The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021 KittyHawk_CAMA Major Permit_Application FOR CDTOWN OF KITTY HAWK SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT MAJOR PERMIT APPLICATION Prepared for: The Town of Kitty Hawk Prepared by: Coastal Protection Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. 4038 Masonboro Loop Road Wilmington, North Carolina 28409 Submitted to: North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Coastal Management Wilmington Regional Office May 2021 C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project NCDCM Major Permit Application Contents 1 FORMS .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Form DCM MP-1 ........................................................................................................................ 1 Form DCM MP-2 ........................................................................................................................ 5 Form DCM MP-3 ........................................................................................................................ 8 2 Supplemental Information, per Forms DCM MP-1 and DCM MP-2 ....................................... 10 Per Form MP-1, Section 6a: Project Narrative ................................................................... 10 2.1.1 Project Scoping and History ........................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 10 2.1.3 Construction Schedule .................................................................................................... 15 2.1.4 Borrow Areas and Sediment Analysis .......................................................................... 20 2.1.5 Summary of Consistency with State Sediment Criteria ............................................. 25 Per Form MP-1, Section 6d: A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties ............................ 28 Per From MP-2, Section 6f: Adjacent Riparian Owner Return Receipts ........................ 28 Per Form MP-1, Section 6h: Agent Authorization Form .................................................... 29 Per Form MP-1, Section 6j: Ocean Hazard AEC Notice for Kitty Hawk ......................... 30 Permission Letter and Ocean AEC Hazard Notices from Adjacent Towns .................... 32 Appendices Appendix A: Work Plans Appendix B: Professional Archaeological Assessment (Provided with Digital Copies Only) Appendix C: Geotechnical Report (Provided with Digital Copies Only) Appendix D: Survey Report (Provided with Digital Copies Only) Form DCM MP-1 Application for Major Permit Development C OASTAL P LANNING & E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 1 1 FORMS Form DCM MP-1 APPLICATION for Major Development Permit (last revised 12/27/06) North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT 1. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information Business Name Town of Kitty Hawk Project Name (if applicable) Kitty Hawk Shoreline Protection Project Applicant 1: First Name Andy MI Last Name Stewart Applicant 2: First Name N/A MI Last Name N/A If additional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed. Mailing Address 101 Veterans Memorial Drive PO Box 549 City Kitty Hawk State NC ZIP 27949 Country USA Phone No. 252 - 261 - 3552 ext. FAX No. 252 - 261 - 7900 Street Address (if different from above) City State ZIP - Email Andy.stewart@kittyhawktown.net 2. Agent/Contractor Information Business Name Coastal Protection Enigineering of North Carolina, Inc. Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name Kenneth MI T Last Name Willson Agent/ Contractor 2: First Name Brad MI A Last Name Rosov Mailing Address 4038 Masonboro Loop Road PO Box City Wilmington State NC ZIP 28409 Phone No. 1 910 - 399 - 1905 ext. Phone No. 2 - - ext. FAX No. N/A Contractor # Federal ID # 02-0623951 Street Address (if different from above) N/A City N/A State N/A ZIP N/A - Form DCM MP-1 Application for Major Permit Development C OASTAL P LANNING & E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 2 Email kwillson@coastalprotectioneng.com 3. Project Location County (can be multiple) Dare Street Address Oceanfront shoreline of Kitty Hawk, from the northern town limit to 120 ft. north of Kitty Hawk Pier, with tapers extending from 8 Sea Bass Circle (Southern Shores) to East Helga Steet (Kill Devil Hills) and offshore waters State Rd. # N/A Subdivision Name N/A City N/A State NC Zip N/A - Phone No. N/A - - ext. Lot No.(s) (if many, attach additional page with list) N/A, , , , a. In which NC river basin is the project located? Pasquotank b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project Atlantic Ocean c. Is the water body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade? Natural Manmade Unknown d. Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site. Atlantic Ocean e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction? Yes No f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed work falls within. Kitty Hawk 4. Site Description a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.) 20,970 feet (Placement Project Limits) b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.) 3,065,462 sq.f. (Placement Area); 51,0095,880 sq ft. (Borrow Area A) c. Size of individual lot(s) N/A, , , (If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list) d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or NWL (normal water level) approx. 19.56' to MHW (1.18) NAVD88 NHW or NWL e. Vegetation on tract Typical beach and dune vegetation. f. Man-made features and uses now on tract The tract is contiguous to single and mulitfamily residential homes, business and commercial uses. The beachfront is utilized for recreational activities. g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adjacent to the proposed project site. Single and multi-family residences, recreational beach uses. h. How does local government zone the tract? Low and medium density residential i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning? (Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable) Yes No NA j. Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? Yes No k. Has a professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. If yes, by whom? Yes No NA Tidewater Research l. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a National Register listed or eligible property? Yes No NA Form DCM MP-1 Application for Major Permit Development C OASTAL P LANNING & E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 3 m. (i) Are there wetlands on the site? (ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? (iii) If yes to either (i) or (ii) above, has a delineation been conducted? (Attach documentation, if available) Yes No Yes No Yes No n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities. Primarily septic; there are no public sewers in Kitty Hawk. o. Describe existing drinking water supply source. Municipal p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems. None. 5. Activities and Impacts a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? Commercial Public/Government Private/Community b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete. The Town of Kitty Hawk is focused on a long-term shoreline management program that will serve to sustain the beaches that support a significant portion of their local economy and maintains the tax base of the Town. To this end, the Town proposes to nourish the oceanfront shoreline, with five years of advanced fill incorporated into the design. c. Describe the proposed construction methodology, types of construction equipment to be used during construction, the number of each type of equipment and where it is to be stored. A hydraulic hopper dredge and/or cutterhead dredge and pipeline will be used to obtain and transport material from the offshore borrow area to the beach. A sand dike will be constructed on the seaward side of the discharge area. The sand slurry will be discharged behind the temporary dike, and excess water will be directed parallel to the shoreline and around the edge of the dike. Bulldozers, front-end loaders and other earth moving machines will be used to shape the beach to the design profile. Three staging areas are proposed for the project. d. List all development activities you propose. The proposed action includes sand placement along 18,964 feet of Kitty Hawk and two approximately 1,000 foot tapers on the north and south end. The north taper (1,000 feet) would extend into the Town of Southern Shores, terminating along the property at 8 Sea Bass Circle. The south taper (1,006 feet) would end at East Helga Street in Kill Devil Hills. Thus, the total project length would span 20,970 feet. Sand will be obtained from an Outer Continental Shelf borrow area ("Borrow Area A") offshore Dare County using cutterhead and/or hopper dredges. Material will be transported from the borrow area to the beach via submerged pipeline from a cutterhead dredge, or direct transport to a nearshore pump-out location via hopper dredge. A temporary shore-parallel sand dike will be constructed in the discharge area to reduce turbidity of slurry within the nearshore. Material on the beach will be shaped and graded using earth moving machines. Some of the material will be used to create a dune with a crest elevation of +18 NAVD88 along the entire project length. Sand fencing and vegetation will be placed along the starter dune. Three staging areas will be located in the public parking lots at Byrd Street, Perry Street, and Helga Street. e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both? Maintenance of the 2017 Project f. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? 