 1 Positive Monopolar 3.7g 107.7f Small Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0024-2-pm-2.2g-17.7f 2287882.6 49249 24 2 Positive Monopolar 2.2g 17.7f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0026-1-nm-3.4g-23.1f 2290520.5 46435.6 26 1 Negative Monopolar 3.4g 23.1f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0026-1-pm-5.3g-191.3f 2289279.1 46410.2 26 1 Positive Monopolar 5.3g 191.3f Moderate Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0026-2-dp-3.9g-55.6f 2288858.4 48341.5 26 2 Dipolar 3.9g 55.6f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0026-2-pm-5.4g-29.2f 2289053.6 46668.9 26 2 Positive Monopolar 5.4g 29.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0027-1-dp-17.4g-40.2f 2289865.8 47292.2 27 1 Dipolar 17.4g 40.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0027-1-pm-8.6g-26.2f 2289757 46006.4 27 1 Positive Monopolar 8.6g 26.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0027-2-dp-11.3g-38.7f 2288602.1 47339.5 27 2 Dipolar 11.3g 38.7f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0027-2-dp-248.8g-82.2f 2289615.1 47594.3 27 2 Dipolar 248.8g 82.2f Moderate Ferrous Object Debris 0027-3-dp-32.4g-38.5f 2287135.8 48995.3 27 3 Dipolar 32.4g 38.5f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0028-1 -pm-3.5g-1 40.1 f 2290178.5 47053.5 28 1 Positive Monopolar 3.5g 140.1f Moderate Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0029-1-dp-72.5g-22.8f 2290631.1 46619.6 Dipolar 72.5g 22.8f Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 0029-2-pm-37g-17.8f 2290348.6 46957 29 2 Positive Monopolar 37g 17.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0029-3-pm-2.5g-95.3f 2290237.6 47071.5 29 3 Positive Monopolar 2.5g 95.3f Small Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0029-4-dp-18.4g-33.4f 2288696.4 48833.8 29 4 Dipolar 18.4g 33.4f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0029-5-dp-28g-26f 2288416.1 49168.4 29 5 Dipolar 28g 26f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0029-6-pm-4.5g-14.8f 2288231.4 49376.8 29 6 Positive Monopolar 4.5g 14.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0030-1-pm-25.3g-40.3f 2289452.2 1 48048.6 30 1 1 Positive Monopolar 25.3g 40.3f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0030-2-pm-11.1g-18.4f 2288124.3 1 49546.8 1 1 Positive Monopolar I I 18.4f Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 0031-1-dp-23.8g-72.5f 2289236.6 48395 31 1 Dipolar 23.8g 72.5f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0031-2-nm-2.5g-31.6f 2288538.3 49211.7 31 2 Negative Monopolar 2.5g 31.6f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0033-1 -pm-87.5g-1 3.2f 2290539.8 47194.5 33 1 Positive Monopolar 87.5g 13.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0033-2-pm-9.2g-12f 2290325.4 47390.3 33 2 Positive Monopolar 9.2g 12f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0033-3-dp-45g-39.8f 2290177.6 47565.2 33 3 Dipolar 45g 39.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0034-1-pm-5.9g-277.8f 2290531.7 47275.9 34 1 Positive Monopolar 5.9g 277.8f Moderate Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0034-2-nm-5.7g-23.3f 2290218.7 47643.1 34 2 Negative Monopolar 5.7g 23.3f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0038-1-dp-6.6g-26.6f 2289764.7 48559.3 38 1 Dipolar 6.6g 26.6f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0038-2-dp-4.5g-31.3f 2289042.9 49416.9 35 Dipolar 4.5g 31.3f Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 0040-1-pm-90g-64.7f 2290293.7 48181 40 1 Positive Monopolar 90g 64.7f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0040-2-dp-8.7g-22.8f 2289935.7 48568.8 40 2 Dipolar 8.7g 22.