TAR_REPORT_JBS_27_SEPT_2019

Report 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