1,578,533 (3,065,462 within fill area and 56,344 within staging areas) Sq.Ft or Acres g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public access way or other area that the public has established use of? Yes No NA h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state. The discharged material will be obtained from Borrow Area A, located within federal waters offshore Dare County, which contains beach compatible material that complies with State Sediment Criteria. The placement location is the oceanfront beach adjacent to the Town of Kitty Hawk, within the reach authorized in the design template i. Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland? If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? Yes No NA Yes No NA Form DCM MP-1 Application for Major Permit Development C OASTAL P LANNING & E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 4 j. Is there any mitigation proposed? If yes, attach a mitigation proposal. Yes No NA 6. Additional Information In addition to this completed application form, (MP-1) the following items below, if applicable, must be submitted in order for the application package to be complete. Items (a) – (f) are always applicable to any major development application. Please consult the application instruction booklet on how to properly prepare the required items below. a. A project narrative. b. An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale. Please give the present status of the proposed project. Is any portion already complete? If previously authorized work, clearly indicate on maps, plats, drawings to distinguish between work completed and proposed. c. A site or location map that is sufficiently detailed to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the site. d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties. e. The appropriate application fee. Check or money order made payable to DENR. f. A list of the names and complete addresses of the adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and signed return receipts as proof that such owners have received a copy of the application and plats by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised that they have 30 days in which to submit comments on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Management. Name Karen Olivola Price (@ 18 Ocean Blvd.) Phone No. 903-465-5202 Address 20 Silver Spur, Denison, TX 75021 Name BKS Investments, LLC (@ 0 Virginia Dare Trail) Phone No. n/a Address: P.O. Box 729, Manteo, NC 27954 Name Phone No. n/a Address n/a g. A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract. Include permit numbers, permittee, and issuing dates. CAMA Major Permit #133-15 issued on December 1, 2015 Dept. of Army SAW Action ID #2014-02204 issued on May 25, 2015 h. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, if applicable. i. Wetland delineation, if necessary. j. A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in oceanfront and inlet areas. (Must be signed by property owner) k. A statement of compliance with the N.C. Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A 1-10), if necessary. If the project involves expenditure of public funds or use of public lands, attach a statement documenting compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. 7. Certification and Permission to Enter on Land I understand that any permit issued in response to this application will allow only the development described in the application. The project will be subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in the permit. I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to representatives of state and federal review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application and follow-up monitoring of the project. I further certify that the information provided in this application is truthful to the best of my knowledge. Date February 24, 2021 Print Name Kenneth Willson, Agent, Coastal Protection Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. Signature ___________________________ Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project. DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts DCM MP-3 Upland Development DCM MP-4 Structures Information Form DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill C OASTAL P LANNING & E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 5 Form DCM MP-2 EXCAVATION and FILL (Except for bridges and culverts) Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information. Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation and/or fill activities. All values should be given in feet. Access Channel (NLW or NWL) Canal Boat Basin Boat Ramp Rock Groin Rock Breakwater Other (excluding shoreline stabilization) Length 20,970’ fill area; 16,064.11’(borrow area A) Width 414’ (fill area); 3,180.66 (borrow area A); Avg. Existing Depth NA NA -11.13 ft. to 19.56 ft. NAVD88 (existing grade within fill area); -70 ft to -48 ft (borrow area A); Final Project Depth NA NA -10.69 ft. to 19.56 ft. NAVD88 (final grade within fill area); -68 ft to -58.5 ft (borrow area A) 1. EXCAVATION This section not applicable a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL in cubic yards. 2,282,468 cy (estimated fill of 1,521,645 cy plus 50% to account for loss encountered during dredging and emergency storm repair) b. Type of material to be excavated. Beach quality sand c. (i) Does the area to be excavated include coastal wetlands/marsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square feet affected. CW SAV SB WL None (ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas: NA d. High-ground excavation in cubic yards. None 2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL This section not applicable a. Location of disposal area. Oceanfront shoreline of Kitty Hawk, from the northern town limit to 120 ft. north of Kitty Hawk Pier, with tapers extending from 8 Sea Bass Circle (Southern Shores) to East Helga Steet (Kill Devil Hills) and offshore waters b. Dimensions of disposal area. 20,970 ft. by 414 ft. Form DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill C OASTAL P LANNING & E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 6 c. (i) Do you claim title to disposal area? Yes No NA (ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner. Easements pending d. (i) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance? Yes No NA (ii) If yes, where? N/A e. (i) Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands/marsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square feet affected. CW SAV SB WL None (ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas: Beach nourishment f. (i) Does the disposal include any area in the water? Yes No NA (ii) If yes, how much water area is affected? 5,177,410 sq. ft. of fill will be placed from MHW to seaward toe- of-fill 3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION This section not applicable (If development is a wood groin, use MP-4 – Structures) a. Type of shoreline stabilization: Bulkhead Riprap Breakwater/Sill Other: nourishment b. Length: 20,970 ft. Width: 416.7 ft. c. Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL: 259 ft. d. Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL: 334 ft. e. Type of stabilization material: Sand f. (i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months? Yes No NA (ii) If yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount information. --3.6 ft/yr based on monitoring conducted in May 2019 and June 2020 within the Project Area g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level. Bulkhead backfill Riprap Breakwater/Sill Other 5,177,410 sq. ft. h. Type of fill material. sand i. Source of fill material. Offshore Borrow Area 4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES This section not applicable (Excluding Shoreline Stabilization) a. (i) Will fill material be brought to the site? Yes No NA If yes, (ii) Amount of material to be placed in the water (iii) Dimensions of fill area (iv) Purpose of fill b. (i) Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands/marsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square feet affected. CW SAV SB WL None (ii) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas: 5. GENERAL a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion controlled? A sand dike will be constructed seaward of the fill area during the placement of beach fill. This temporary structure will allow the b. What type of construction equipment will be used (e.g., dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)? Hydraulic hopper and/or cutterhead pipeline dredge and pipeline, bulldozers, front-end-loaders and other earth moving machines. Form DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill C OASTAL P LANNING & E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 7 sandy material to settle out before the water reenters the Atlantic Ocean. In addition, the nourishment sand will be low in silt, which improves the retainment quality of the material. c. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project? Yes No NA (ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented. N/A d. (i) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project site? Yes No NA (ii) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. N/A February 24, 2021 Date Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project Project Name Town of Kitty Hawk, c/o/ Andy Stewart Applicant Name Kenneth Willson, Agent, Coastal Protection Engineering, Inc. Applicant Signature Form DCM MP-3 Upland Development C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 8 Form DCM MP-3 UPLAND DEVELOPMENT (Construction and/or land disturbing activities) Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information. GENERAL UPLAND DEVELOPMENT a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, units or structures proposed. None b. Number of lots or parcels. None c. Density (give the number of residential units and the units per acre). None d. Size of area to be graded, filled, or disturbed including roads, ditches, etc. Temporary staging areas at Byrd Street parking lot: 14,692 sq. ft. (0.32 ac.), construction access: 121 l.f.; Perry Street parking lot: 18,157 sq. ft.