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0040-3-pm-6.6g-40.5f 2289833.8 48677.2 40 3 Positive Monopolar 6.6g 40.5f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0041-1-dp-18.4g-40.9f 2290609.1 47916.7 41 1 Dipolar 18.4g 40.9f Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 0041-2-pm-12.2g-41.6f 2289890.6 48727.2 41 2 Positive Monopolar 12.2g 41.6f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0041-3-dp-5.5g-23.6f 2289220.4 49487.4 41 3 Dipolar 5.5g 23.6f Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 0042-1 -dp-1 3.3g-23.8f 2289986.6 48738 42 1 Dipolar 13.3g 23.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0046-1-pm-225.7g-24.6f 2289893 49275.8 46 1 Positive Monopolar 225.7g 24.6f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0077-1-dp-15.4g-53.2f 2285859.4 43389.1 77 1 Dipolar 15.4g 53.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0083-1 0-pm-1 6.6g-40.9f 2287009.3 46819.1 83 10 Positive Monopolar 16.6g 40.9f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0083-11-dp-8.9g-32.7f 2286395.8 47518.7 83 11 Dipolar 8.9g 32.7f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0083-12-pm-20.9g-34.3f 2284852.9 49253.5 83 12 Positive Monopolar 20.9g 34.3f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0083-13-pm-4.4g-50.8f 2284703.4 49441.2 83 13 Positive Monopolar 4.4g 50.8f Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 0083-1-dp-1829.9g-51.6f 2290295 43076.2 83 1 Dipolar 1829.9g 51.6f Moderate Ferrous Object Out of Area 0083-2-nm-289.7g-24.9f 2290244.7 43124.4 83 2 Negative Monopolar 289.7g 24.9f Moderate Ferrous Object Out of Area 0083-3-pm-5.2g-47.6f 2290119.3 43257.8 83 3 Positive Monopolar 5.2g 47.6f Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 0083-4-pm-14.8g-52.3f 2290028.7 43428.6 83 4 Positive Monopolar 14.8g 52.3f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0083-5-dp-12.7g-41.1f 2288940 44628.8 83 5 Dipolar 12.7g 41.1f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0083-6-dp-14.8g-28.8f 2288376.6 45279.4 83 6 Dipolar 14.8g 28.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0083-7-pm-4.5g-1 52.1 f 2288046.2 45644.5 83 7 Positive Monopolar 4.5g 152.1f Moderate Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0083-8-dp-16.9g-28.7f 2287363.6 46425.3 83 8 Dipolar 16.9g 28.7f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0083-9-nm-3.3g-23f 2287154 46653.9 83 9 Negative Monopolar 3.3g 23f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0085-1-dp-4g-25f 2287283.7 43384.8 85 1 Dipolar 4g 25f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0085-1 -pm-7.1 g-1 5.2f 2288606.8 45234.8 85 1 Positive Monopolar 7.1g 15.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0085-2-pm-12.3g-155.7f 2288232 45645.9 85 2 Positive Monopolar 12.3g 155.7f Moderate Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0085-2-pm-3.4g-17.2f 2286879 43846.4 85 2 Positive Monopolar 3.4g 17.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0085-3-dp-8.4g-40.3f 2285058.2 49265.6 85 3 Dipolar 8.4g 40.3f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0085-3-pm-5.9g-46f 2286576.4 44175.8 85 3 Positive Monopolar 5.9g 46f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0085-4-pm-3.2g-21.1f 2286497.1 44270.9 85 4 Positive Monopolar 3.2g 21.1f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0086-1-dp-73.7g-46f 2290346.8 43379.5 86 1 Dipolar 73.7g 46f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0086-1-pm-9.7g-28.8f 2284879.3 46221.1 86 1 Positive Monopolar 9.7g 28.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0086-2-pm-36.8g-25.4f 2290300.5 43438.4 86 2 Positive Monopolar 36.8g 25.4f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0086-3-dp-30.9g-49.6f 2289443.6 44420.8 86 3 Dipolar 30.9g 49.6f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0086-4-dp-6.8g-22.6f 2289240.8 44628.1 86 4 Dipolar 6.8g 22.6f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0086-5-dp-212.8g-71.3f 2287629.9 46491.1 86 5 Dipolar 212.8g 71.3f Moderate Ferrous Object Debris 0086-6-dp-256.2g-44.7f 2287163.1 47006.2 86 6 Dipolar 256.2g 44.7f Moderate Ferrous Object Debris 0086-7-dp-19.8g-49.6f 2286959.3 47254.7 86 7 Dipolar 19.8g 49.6f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0086-8-dp-44.8g-82.8f 2286732.6 47489.9 86 8 Dipolar 44.8g 82.