(0.42 ac.), construction access: 1136 l.f.;Helga Street parking lot: 23,495 sq ft (0.54 ac), construction access 70 l.f; construction access at Station 0+00: 210 l.f. NOTE: The staging areas at Byrd Street and Perry Street are located on existing asphalt (impervious) parking lots. e. If the proposed project will disturb more than one acre of land, the Division of Land Resources must receive an erosion and sedimentation control plan at least 30 days before land-disturbing activity begins. (i) If applicable, has a sedimentation and erosion control plan been submitted to the Division of Land Resources? Yes No NA (ii) If yes, list the date submitted: f. List the materials (such as marl, paver stone, asphalt, or concrete) to be used for impervious surfaces. None g. Give the percentage of the tract within the coastal shoreline AEC to be covered by impervious and/or built-upon surfaces, such as pavement, building, rooftops, or to be used for vehicular driveways or parking. No new impervious surfaces will be constructed h. Projects that require a CAMA Major Development Permit may also require a Stormwater Certification. (i) Has a site development plan been submitted to the Division of Water Quality for review? Yes No NA (ii) If yes, list the date submitted: _____________ i. Give the percentage of the entire tract to be covered by impervious and/or built-upon surfaces, such as pavement, building, rooftops, or to be used for vehicular driveways or parking. No new impervious surfaces will be constructed j. Describe proposed method of sewage disposal. None k. Have the facilities described in Item (i) received state or local approval? Yes No NA If yes, attach appropriate documentation. l. Describe location and type of proposed discharges to waters of the state (e.g., surface runoff, sanitary wastewater, industrial/ commercial effluent, “wash down” and residential discharges). None m. Does the proposed project include an innovative stormwater design? Yes No NA If yes, attach appropriate documentation. Form DCM MP-3 Upland Development C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 9 m. Describe proposed drinking water supply source (e.g., well, community, public system, etc.) None n. (i) Will water be impounded? Yes No NA (ii) If yes, how many acres? o. When was the lot(s) platted and recorded? N/A p. If proposed development is a subdivision, will additional utilities be installed for this upland development? Yes No NA February 24, 2021 Date Town of Kitty Hawk, c/o John Stockton Project Name Kenneth Willson, Agent, Coastal Protection Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. Applicant Name Applicant Signature Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 10 2 Supplemental Information, per Forms DCM MP-1 and DCM MP-2 Per Form MP-1, Section 6a: Project Narrative 2.1.1 Project Scoping and History The Town of Kitty Hawk is one of four towns within Dare County, including Duck, Southern Shores, and Kill Devil Hills, seeking to implement simultaneous shore protection projects to help mitigate the threat of long-term erosion and storm damage which pose a continual threat to the oceanfront shoreline. The Town of Kitty Hawk is specifically focused on a long-term shoreline management program. The Town’s stated purpose for implementing a beach nourishment project is threefold: 1) Reduce the vulnerability of public infrastructure including NC 12, town roads between NC 12 and U.S. Highway 158, and utilities to storm-induced erosion; 2) Reduce flooding in many non-oceanfront areas throughout the Town during ocean overwash conditions, including portions of Highway NC 12 and U.S. Highway 158; and 3) Reduce the vulnerability of homes within the Town that front the Atlantic Ocean and are exposed to wave events during nor’easters and other large storm events as well as natural trends. Flooding is a major concern as it can render routes impassable which greatly limits the ability for emergency personnel to respond. In order to accomplish these stated goals, the Town is taking steps to maintain its oceanfront beach and dune to a configuration that: 1) provides a reasonable level of storm damage reduction; 2) provide a reasonable level of flood reduction; and 3) mitigates long term erosion that could threaten public and private development as well as recreational opportunities and biological resources. The first of these four towns to express interest in obtaining permits and implement a shore protection project was the Town of Kill Devil Hills which, along with the Town of Kitty Hawk, was originally part of a federally authorized beach nourishment project within Dare County. However, due to shortfalls in federal funding, the project was never constructed and is not anticipated in the foreseeable future. Therefore, on September 14, 2011, the Town of Kill Devil Hills held an interagency scoping meeting in Washington, NC with representatives from various state and federal agencies including the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), United State Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The purpose of the meeting was to present the scope of a proposed locally sponsored shoreline protection project and to develop an agreed upon permitting approach and scope for the required environmental documentation. One outcome of the meeting was the decision to develop a “Project Information Document” that would provide the USACE with a summary of the relevant existing environmental documentation and biological data that pertains to the proposed Kill Devil Hills Shore Protection Project. The information provided within the document was to be used to assist the USACE in determining the appropriate environmental documenting requirements. Following the submittal of the document, the USACE responded that due to the likelihood of determining a Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI), an Environmental Assessment (EA) would be the recommended approach regarding the required environmental documentation. Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 11 Following the 2011 interagency meeting, two other beach towns in Dare County (Kitty Hawk and Duck) expressed interest in pursuing their own shoreline protection projects in light of continued erosion on their respective shorelines. Considering that all three towns were proceeding with similar nourishment projects, constructing these projects within the same year, either concurrently or sequentially, would reduce mobilization costs to the towns. Subsequently, an additional interagency meeting was held on June 19, 2013 with representatives from many of the same agencies to discuss proposed permitting and environmental documentation approaches for all three towns, (Kill Devil Hills, Kitty Hawk, and Duck). During the meeting it was determined that each town should apply for their own set of permits and develop their own separate EAs. However, representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) agreed that while individual EAs could be drafted for each of the three proposed projects, a single regional EFH assessment and a single batched Biological Assessment (BA) could be submitted to satisfy consultation requirements with NMFS and USFWS (i.e., under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and Endangered Species Act, respectively) for the Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills. Because the project involved the use of OCS borrow areas, which fall under the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) jurisdiction, and placement of material on the beach, which falls under the USACE’s jurisdiction, it was determined that BOEM and the USACE would act as joint- lead agencies for NEPA purposes and would prepare joint NEPA documents. BOEM and the USACE agreed to participate in the required Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultations; the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation Management Act Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation (Section 305); the National Historic Preservation Act Section (NHPA) Section 106 process; and the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Section 307 consistency process. In a letter from BOEM to the USACE dated December 2, 2014, the environmental documentation and permitting approach as described above was codified. It stated that lead agency in Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation for potential impacts on protected species would be determined by jurisdiction. The BOEM was determined to be the lead agency and would consult with NMFS concerning potential effects from dredging activities for species under their purview (i.e. swimming turtles and whales). The USACE was determined to be the lead agency and consult with UFWS concerning effects from placement activities for species under their purview (i.e. nesting sea turtles). BOEM and the USACE consulted jointly with NMFS Habitat Conservation Division on EFH and requested NMFS to assign conservation recommendations by jurisdiction. The USACE was the lead agency for the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 and notified the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and relevant Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPO). The USACE and BOEM worked together with the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR), to ensure compliance with Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Following the submittal of the three EAs, Department of Army (DA) Individual Permits were issued to each of the three towns for the 2017 beach nourishment event (SAW-2014-02202, SAW- 2014-02203, and SAW-2014-02204). Consultations with NMFS Protected Resource Division concluded with the issuance of Biological Opinion on May 16, 2016. Consultations with USFWS concluded with the issuance of a Biological Opinion on November 4, 2015, respectively. Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 12 Consultation with NMFS Habitat Conservation Division in regard to EFH concerns resulted in a "no staffing" email with one recommendation. DCM issued Major Permits to each town as well (Town of Duck, #132-15; Town of Kitty Hawk, #133-15; and Town of Kill Devil Hills, #134-15). An additional interagency scoping meeting convened on January 31, 2017 to discuss the Town of Southern Shores' desire to place beach fill material within a limited area of the Town's oceanfront shoreline. Due to the project's proximity to Kitty Hawk and their intention to construct the project in tandem with the other three beach town projects, regulatory agencies determined the applicant should apply for their own separate CAMA Major permit and modify Kitty Hawk's existing DA Individual permit. During consultation with the federal partners, the batched BA was also amended to include Southern Shore's project-specific information. DCM subsequently issued a CAMA Major Permit #59-17 to the Town of Southern Shores while the DA issued a modification of the Town of Kitty Hawk's Individual Permit SAW-2014-02204. In 2017, the four towns cost-shared and implemented a beach nourishment project that involved the placement of approximately 3.9 million (M) cubic yards of material over nearly 8.3 miles of oceanfront shoreline. Material used for the project was obtained from two offshore borrow areas within the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in federal waters. Great Lakes Dredge and Dock performed the dredging work in 153 days using three (3) hopper dredges; the Liberty Island, Dodge Island and Padre Island. Dredging began on May 23, 2017, placing material at the Town of Duck and was concluded on October 23, 2017 with nourishment at the Town of Kitty Hawk. The beach fill design for the 2017 project at the Town of Kitty Hawk included a 10-foot wide dune at elevation +12.0 feet NAVD fronted by a 60-foot wide berm at elevation +6.0 feet NAVD. A main fill section was constructed covering 18,989 feet of shoreline beginning on the north at profile station 0+00, which is located approximately 120 feet north of the pier at the Hilton Garden Inn, and ending on the south near station 189+87, which is located between East Sibbern Drive and East Arch Street. Since the Kitty Hawk project was constructed in conjunction with Kill Devil Hills, only one taper on the north end of the main fill was constructed. Originally, the north taper was designed to extend 1,000 ft. into the Town of Southern Shores. In January 2017, the Town of Southern Shores initiated the process to include the southern 1,500 ft. of its shoreline into the Kitty Hawk Project. Subsequently, an additional taper was added to the northern end of the Southern Shores portion of the project. Thus, the Kitty Hawk with Southern Shores extension project included a total of 21,489 feet of shoreline and included the placement of 1,765,619 cy of material within the Town of Kitty Hawk and 80,510 cy of material within the Town of Southern Shores. After the completion of the 2017 nourishment event and based on interest expressed by all four beach towns to pursue an additional nourishment event in the future, an interagency meeting convened on April 29, 2020 to discuss the permitting and environmental documentation approach that would be required for the future project. During the meeting, it was decided that each town would pursue their own respective set of permits. In order to satisfy NEPA documentation requirements, however, it was decided that one collective EA would be developed and would be inclusive of site-specific information for all four beach towns. It was also determined that the project-related actions, as presented during the scoping meeting, should be covered by the 2020 South Atlantic Regional Opinion (SARBO) and the 2017 North Carolina Coastal Beach Sand Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 13 Placement Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion. As such, the issuance of a new biological opinion as part of the federal consultation process with NMFS and USFWS are not anticipated. The April 29, 2020 scoping meeting was attended by representatives of the Division of Water Resources (DWR) and met the requirement for requesting a pre-filing meeting under 40 CFR Part 121 for 401 Certifications in accordance with the federal Clean Water Act. The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. The project proponent hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401 certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time. 2.1.2 Proposed Action The proposed action is a one-time beach nourishment project that would include sand placement along a total of 20,970 feet (3.97 miles) of oceanfront shoreline. The main placement area of the proposed project begins at the north town limit (baseline station 0+00) which is approximately 120 feet north of the Kitty Hawk Pier located at the Hilton Garden Inn. The main placement area extends 18,964 feet along the entire length of the Kitty Hawk ocean shoreline ending at approximately the Kitty Hawk/Kill Devil Hills town limits (baseline station 189+00). If the Kitty Hawk project is constructed as a stand-alone project, two taper sections would be included: a 1,000-foot taper on the north end and a 1,006-foot taper on the south end. The north taper would extend into the Town of Southern Shores, terminating at 8 Sea Bass Circle. The south taper would end at E. Helga Street in Kill Devil Hills, which is located at baseline station 199+00. The total fill area below MHW is 5,177,410 square feet (118.86 acres), and the total fill area above MHW is 3,065,462 square feet (70.37 acres), for a total disturbed area of 8,242,872 square feet (189.23 acres). Complete plan view and cross-sectional drawings of the proposed project are provided in Appendix A. The proposed design template consists of a berm of variable widths at elevation +6 feet NAVD88. A dune with a crest elevation of +18 feet NAVD88 and width of 25 feet will be provided landward of the constructed berm along the entire length of the project by pushing some of the material into a pile. During the initial design of the Kitty Hawk project, the lack of dune seaward of many of the ocean front houses combined with budgetary constraints precluded the design and construction of a robust dune aimed at providing specific storm damage reduction. The design for the Kitty Hawk project entailed a 60-foot-wide berm and the establishment of a “starter dune”. The starter dune was constructed, and sand fencing was placed on the dune to trap windblown sand and allow for its growth. As observed through site visits and beach profile surveys, the starter dune grew both vertically and horizontally between 2017 and 2020 and provides both flood mitigation and storm damage reduction. The profile-based storm simulation model (SBEACH) was used to evaluate the existing level of storm protection and to evaluate alternative dune designs to determine the increased volume of sand necessary to achieve a similar level of storm damage reduction that projects in Duck and Kill Devil Hills were designed to provide. This analysis, using data collected in June 2020, indicated that since the starter dune grew in response to the sand fencing and as the beach profile adapted following the Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 14 construction of the 2017 project, there has been a 44% reduction in the number of vulnerable structures that had been identified based on 2014 pre-project condition. The majority of the structures indicated to be vulnerable based on the SBEACH analysis conducted with June 2020 conditions are in the northern portion of the project area with 51% of the vulnerable structures located between baseline stations 0+00 (northern Town boundary) and 40+24 (located approximately 100 feet south of Bennet St.). There are additional small clusters of structures identified as vulnerable in the central and southern end of Kitty Hawk, however the majority of vulnerable structures were located in the northern end. Regarding impacts to US-12 (Virginia Dare Trail), the SBEACH simulations of the June 2020 conditions only show impacts to an approximately 1,400-foot portion of road from Kitty Hawk Road south. In an effort to evaluate beach fill alternatives that could further decrease vulnerability of oceanfront structures and roads along the Town’s oceanfront, SBEACH was used to evaluate various dune design alternatives and to evaluate various beach fill design cross-sections. The dune designs focused on augmenting or improving the level of protection currently provided by the existing dunes along the project area. Designs were evaluated for their ability to mitigate design storm impacts to structures fronting the beach. The designs evaluated by SBEACH include beach fill cross-sections based on June 2020 conditions with modified dune configurations. The alternative dune designs included a dune with crest elevation of +15.0 ft. NAVD88 and +18.0 ft. NAVD88. The modified dune configuration was constructed on top of the 2020 profile condition. The SBEACH analysis of the +15 ft. and +18 ft. dune indicated a decrease in the number of oceanfront structures identified as vulnerable by approximately 23% and 66%, respectively. Furthermore, both alternatives reduced the portions of HWY 12 shown to be vulnerable to the design storm to zero feet. Based on budgetary constraints and the need to maintain the previously constructed project to maintain the established level of flood mitigation, the Town is proposing a design focused on optimizing the amount of reduction in vulnerable oceanfront structures by augmenting portions of the project to establish a larger dune with crest height at 18 ft. NAVD88. As mentioned above, the Town installed sand fencing and planted dune vegetation along the constructed dune following the 2017 nourishment event to trap windblown sand and encourage dune growth. The Town will install sand fencing as