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0087-10-dp-14.8g-20f 1 2286215.1 1 48201.E 1 87 1 10 Dipolar 14.8g 20f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0087-11-pm-5.2g-13.6f 1 2285893.1 1 48561.9 1 87 1 11 Positive Monopolar 5.2g 13.6f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0087-12-nm-31.3g-13.7f 2285519.6 49007.8 87 12 Negative Monopolar 31.3g 13.7f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0087-13-dp-11g-20f 2285370.9 49182.4 87 13 Dipolar 11g 20f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0087-1-dp-3.6g-28.5f 2285609.8 43483.2 87 1 Dipolar 3.6g 28.5f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0087-1-dp-7.3g-26.5f 2290226.4 43608.9 87 1 Dipolar 7.3g 26.5f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0087-2-nm-14.4g-85.2f 2289895.7 44009.9 87 2 Negative Monopolar 14.4g 85.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0087-3-dp-12.6g-24.3f 2289618.8 44340.8 87 3 Dipolar 12.6g 24.3f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0087-4-pm-5.2g-21.3f 2289490.8 44488.8 87 4 Positive Monopolar 5.2g 21.3f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0087-5-pm-3.1g-22.2f 2289430 44557 87 5 Positive Monopolar 3.1g 22.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0087-6-pm-10.6g-139.3f 2288342.7 45811 87 6 Positive Monopolar 10.6g 139.3f Moderate Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0087-7-dp-20g-25.7f 2287774.4 46439.3 87 7 Dipolar 20g 25.7f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0087-8-dp-4.4g-22.2f 2287625.7 46608.9 87 8 Dipolar 4.4g 22.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0087-9-dp-54.5g-50.2f 2286810 47538.4 87 9 Dipolar 54.5g 50.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0088-1-dp-11.4g-23.1f 2290549.3 43308.9 88 Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 0088-1-dp-12.2g-32.8f 2285614.6 43636.2 88 1 Dipolar 12.2g 32.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0088-2-dp-25.2g-31.9f 2290448.1 43466.1 88 2 Dipolar 25.2g 31.9f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0088-3-dp-19.6g-24.4f 2290384.4 43557.8 88 3 Dipolar 19.6g 24.4f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0088-4-dp-7.3g-29.8f 2290202.6 43756.2 88 4 Dipolar 7.3g 29.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0088-5-mc-21.7g-75f 2290003.1 43991.1 88 5 Multicomponent 21.7g 75f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0088-6-dp-20.5g-16.5f 2288743.5 45421.3 88 6 Dipolar 20.5g 16.5f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0088-7-dp-10g-25.4f 2287590.2 46746.6 88 7 Dipolar 10g 25.4f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0088-8-pm-9.3g-23f 2285107.3 49579.9 88 8 Positive Monopolar 9.3g 23f Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 0088-9-pm-6.2g-227.1f 2288422.7 45793 88 9 Positive Monopolar 6.2g 227.1f Moderate Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0089-1-dp-5.1g-43.3f 2286069.6 43249.6 89 1 Dipolar 5.1g 43.3f Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 0089-1-pm-5.3g-121.3f 2288534 45805 89 1 1 Positive Monopolar 5.3g 121.3f Small Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0089-2-pm-14.2g-13.1f 2288061 46330.6 89 2 Positive Monopolar 14.2g 13.1f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0089-2-pm-3.9g-15.6f 2285726.3 43624.2 89 2 Positive Monopolar 3.9g 15.6f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0089-3-dp-7.9g-13.6f 2287881.1 46553.7 89 3 Dipolar 7.9g 13.6f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0089-3-nm-4.5g-43.2f 2285690.2 43670.9 89 3 Negative Monopolar 4.5g 43.