needed and in accordance with either 15A NCAC 07K .0212 or 15A NAC 07H .0311(c). If sand fencing is to be installed under 15A NAC 07H .0311(c), the Town will limit fencing installation to the face of the constructed dune and will complete the installation after October 31. Should sand fencing installation not conform with the exemptions cited within 15A NCAC 07K .0212, the Town will apply for a permit modification. Construction of the preferred design along with 5 years of advanced fill would require 1,521,645 cubic yards of fill material obtained from Borrow Area A. Actual volume dredged from the borrow area will likely require up to an additional 20% to account for losses during dredging; therefore, the total estimated dredge volume is 1,825,974 cubic yards. The BOEM lease request for excavating material from within Borrow Area A will include additional volume in the unlikely event a storm eroded the Towns' shoreline prior to the construction of the project. In total, the amount of material that could be excavated from the borrow area would be 2,282,468 cy, or 50% more than the 1,521,645 cy of fill required by the preferred design and advanced fill. Following Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 15 the construction of the2017 project, an after-dredge survey revealed that Borrow Area A still contained 12,829,500 cy of material, therefore this borrow area contains enough volume for this project along with the other three towns' proposed projects. Depending on several variables, including whether the project is constructed as a stand-alone project, available funding, time or contractor constraints, or any unforeseen limitations, the applicant may build all or a portion of the proposed project. Currently, the adjacent Town of Kill Devil Hills is also seeking permits to allow the construction of a beach project along the Town’s entire shoreline. Consequently, there is a possibility both the Kitty Hawk and Kill Devil Hills projects could be constructed concurrently, which would eliminate the need for the south taper of the Kitty Hawk project. Material will be obtained from the borrow area using a hopper dredge, a cutterhead dredge, or a combination of the two. In the case of a cutterhead dredge, sand will be transported from the borrow area to the beach as a slurry via pipeline; use of a hopper dredge would involve transport to a nearshore pump-out location, and subsequent pumping to the beach via pipeline. A sand dike will be constructed on the seaward side of the discharge area. The sand slurry will be discharged behind the temporary dike, and excess water will be directed parallel to the shoreline and around the edge of the dike. Once discharged onto the beach, the material will be shaped and graded using loaders, dozers, and other earth moving equipment. There are three staging areas proposed for the project. and a construction corridor by which machinery can access the beach. These staging areas include the existing paved parking lots at Perry Street and Byrd Street and include a construction access corridor to the beach (Appendix A, Sheets 5 and 10). The third staging area at Helga Street is located adjacent to the beach (Appendix A, Sheet 3). One additional construction access corridor will be located just north of the Kitty Hawk pier at Station 0+00 extending from the public parking lot at the Hilton Garden Inn onto the beach (Appendix A, sheet 10). A number of measures will be employed to avoid or minimize the risk to biological and natural resources within the project area. These measures are described in Table 1. below. Table 1. Conservation/Monitoring measures implemented to avoid or minimize environmental risks Conservation/Monitoring Measure Borrow Area Design The size and shape of the borrow areas have been designed such that a minimum number of turns will be required by the hopper dredge, which increases dredge efficiency and reduces the potential for sea turtle entrainment. Dredge Type Construction of the project will be accomplished using cutterhead suction dredges, trailing suction hopper dredges, or a combination of the two. To minimize impacts from hopper dredging, the project will follow the standard hopper dredging conditions outline in the 2020 South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion. Dredge Positioning Navigation and positioning software will be used by the contractor to accurately track the dredge location. The software will provide real-time Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 16 dredge positioning and digging functions to allow color display of dredge shape, physical feature data as found in background Computer Aided Design (CAD) charts and color contour matrix files from hydrographic data collection software described above. The software will also provide a display of theoretical volume quantities removed during actual dredging operations. Dredge anchors will not be placed any further than 200 feet from the edge of the areas to be dredged. The dredge contractor will be required to verify the location of the anchors with real time positioning each and every time the anchors are relocated. Pipeline Positioning The pipeline alignment along the beach will be placed to avoid potential piping plover habitat or sea turtle nests. The alignment will be coordinated with, and approved by, the USACE. As-built positions of the pipeline will be recorded using GPS technology and included in the final construction observation report. Pipeline Observations Observations and assessments of the pipeline during construction will be performed to avoid pressurized leaks from the pipeline couplings or other equipment that may result in sediment plumes, siltation and/or elevated turbidity levels. The Towns, along with the associated engineer, will coordinate with the dredgers and have in place a mechanism to cease dredge and fill activities in the event that a substantial leak is detected in the event that a substantial leak is detected (leaks resulting in turbidity that exceed state water quality standards). The contractor will cease dredge and placement activities until an appropriate repair of the affected equipment has been completed. Construction Observations Several initiatives will be undertaken by the Town, the Engineer, or his duly authorized representative to monitor construction practices. Construction observation and contract administration will be periodically performed seven days/week, approximately twelve hours/day during periods of active construction. Most observations will be during daylight hours; however, random nighttime observations may be conducted. The Town, the Engineer, or his duly authorized representative will provide onsite observation by an individual with training or experience in beach nourishment and construction observation and testing, and that is knowledgeable of the project design and permit conditions. The project manager will coordinate with the field observer. Multiple daily observations of the pump-out location will be made for quality assessment and quality control (QA/QC) of the material being placed on the beach. The construction contractor will provide observations 24 hours per day during construction. Sediment Compatibility The Sediment Criteria Rule provides beneficial guidelines for both grain size and percent weight of calcium carbonate. However, other important characteristics such as organic content, heavy mineral content and color are not addressed. These aspects of the beach material will be considered. Maintaining adherence to this sediment criteria rule for material placed on the beach will reduce adverse impacts to the beach invertebrate community and Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 17 would also reduce effects to sea turtle nest construction and incubation of the eggs. Multiple daily observations of the active placement locations will be made for QA/QC of the material being placed on the beach. The individual will collect a representative sub-surface (6 in. below grade) grab sediment sample at not less than 200-foot intervals along the newly constructed berm to visually assess grain size, wet Munsell color, granular, gravel, and silt content. Each sample will be archived with the date, time, and location of the sample. Samples will be collected during beach observations. The sample will be visually compared to the acceptable sand criteria. If determined necessary by the Engineer, or his duly authorized representative, quantitative assessments of the sand will be conducted for grain size, wet Munsell color, and content of gravel, granular and silt. A record of these sand evaluations will be provided within the Engineer’s daily inspection reports and submitted to USACE and DCM for verification. Following construction, compaction of placed fill material will be inspected by the Town, the Engineer or his duly authorized representative in coordination with the DCM and USACE. Compaction monitoring will begin after the material has been graded and dressed to the final slope and a period of time will be allowed for finer particles to be washed away and final settling of the material to occur prior to compaction monitoring. If the fill material appears to have a higher degree of compaction than that which is acceptable additional testing such as cone penetration testing will be considered. After subsequent testing, if it is determined that tilling is necessary to reduce compaction based on consultation with the appropriate agencies, the contractor will till the beach to a minimum depth of 36 inches throughout the constructed portion of the beach to loosen the compaction of the placed material. Beach tilling will only be performed as a result of an identified compaction problem based on agency consultation. Beach compaction monitoring and, if necessary, tilling would ensure that project impacts on sea turtle nesting are minimized. Escarpments Visual surveys of escarpments will be made along the beach fill area immediately after completion of construction. Escarpments in the newly placed beach fill that exceed 18 inches for greater than 100 ft. shall be graded to match adjacent grades on the beach. Removal of any escarpments during the sea turtle hatching season (May 1 through November 15) shall be coordinated with the NCWRC, USFWS and the USACE. The likelihood of escarpment formation can be reduced by incorporating a beach design that closely resembles the native beach in terms of berm elevation, sediment size, and sediment sorting characteristics. The proposed project will be designed with a berm elevation of +6 ft. NAVD88, and sediment characteristics that fall within the ranges required by the North Carolina State Sediment Criteria. Water Quality During construction, shore parallel berms will be constructed on the beach to reduce nearshore turbidity impacts. These berms are designed such that the slurry will run parallel to shore, allowing sediment to settle out before the water is returned to the ocean. Turbidity monitoring during construction will be managed by the contractor. The contractor will be responsible for notifying the construction engineer in the event that turbidity levels exceed the state Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 18 water quality standards. Measures that could be taken to subsequently reduce turbidity include moving the dredge to a different location, or asking the contractor to extend the berm, which would allow more time for fines to settle out before the water flows back into the ocean. West Indian Manatee and Whale Monitoring During construction or dredging activities, the contractor will adhere to the “Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee” created by the USFWS. Full-time NMFS-certified endangered species observers will be present on the hopper dredge(s) to alert dredge operators of any whales or manatees in the area. In the event a whale or manatee is spotted, the ship’s captain will make proper maneuvers to avoid collisions or injury to the marine mammals. Vessel operators will abide by the 10 kt (18.5 km/h) speed restrictions in any Dynamic Management Areas (DMAs) that may be established while underway. Operators will abide by NMFS Southeast Region marine mammal viewing guidelines and maintain 50 yds. from sea turtles and dolphins and 100 yds. from whales. Vessel operators will also follow the restricted vessel approach of 500 yds. established for North Atlantic right whales. Participation in the Right Whale Early Warning System is required; therefore, dredging within right whale critical habitat from December through March will follow the protocol established within the Early Warning System (NMFS, 1995). Sea Turtle Monitoring and Relocation Trawling Risk of entrainment will be reduced by use of a sea turtle deflector on the dredge's draghead. Every effort will be made to keep the dredge pumps disengaged when the hopper dredge dragheads are not firmly on the bottom. Also, the rotating cutterhead will not be lifted from the sediment surface during operations. Additionally, full-time NMFS-certified protected species observers will be present on the hopper dredge to document any sea turtle activity and monitor turtle takes through screening of inflow and/or outflow. Dredging operations will abide by the terms and conditions deemed necessary to minimize hopper dredging impacts to sea turtles set forth in the 2020 South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion (SARBO). On the beach, artificial lighting used during nighttime construction activities will be angled or shielded to reduce deterrence of sea turtle nesting and hatchling disorientation. A sea turtle nest monitoring and avoidance/relocation plan will be implemented through coordination with USFWS and NCWRC. This monitoring will be performed by trained individuals knowledgeable of the beach construction operations. Should hopper dredges be utilized, the proposed project may employ relocation trawling as a means to reduce the potential for entrainment. If relocation trawling is implemented, standard relocation trawling conditions will be observed as set forth by NMFS, including specification for trawl time, handling, holding conditions, take and release and any tagging, etc. A sea turtle nest monitoring plan will be implemented through coordination with USFWS and NCWRC. Dare County is included in surveys conducted by Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 19 Network for Endangered Sea Turtles (N.E.S.T), the volunteer organization which performs systematic surveys of the northern Outer Banks from the Virginia border to the southern tip of Nags Head. Surveys are performed throughout the nesting season (May through August), and include daily morning patrols to mark and protect newly laid nests, as well as monitoring during incubation period and emergence. These surveys have been performed since 1981. Because the proposed project includes nourishment during the summer months (nesting season), monitoring will be needed to identify, and subsequently avoid burial or excavation of, existing nests during construction. This monitoring will be performed by trained individuals knowledgeable of the beach construction operations. In addition to monitoring surveys, nest relocation will be implemented by highly trained individuals and in coordination with the appropriate agencies. Bird Monitoring Although a project-specific bird monitoring plan will not be developed, existing programs established by the State, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, and other entities are anticipated to continue monitoring piping plovers, rufa red knots, and other bird species along portions of the Outer Banks in Dare County. In addition, all personnel involved in the construction process along the beach will be trained to recognize the presence of piping plovers and red knots prior to the initiation of beach construction. Personnel will be provided photos of each species, which will be required to be kept at the construction site for quick reference. A contractor representative authorized to stop or redirect work will conduct a shorebird survey prior to 9:00 am each day of sand placement activities. The survey will cover the work area and any locations where equipment is expected to travel. The contractor will note any observance of red knots or piping plovers and submit observations to the USACE Wilmington District Office the next calendar day. 2.1.3 Construction Schedule The inclement weather typically encountered during the winter months offshore the northern outer banks makes dredging difficult and often reduces dredging efficiencies, especially when cutterhead dredges are used. Elevated sea states poses a substantial safety risk to crews and equipment, while weather-related down times raise costs and reduce efficiency. As such, the Town proposes a year- round construction window with a high likelihood that construction would occur during the calmer and safer summer months. A year-round construction window would provide the contractor the most flexibility and provide a safer and more economical work environment. To allow for the greatest scheduling flexibility, no start and end date will be specified; rather, this will remain at the discretion of the contractor, and will be based on equipment availability and weather conditions. The Kitty Hawk project could be constructed independently, or concurrently with the other three towns' projects. Based on estimated production rates, the Kitty Hawk project will likely require approximately 2.5 months if constructed independently. If all four projects are constructed concurrently, the entire project would likely be completed within 5 months. These timeframes are Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 20 based on the production rates for hopper dredges achieved during the 2017 multi-town project and the 2010-2011 Nags Head project. 2.1.4 Borrow Areas and Sediment Analysis Beach quality sand will be dredged from Outer Continental Shelf borrow areas using a self- contained ocean-certified hopper dredge, a cutterhead pipeline dredge, or a combination of the two. The borrow area, "Borrow Area A" was previously used during the 2017 Dare County Multi- Beach Nourishment project and is located entirely within federal waters, i.e. seaward of the Three Nautical Mile Line, placing it under the BOEMs jurisdiction (Appendix A, sheets 1 and 2). Coastal Protection Engineering, Inc. of North Carolina (CPE) conducted a comprehensive sand search using a systematic methodology involving three sequential phases of investigation. Phase I involves a comprehensive desktop study that examined previously collected information within the geologic context of the investigation area in order to identify features with the highest potential of containing project compatible sand. Results of jetprobe investigations of several shoal features offshore Dare County by CPE in 2013 as part of a feasibility study for the Town of Kill Devil Hills were also considered during this phase. Details of the findings of Phase I can be found in the full geotechnical report (Appendix C, beginning on page 15) Surveying, sampling and analysis of the Kitty Hawk native beach was also conducted during Phase I. In keeping with the requirements set forth in the North Carolina State Sediment Criteria, CPE performed shore-perpendicular topographic and bathymetric surveys of the native beach to determine the beach profile. The locations of the profiles surveyed by CPE were based off a data set previously collected by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. Each profile was surveyed from a point 150 ft. landward of the vegetation line seaward out to an elevation no less than -25 ft. NAVD88. Of the profiles surveyed, characterization of the Kitty Hawk native beach was generated from samples collected along five generally evenly spaced