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0089-4-dp-92.9g-47.1f 2287760.4 46684.6 89 4 Dipolar 92.9g 47.1f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0089-5-dp-103.6g-30.6f 2286194.2 48456.3 89 1 5 Dipolar 103.6g 30.6f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0089-6-dp-10.4g-32.8f 2285609.3 49127.7 89 6 Dipolar 10.4g 32.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0090-1-dp-6.8g-50.2f 2285783.2 43703 90 1 Dipolar 6.8g 50.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0090-1 -pm-5.9g-1 52.6f 2288606.8 45839.5 90 1 Positive Monopolar 5.9g 152.6f Moderate Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0090-2-dp-19.7g-35f 2288476.7 45984.3 90 2 Dipolar 19.7g 35f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0090-3-pm-6.1g-74.9f 2288421.3 46049.4 90 3 Positive Monopolar 6.1g 74.9f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0090-4-mc-8g-46.9f 2287895.7 46655.3 90 4 Multicomponent 8g 46.9f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0090-5-mc-26.9g-75.1f 2285150.3 Multicomponent Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 0091-1-dp-15.2g-23.9f 2290419.8 43899.9 91 1 Dipolar 15.2g 23.9f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0091-2-pm-13.4g-28.6f 2289813.2 44592.1 91 2 Positive Monopolar 13.4g 28.6f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0091-3-dp-11g-38.5f 2286970.9 47873.5 91 3 Dipolar 11g 38.5f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0091-3-pm-3.5g-90.9f 2288636.1 45953.8 91 3 Positive Monopolar 3.5g 90.9f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0092-1-dp-25g-20.4f 2290585.6 43828 92 1 Dipolar 25g 20.4f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0092-1-dp-7.4g-18.7f 2286339.9 43363.6 92 1 Dipolar 7.4g 18.7f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0092-2-dp-4.9g-18.8f 2289157.4 45471.7 92 2 Dipolar 4.9g 18.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0092-3-mc-61.9g-31.4f 2288955.7 45688.4 92 3 Multicomponent 61.9g 31.4f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0092-4-dp-14.1g-16.1f 2288833.1 45822.5 92 4 Dipolar 14.1g 16.1f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0092-5-dp-16.3g-20.2f 2288618.4 46093.6 92 5 Dipolar 16.3g 20.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0092-6-dp-7.6g-14.6f 2286530.6 48472.8 92 6 Dipolar 7.6g 14.6f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0093-1-dp-5.9g-12f 1 2286407.8 43412.9 93 1 Dipolar 5.9g I 12f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0093-1-pm-5.6g-22.3f 2290203.5 44397.6 93 1 Positive Monopolar 5.6g 22.3f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0093-2-pm-16.6g-74.9f 2285214.9 44776 93 2 Positive Monopolar 16.6g 74.9f Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 0093-2-pm-4.7g-47.4f 2289865.2 44770.9 93 2 Positive Monopolar 4.7g 47.4f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0093-3-mc-86g-63.5f 2289088.4 45652.2 93 3 Multicomponent 86g 63.5f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0093-3-pm-19g-90.7f 2285067.3 44937.1 Positive Monopolar 19g 90.7f Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 0093-4-dp-10.9g-19.7f 2287976.4 46939.2 93 1 4 Dipolar 10.9g 19.7f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0093-5-dp-6.2g-20.5f 2287679.9 47269.4 93 5 Dipolar 6.2g 20.5f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0093-6-nm-3.2g-11.9f 2286390.4 48720.7 93 6 Negative Monopolar 3.2g 11.9f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0093-7-pm-51.1g-22.3f 2285963.2 49233.3 93 7 Positive Monopolar 51.1g 22.3f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0094-1-nm-45.3g-31.8f 2289777.1 45008.9 94 1 Negative Monopolar 45.3g 31.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0094-2-nm-8.8g-15.7f 2289252.4 45571.8 94 2 Negative Monopolar 8.8g 15.7f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0094-3-nm-20.6g-14f 2287710.4 47333.8 94 1 3 Negative Monopolar 20.6g 14f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0095-1-dp-9.8g-33.9f 2288860.3 46162.5 95 1 Dipolar 9.8g 33.9f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0095-2-dp-22.9g-38.3f 2287596.1 47627.1 95 2 Dipolar 22.9g 38.3f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0096-1-nm-2.5g-27.8f 2284752.8 45692.3 96 1 Negative Monopolar 2.5g 27.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0096-1-pm-5.4g-25.1f 2288686.1 46484.1 96 1 Positive Monopolar 5.4g 25.1f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0096-2-dp-5.3g-39.4f 2286779.7 43388.1 96 2 Dipolar 5.3g 39.4f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0096-2-pm-49.4g-29f 2286567.6 48882.3 96 2 Positive Monopolar 49.4g 29f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0096-3-pm-2.8g-44.3f 2285403.3 44968.6 96 3 Positive Monopolar 2.8g 44.3f Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 0097-1-pm-4g-109f 2289085 46132.6 97 1 Positive Monopolar 4g 109f Small Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0097-1-pm-9.6g-65.4f 2285210.9 45326.1 97 1 Positive Monopolar 9.6g 65.4f Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 0097-2-pm-15.2g-23.6f7 2288595.9 46701.6 97 2 Positive Monopolar 15.2g 2307 Small Ferrous Object Debris 0097-2-pm-7.7g-15.5f 2286998.8 43257.7 97 Positive Monopolar 7.7g 15.5f Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 0097-3-dp-10.3g-15.3f 2286966 43300.8 97 Dipolar 10.3g 15.3f Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 0097-4-pm-2.7g-13.9f 2286814 43501.7 97 4 Positive Monopolar 2.7g 13.9f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0097-5-nm-27.9g-44.3f 2286526.2 43786.9 97 5 Negative Monopolar 27.9g 44.3f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0097-6-nm-3.1g-18.2f 2285507 44968.5 97 6 Negative Monopolar 3.1g 18.2f Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 0098-1-dp-26.2g-17f 2289579.4 45708.2 98 1 Dipolar 26.2g 17f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0098-2-pm-6.9g-174.7f 2289134.2 46203.8 98 2 Positive Monopolar 6.9g 174.7f Moderate Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0098-3-pm-4.1g-18.8f 2288556.8 46849.8 98 3 Positive Monopolar 4.1g 18.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0098-4-nm-6g-20.5f 2287864.9 47628.6 98 4 Negative Monopolar 6g 20.5f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0099-1-dp-9.3g-18.9f 2286901 43662.9 99 1 Dipolar 9.3g 18.9f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0099-1-nm-4.3g-33f 2290356 48861.9 99 1 Negative Monopolar 4.3g 33f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0099-1 -pm-7.7g-227.1 f 2289190.1 46259 99 1 Positive Monopolar 7.7g 227.1f Moderate Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0099-2-dp-127.3g-53.8f 2286789.2 43806.7 99 2 Dipolar 127.3g 53.8f Moderate Ferrous Object Debris 0099-2-nm-5.2g-11f 2289899 49381 99 2 Negative Monopolar 5.2g 11f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0099-3-pm-177.9g-57.5f 2286689.8 43920.5 99 3 Positive Monopolar 177.9g 57.5f Moderate Ferrous Object Debris 0099-4-pm-5.7g-49.9f 2285696.2 45040.2 99 4 Positive Monopolar 5.7g 49.9f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0100-1-pm-8.2g-216.4f 2289260.9 46302.8 100 1 Positive Monopolar 8.2g 216.4f Moderate Ferrous Object Possible Geological Feature 0102-1-pm-11.6g-33.1f 2286879.7 44075.4 102 1 Positive Monopolar 11.6g 33.1f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0102-2-pm-3.3g-18.3f 2285290.3 45924.4 102 2 Positive Monopolar Mg 18.3f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0103-1-dp-15.5g-28.9f 2287528.7 43452.2 103 1 Dipolar 15.5g 28.9f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0103-2-dp-4.9g-23.8f 2286911.6 44215.1 103 2 Dipolar 4.9g 23.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0103-3-nm-4.4g-28.3f 2286803.8 44324.4 103 3 Negative Monopolar 4.4g 28.3f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0103-4-pm-7.6g-53.1f 2286451.2 44724.5 103 4 Positive Monopolar 7.6g 53.1f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0103-5-pm-9.6g-52.4f 2286312 44889 103 5 Positive Monopolar 9.6g 52.4f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0104-1-pm-9.8g-43.9f 2287522.6 43628.3 104 1 Positive Monopolar 9.8g 43.9f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0104-2-mc-46.3g-121.7f 2286929.2 44310.6 104 1 2 Multicomponent 46.3g 121.7f Moderate Ferrous Object Debris 0105-1-dp-12.5g-56.7f 1 2287532.7 43761.7 105 1 1 Dipolar I 12.5g I 56.7f Small Ferrous Object I Debris 0105-2-pm-8.5g-23.2f 2287398.3 43898.8 105 2 Positive Monopolar 8.5g 23.2f Small Ferrous Object Debris 01 05-3-dp-1 3.9g-35.9f 2286931.7 44462.8 105 3 Dipolar 13.9g 35.9f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0105-4-pm-7.5g-19.4f 2286887.3 44511.2 105 4 Positive Monopolar 7.5g 19.4f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0105-5-dp-26.8 -68.8f 2286645 44771.2 105 5 Dipolar 26.8g 68.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0105-6-pm-2.7 -27.9f 2285254.3 46373.9 105 6 Positive Monopolar 2.7g 27.9f Small Ferrous Object Debris 0106-1-dp-9.2 -61.6f 2284759.1 47040.8 106 1 Dipolar 9.2g 61.6f Small Ferrous Object Debris 020-2-pm-4.7g-13.8f 2288604.6 47995.6 20 2 Positive Monopolar 4.7g 13.8f Small Ferrous Object Debris 44-1-nm-5.8g-11f 2290068.3 49523.2 44 1 Negative Monopolar 5.8g 11f Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 45-1-nm-11.4g-8.1f 2290590.8 48913.4 45 1 Negative Monopolar 11.4g 8.1f Small Ferrous Object Out of Area 45-2-dp-10.9 -72.5f 2290435.1 49090.8 45 2 Dipolar 10.9g 72.5f Small Ferrous Object Debris 49-1-me-243.4 -14.8f 2290694.1 48889 49 1 Multicomponent 243.4g 14.8f Moderate Ferrous Object Out of Area 50-1-dp-18.4 -27f 2290432 49284.1 50 1 Dipolar 18.4g 27f Small Ferrous Object Debris Appendix C: Sonar Target Reports JBS Sonar Target Reports Target Image Target Info User Entered Info SS 001 Dimensions and attributes • Sonar Time at Target: 6/16/2019 6:48:28 PM Target Width: 0.23 US ft • Click Position Target Height: 0.00 US ft 33.8814661592-78.0425943451 (WGS84) Target Length: 72.72 US ft 33.8812915939-78.0428815483 (NAD27LL) Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft 33.8814661592-78.0425943451 (LocaILL) Mag Anomaly: (X) 2290631.97 (Y) 49251.74 (Projected Avoidance Area: oordinates) Classificationl: Map Projection: NC83F Classification2: Acoustic Source File: Area: :\PROJECTS\0I_PHASE2\Edgetech\0I_Phase2 Block: 190616\0003_1847.jsf 9 Description: Possible wire. Mag association 54- Ping Number: 584049 1 Range to target: 19.59 US ft Fish Height: 6.20 US ft Heading: 336.500 Degrees Event Number: (-1) Line Name: 0003 1847 Water Depth: 9.27 US ft SS 003 Dimensions and attributes • Sonar Time at Target: 6/16/2019 5:53:28 PM 0 Target Width: 0.86 US ft • Click Position 0 Target Height: 0.00 US ft 33.8796602437-78.0432414020 (WGS84) 0 Target Length: 80.59 US ft 33.8794856556-78.0435285872 (NAD27LL) 0 Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft 33.8796602437-78.0432414020 (LocaILL) 0 Mag Anomaly: (X) 2290441.89 (Y) 48592.58 (Projected 0 Avoidance Area: oordinates) 0 Classification l : Ilk Map Projection: NC83F e Classification2: Acoustic Source File: 9 Area: :\PROJECTS\OI_PHASE2\Edgetech\OI_Phase2 Block: p ® 190616\0046_1753.jsf Description: Possible wire or cable. Association Ping Number: 501027 Nith anomaly 0003-1 Range to target: 34.37 US ft Fish Height: 5.88 US ft Heading: 339.600 Degrees Event Number: (-1) Line Name: 0046_1753 Water Depth: 8.72 US ft SS 083-1 Dimensions and attributes • Sonar Time at Target: 6/15/2019 6:08:12 PM Target Width: 1.61 US ft • Click Position Target Height: 0.00 US ft 33.8699726804-78.0497939994 (WGS84) Target Length: 6.62 US ft 33.8697979877-78.0500809774 (NAD27LL) Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft 33.8699726804-78.0497939994 (LocaILL) Mag Anomaly: (X) 2288486.54 (Y) 45047.67 (Projected Avoidance Area: oordinates) Classificationl: Map Projection: NC83F Classification2: Acoustic Source File: Area: :\PROJECTS\0I_PHASE2\Edgetech\0I_Phase2 0 Block: ® 061519\Edgetech\0083_1803.jsf Description: Small lineasr object. No associated Ping Number: 516035 anomaly. Range to target: 58.24 US ft Fish Height: 11.35 US ft Heading: 338.600 Degrees Event Number: (-1) Line Name: 0083 1803 • Water Depth: 9.60 US ft SS 083-2 Dimensions and attributes • Sonar Time at Target: 6/15/2019 6:20:07 PM 9 Target Width: 0.84 US ft • Click Position 0 Target Height: 1.25 US ft 33.8811255259-78.0612499599 (WGS84) 0 Target Length: 3.77 US ft 33,8809510617-78.0615364971 (NAD27LL) 0 Target Shadow: 4.54 US ft 33.8811255259-78.0612499599 (LocaILL) 0 Mag Anomaly: (X) 2284970.18 (Y) 49073.68 (Projected 0 Avoidance Area: oordinates) 0 Classificationl: o Map Projection: NC83F 0 Classification2: Acoustic Source File: 0 Area: :\PROJECTS\0I_PHASE2\Edgetech\0I_Phase2 e Block: ` A 061519\Edgetech\0083_1803.jsf Description: Small botom surface debris. No Ping Number: 534069 3ssociated anomalu Range to target: 39.45 US ft Fish Height: 12.71 US ft Heading: 334.000 Degrees Event Number: (-1) Line Name: 0083 1803 • Water Depth: 9.69 US ft SS 098 Dimensions and attributes • Sonar Time at Target: 6/15/2019 7:34:36 PM Target Width: 3.18 US ft • Click Position Target Height: 0.55 US ft 33.8723761450-78.0614995268 (WGS84) Target Length: 3.46 US ft 33.8722015554-78.0617860784 (NAD27LL) Target Shadow: 3.04 US ft 33.8723761450-78.0614995268 (LocaILL) Mag Anomaly: (X) 2284924.53 (Y) 45888.61 (Projected Avoidance Area: oordinates) Classification l : Map Projection: NC83F Classification2: Acoustic Source File: Area: :\PROJECTS\0I_PHASE2\Edgetech\0I_Phase2 v Block: 061519\Edgetech\0098_1932.jsf 0 Description: Tire. No associated anomaly. Ping Number: 616999 Range to target: 74.50 US ft Fish Height: 14.38 US ft Heading: 131.390 Degrees Event Number: (-1) Line Name: 0098 1932 Water Depth: 14.48 US ft SS 116 imensions and attributes • Sonar Time at Target: 6/16/2019 6:17:26 PM Target Width: 0.70 US ft • Click Position Target Height: 0.00 US ft 33.8818282383-78.0442622251 (WGS84) Target Length: 79.50 US ft 33.8816536878-78.0445493677 (NAD27LL) Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft I 33.8818282383-78.0442622251 (LocaILL) Mag Anomaly: (X) 2290124.42 (Y) 49378.64 (Projected Avoidance Area: oordinates) Classificationl: Map Projection: NC83F Classification2: Acoustic Source File: Area: :\PROJECTS\01_PHASE2\Edgetech\O1_Phase2 0 Block: 190616\5445534.jsf 0 Description: Possible wire. No associated Ping Number: 537288 magnetic anomaly. Range to target: 44.24 US ft Fish Height: 5.81 US ft Heading: 121.200 Degrees Event Number: (-1) Line Name: 5445534 Water Depth: 9.52 US ft SS 099-2 Dimensions and attributes • Sonar Time at Target: 6/16/2019 6:05:40 PM 0 Target Width: 0.00 US ft • Click Position 0 Target Height: 0.00 US ft 33.8818798422-78.0449792272 (WGS84) 0 Target Length: 0.00 US ft 33.8817052965-78.0452663440 (NAD27LL) 0 Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft 33.8818798422-78.0449792272 (LocaILL) 0 Mag Anomaly: (X) 2289906.59 (Y) 49395.33 (Projected 0 Avoidance Area: oordinates)0 Classificationl Map Projection: NC83F 0 Classification2: Acoustic Source File: 0 Area: :\PROJECTS\01_PHASE2\Edgetech\O1_Phase2 Block: 0.• 190616\NewLine_0005.jsf v Description: Possble wire or cable. Magnetic Ping Number: 519499anomaly association 0099-2. Length 1350 feet. Range to target: 42.60 US ft Fish Height: 5.97 US ft Heading: 336.800 Degrees Event Number: (-1) Line Name: Newl-ine_0005 Water Depth: 9.30 US ft SS 099-1 imensions and attributes • Sonar Time at Target: 6/16/2019 6:04:12 PM Target Width: 0.00 US ft • Click Position Target Height: 0.00 US ft [Mag 33.8804169061-78.0434818457 (WGS84) Target Length: 0.00 US ft 33.8802423304-78.0437690202 (NAD27LL) Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft 33.8804169061-78.0434818457 (LocaILL) Anomaly: (X) 2290366.25 (Y) 48867.27 (Projected 0 Avoidance Area: oordinates)0 Classification l : Map Projection: NC83F e Classification2: Acoustic Source File: 9 Area: :\PROJECTS\01_PHASE2\Edgetech\O1_Phase2 Block: • ,99-1 190616\NewLine_0005.jsf 0 Description: Possible wire or cable. Magnetic Ping Number: 517260 anomaly associatn 0099-1. 1350 feet in length. Range to target: 41.92 US ft Fish Height: 6.29 US ft Heading: 336.300 Degrees Event Number: (-1) Line Name: Newl-ine 0005 Water Depth: 9.10 US ft SS O45-1 Dimensions and attributes • Sonar Time at Target: 6/16/2019 6:27:39 PM Target Width: 0.00 US ft • Click Position Target Height: 0.00 US ft 33.8805367087-78.0427416549 (WGS84) Target Length: 0.00 US ft 33.8803621306-78.0430288555 (NAD27LL) Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft 33.8805367087-78.0427416549 (LocaILL) Mag Anomaly: (X) 2290590.52 (Y) 48913.03 (Projected Avoidance Area: oordinates) Classificationl: Map Projection: NC83F Classification2: Acoustic Source File: Area: :\PROJECTS\01_PHASE2\Edgetech\01_Phase2 Block: • 190616\next 3_0001.jsf Description: Posibly wire or cable. Magnetic Ping Number: 552534 anomaly association 45-1. Length of signature Range to target: 59.23 US ft 1350 feet. Fish Height: 7.18 US ft Heading: 129.390 Degrees Event Number: (-1) Line Name: next 3 0001 Water Depth: 8.98 US ft SS O45-2 imensions and attributes • Sonar Time at Target: 6/16/2019 6:27:07 PM Target Width: 0.00 US ft • Click Position Target Height: 0.00 US ft [Mag 33.8810271371-78.0432595931 (WGS84) Target Length: 0.00 US ft 33.8808525691-78.0435467738 (NAD27LL) Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft 33.8810271371-78.0432595931 (LocaILL) Anomaly: (X) 2290431.58 (Y) 49090.01 (Projected Avoidance Area: oordinates) Classificationl: Map Projection: NC83F Classification2: Acoustic Source File: 0 Area: :\PROJECTS\OI_PHASE2\Edgetech\0I_Phase2 e Block: • 190616\next 3_0001.jsf e Description: Posibly wire or cable. Magnetic Ping Number: 551723 3nomaly association 45-2. Length of signature Range to target: 61.14 US ft 1350 feet. Fish Height: 7.74 US ft Heading: 141.500 Degrees Event Number: (-1) Line Name: next 30001 • Water Depth: 9.04 US ft SS 044 Dimensions and attributes • Sonar Time at Target: 6/16/2019 6:25:52 PM Target Width: 0.00 US ft • Click Position Target Height: 0.00 US ft 33.8822317000-78.0444491432 (WGS84) Target Length: 0.00 US ft 33.8820571565-78.0447362779 (NAD27LL) Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft 33.8822317000-78.0444491432 (LocaILL) Mag Anomaly: (X) 2290066.26 (Y) 49524.93 (Projected Avoidance Area: oordinates) Classification l : Map Projection: NC83F Classification2: Acoustic Source File: Area: . , :\PROJECTS\OI_PHASE2\Edgetech\0I_Phase2 Block: 190616\next 3_0001.jsf 0 Description: Posibly wire or cable. Magnetic Ping Number: 549830 anomaly association 44-1. Length of signature Range to target: 49.77 US ft 1350 feet. Fish Height: 9.02 US ft Heading: 141.390 Degrees Event Number: (-1) Line Name: next 30001 Water Depth: 8.09 US ft