profiles within the Kitty Hawk project area: 0+00, 50+00, 110+00, 160+00 and 210+00 (Appendix C, page 13, Figure 7). As required by the State Sediment Criteria, samples were taken at 13 locations along each of the 5 sampling profiles, including: the dune, toe of dune, mid-berm, berm crest, mean high water, mean tide level, mean low water, trough, bar crest and at -12.5, -15.0, -17.5 and -20.0. In total, CPE collected a total of 65 samples within the proposed project area in Kitty Hawk. The composite summary and grain size analysis results are displayed in Table 1 of this project narrative. Additionally, the results of sediment analyses for each sediment sample can be found within the Beach Composite Summary Tables provided in Appendix 4 of the attached Appendix C. Along with ensuring compatibility of the sand characteristics, the State Sediment Criteria also require quantification of clasts (rocks and shell) greater than 3-inches in diameter present on the native beach. As such, CPE conducted a pre-construction survey in June 2020 to determine the background levels of clasts (rocks) greater than 3-inches that exist along the Town of Kitty Hawk's oceanfront beach between MLW and the frontal toe of the dune. Per the updated State Sediment Criteria language, the number of 3-inch clasts were quantified within five (5) 10,000 sq ft.2 sections along the beach. Results identified 16 clasts greater than 3-inches within the survey area. The criteria stipulate that borrow area material greater than 3-inches in diameter that is placed in the project area is considered incompatible if it is more than twice the background level that existed Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 21 on the native beach before the project began. Since the June 2020 survey, the State has updated their guidance again and now also require a survey, using the same methodology described above, to determine the total number of sediments greater than or equal to one inch in diameter. Although this survey has not been conducted at this time, the applicant will perform it prior to the implementation of the proposed project. Information gathered during the Phase I archival literature studies regarding the geological setting of the project area give no indication that hardbottom habitats are present within or in the vicinity of the borrow area. Additionally, previous geotechnical and geophysical investigations conducted by the USACE have not indicated the presence of hardbottoms in the area. Finally, analysis of the sidescan sonar data acquired by CPE for the present project indicated no presence of hardbottom habitats or consolidated rock exposures or outcroppings within or in the vicinity of the borrow areas. Phase II investigations involved reconnaissance level geophysical surveys in order to 1) define the extent of sediment layers identified during Phase I research of past jetprobe data and historic vibracore and surface sediment data; 2) develop a vibracore plan to be implemented during Phase III investigations, and 3) identify potential environmental or cultural resources for avoidance during Phase III vibracore investigations. Results of the geotechnical investigations, including geophysical (sonar) surveys, vibracores, hydrographic surveys, archaeological resource surveys and sand compatibility analyses, were performed to develop the final borrow area designs. Design considerations for the proposed borrow areas included: • Construction of the project may be accomplished using a hopper or cutterhead dredge • Location of sufficient sand to construct the four proposed beach nourishment projects for the Towns of Duck, Southern Shores, and Kill Devil Hills • Beach compatible sand with similar mean grain size and sorting of the project beaches • Avoidance of environmentally sensitive areas such as hardbottom, seagrass beds, etc. • Avoidance of potentially significant cultural resources • Avoidance of nearshore impacts due to wave refraction over borrow areas The proposed design cuts for Borrow Area A are displayed in sheets 16 and 17 of Appendix A. Borrow Area A has been divided into seven different design cuts with cut depths ranging from - 58.5 to -68.0 ft. (Figure 1). The sediment compatibility analysis, as discussed in section 3.1.2 and 3.1.3, determined that the offshore borrow material in Borrow Area A meets the compatibility requirements established by the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) prior to the 2017 nourishment event. It is the position of the applicants engineering consultant that the previous sediment compatibility analysis (Table 1) remains valid for Borrow Area A. Through correspondence with Division of Coastal Management staff, the applicant was notified that DCM has some concerns about the compatibility of the material in areas previously dredged. Cuts A3, A4, and A5 have been identified as portions of the borrow area not previously dredged during the 2017 construction project. Collectively these three cuts contain 5,153,700 cy of material. Given concerns expressed by DCM staff regarding sediment compatibility of portions of the borrow area previously dredged, the applicant requests DCM consider conditioning the permit to require the Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 22 applicant to conduct updated bathymetric surveys and sediment sampling of portions of the borrow area previously dredged (Cuts A1, A2, A6, and A7) to evaluate the potential for infilling and sediment compatibility, prior to construction of the project. The additional bathymetric surveys and sediment sampling would need to demonstrate sediment compatibility of any sediment that has infilled previously dredged areas. It is the applicant’s intent to conduct such surveys and sediment sampling/analysis during the months of April and May of 2020. In order to maintain the project schedule, the applicant has determined that permit decisions need to be made prior to August 2021. The recommended course of action would allow for DCM to continue its permit review while providing the applicant time to conduct the further investigations, which would be incorporated into bidding documents prior to the project being advertised for bid. Table 1. Results of the compatibility analyses performed for Borrow Area A and C. Allowable limits for the Town of Kitty Hawk native beach are defined by Rule 15A NCAC 07H.0312. Parameter Kitty Hawk Native Beach Allowable Limits Borrow Area A Wet/Dry Munsell Color 5/7 n/a 5/6 Mean Grain Size (mm) 0.38 n/a 0.36 Sorting (Phi) 1.41 n/a 1.47 Silt (%) (<0.0625mm) 0.94 5.94 0.83 Granular (%) (2mm < and < 4.76mm) 6.38 11.38 1.42 Gravel (%) (>4.76mm) 1.64 6.64 0.47 Carbonate 2.0 17.0 1.0 Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 23 Figure 1. Map of Borrow Area A, showing preliminary design cuts and estimated volumes. C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 24 Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project To determine project impacts on potentially significant submerged cultural resources, Tidewater Atlantic Research (TAR) carried out a background literature review and supervised a cultural resource investigation of the proposed borrow areas. The resulting cultural resource report compiled by TAR is provided in Appendix B. A registered archaeologist from TAR identified 9 magnetic anomalies in the vicinity of Area A, 4 of which were considered potentially significant (Appendix A, sheet 12). As a result, three buffer areas were established within Borrow Area A – two are located within the borrow area and one is located partially outside the western perimeter (Appendix A, sheet 12). These areas will be avoided during dredging. Cultural resource investigations also identified shipwreck fragments presumably of the Steamship Mountaineer in the nearshore just off Station 50+00 (Luke Street). The contractor will exercise all available precautions to avoid damage to any shipwreck fragments. Beach fill material will be used to cover these fragments and to minimize any impacts, the submerged pipeline will not come within 100m of them. Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 25 2.1.5 Summary of Consistency with State Sediment Criteria Provided below is a summary of how each criterion stipulated in 15A NCAC 07H .0312 Technical Standards for Beach Fill Standards have been adhered to. Those criteria not considered applicable to the project, such as those pertaining to projects utilizing a borrow area located in a maintained navigation channel, have been omitted. Table 2. Statement of consistency with each criterion within the 15A NCAC 07H .0312 Technical Standards for Beach Fill Standards, and location of information within the supporting documentation. Section (15A NCAC 07H .0312) Description Statement of Consistency: (1)(c) Topographic and Bathymetric Surveys Shore-perpendicular bathymetric and topographic surveys of the beach, were conducted in April 2014 and May 2015 along transects spaced approximately 1,000 ft apart within the project area. Please refer to Dare County, NC Duck - Kitty Hawk - Kill Devil Hills 2015 Hydrographic and Topographic Survey Report (Appendix D) for a description of methodology and cross section plots. (1)(d) Beach Sediment Sampling Locations 13 sediment samples were collected from 5 representative beach profiles along the project area, spaced no more than 5,000 ft. apart. Samples were taken from each of the morphodynamic zones specified: 1 sample was collected at MLW and 6 samples were collected both seaward and landward of the MLW. Please refer to Beach Characterization section under Phase 1 Investigations in Appendix C: Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report (1)(e) Values for four (4) Sediment Grain Size Categories (Individual Samples) Mechanical seive analysis was performed on each of the samples. The percent by weight of each of the 4 grain size categories (fine, sand, granular, and gravel) for each individual sample is provided in the Percentage of Material by Sediment Grain Size Category table in Appendix 4 of the Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report (Appendix C). (1)(f) Composite Values for four (4) sediment grain Size Categories Composite values of the percent by weight of each of the 4 grain size categories were developed. Please refer to the Percentage of Material by Sediment Grain Size Category table in Appendix 4 of the Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report (Appendix C). Summary values can also be found in the text of the report on Page 16 (1)(g) Percent Calcium Carbonate Carbonate analysis was performed on a composite sample of all sediment samples along each of the 5 profiles. Please refer to the Profile Line Composite Summary Table in Appendix 4 of the Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report (Appendix C). Summary values can also be found in the text of the report on Page 16 (1)(h) Total Number of Clasts > 3 inches (76 mm) in diameter In June 2020, as per the updated State Sediment Criteria language, CPE conducted a survey to quantify the number of 3-inch clasts within five (5) 10,000 sq ft.2 sections along the beach. Results identified 17 clasts greater than 3-inches within the survey area. Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 26 (2)(c) Seafloor Bathymetry and Sonar Imagery Over the course of two surveys (June 2014 and October 2014) seafloor surveys were conducted such that 100 percent coverage of each submarine borrow area was obtained. Both single beam bathymetry and high resolution sides scan sonar imagery were collected. Please refer to descriptions of the Phase II Investigations and Phase III Investigations in the Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report (Appendix C). More specifically, figures 21 and 22 show the bathymetric coverage of the borrow areas and figures 27 and 28 show the sidescan mosaic of the area verifying 100% coverage. (2)(d) Geophysical imaging of seafloor subsurface (Subbottom Survey) Over the course of two surveys (June 2014 and October 2014) geophysical imaging of the seafloor subsurface was used to characterize each submarine borrow area. A sub-bottom profiler was used to survey tracklines spaced approximately 30-m apart, which greatly exceeds the state standard. Please refere to Phase II Investigations and Phase III Investigations in the Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report (Appendix C). More specifically, figures 16 and 17 show the tracklines along which data were collected. Also refer to Appendix 9 of Appendix C. (2)(e) Vibracore Spacing, Number, and Recovery Depth Sediment sampling of Borrow Area A and C used a 271B Alpine Pneumatic vibracore, configured to collect undisturbed sediment cores up to 20 ft. in length. Material is fed into a 3 inch diameter plastic core liner, which is split and sampled. Vibracores were collected at 1,000-foot spacing. 51 vibracores were collected within Borrow Area A for an average acreage per core of 23. Refer to figures 21 and 22 in the Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report (Appendix C) for spacing of vibracores within each borrow area. All vibracores within a given borrow area cut section penetrated and recovered material from below the proposed cut depth (i.e. all vibracores within a section marked cut to -65 ft. recovered material from at least a depth of -65 ft.) Please refer to Figures 21 and 22 and the vibracore logs in Appendix 11 of the Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report (Appendix C) to verify depths recovered. (2)(g) Grain size analysis of individual vibracore samples and borrow area composites Mechanical seive analysis was performed on each of the samples. The percent by weight of each of the 4 grain size categories (fine, sand, granular, and gravel) for each individual sample is provided in the Percentage of Material by Sediment Grain Size Category table in Appendix 16 of the Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report. Weighted composite values of the percent by weight of each of the 4 grain size categories were developed for each core and ultimately composite values were developed for each borrow area. These composites are also provided in the Percentage of Material by Sediment Grain Size Category table in Appendix 16 of the Report. Summary values for each borrow area are provided in Table 6 of the report? Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 27 (2)(h) Vibracore calcium carbonate composites Carbonate analysis was performed on each vibracore sample. A weighted percent calcium carbonate value was computed for each vibracore. These values were used to determine the weighted percent calcium carbonate composite value for Borrow Area A and C. Please refer to the Cumulative Percents and Computed Distributions table in Appendix 16 of the Report (Appendix C) for individual sample percentage and weighted composite vibracore percentage. Please refer to the Composite Data Table in Appendix 16 of the Report for weighted composite vibracore and borrow area percentage. Summary values for each borrow area can also be found in the text of the Report in Table 6. (3)(b) Fine-Grained Size Sediment Compatibility The average percentage by weight of fine-grained sediment in each borrow site does not exceed the average percentage by weight of fine-grained sediment of the recipient beach characterization plus five percent. See Table 1 of the project narrative, and Table 6 of the Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report. (3)(c) Granular Size Compatibility The average percentage by weight of granular sediment in each borrow site does not exceed the average percentage by weight of fine-grained sediment of the recipient beach characterization plus five percent. See Table 1 of the project narrative, and Table 6 of the Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report (Appendix C). (3)(d) Gravel Size Compatibility The average percentage by weight of gravel in each borrow site does not exceed the average percentage by weight of fine-grained sediment of the recipient beach characterization plus five percent. See Table 1 of the project narrative and Table 6 of the Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report (Appendix C). (3)(e) Calcium Carbonate Compatibility The average percentage by weight of calcium carbonate in each borrow site does not exceed the average percentage by weight of fine-grained sediment of the recipient beach characterization plus 15 percent. See Table 1 of the project narrative and Table 6 of the Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report (Appendix C). (4)(a) Sediment Excavation Depths All vibracores within a given borrow area cut section penetrated and recovered material from below the proposed cut depth (i.e. all vibracores within a section marked cut to -65 ft. recovered material from at least a depth of -65 ft.). Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project 2.2 Per Form MP-1, Section 6d: A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties The Town is currently in the process obtaining the necessary easements to construct the project. 2.3 Per From MP-2, Section 6f: Adjacent Riparian Owner Return Receipts Adjacent riparian owner notifications were sent via certified mail. Green cards were received and provided to DCM. The receipts showing the package was sent via Certified Mail are included below. D er ("-rn I"'-- . er . er □ □ D □ l..("J .::r 11.J □ ru □ I"'-- \ rn co r-rn r-.::r tr" . er □ D D ·□ U.S. Postal Service'"' CERTIFIED MAIL ® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only -�-··· -. . ... t1(lr& picp7rc I A LCertified Mail Fee $3.60$ <I;") QI:' Extra Services & Fees (chock box. add fee as !'f'�{rt'teJ 0ReturnR-ptq,a,dcopy) $ 'I>•.·•••-· □ Return R-pt (electronic) $ $ I I • 1111 0 Certified Mall Restr1cled Delivery $ $fl iii! □Adult Slgnalure Reqund $ �o.oi;i □ Adutt S;gnaJun, Restricted Dellve!y $ Postage u . . s E 0401 1 Postmark Here □ Lil .::r $ $7.70 Total Postage and F�s, 1 " 02/24/2021 , ru $ .. _,.._.) I□ '□ r-- Sent To J<-,.r� Prlce $treat ancfApt. No�, or 'Po Box No. 2 0 __ S � } v-(/" __ Jf '-<,,r _________ · �-City. State, ZIP+4 }) ,g vJ i.5 d I') 1 TX 7 S tJ 7., I U.S. Postal Service™ CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only ., ... . . ,. .... Derorp: Tf: �,cc I A LCertified Mail Fee $.3.60 $ ¢,'j yC" Extra Services & Fees (chock box, add fee� �ft'\"t•) D Return R-pt q,a,dcopy) $ • • • ·' D Return Receipt {electronic) $ 0 Certified Mall Restricted DeilvO!)' $ D Adult Slgnatura Requi red $ 0 Adult Slgnaluro Restrfcted Dellve,y $ Postage ' $8.80 otal Postage and Frr� � c-$ 5 J.LJ i!!.1111 $11.ill°I 40,00 . .0 u s0401 1 Postmark Here 02/24/2021 :tt Sent To f.!2}< J :L-J v-eJi.vW.,/H5 t..L C "Sireet andApt. No., o r PO Box No . P. 0, ...•... oll .. I :; 7 ·······•··········· . city.siate, ZIP+4• · ·····················-·· B ·····•· · --•··· ·····-········-·-· :•• '• /l1,N?-feo ,IVG 2.195'1./. . . Ill •1 --. . . I ... ,,.,,...,, COASTAL PROTECTION ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. 27 Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 29 Per Form MP-1, Section 6h: Agent Authorization Form Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 30 Per Form MP-1, Section 6j: Ocean Hazard AEC Notice for Kitty Hawk Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 31 Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 32 Permission Letter and Ocean AEC Hazard Notices from Adjacent Towns Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 33 Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 34 Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. 35 Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. Appendix A: Work Plans N CO V E R S H E E T CS 1 --KWKWAP -- Dr a w n b y : De s i g n e d b y : DRAWING NO. Da t e : Pl o t S c a l e : Re v i e w e d b y : Ch e c k e d b y : Su b m i t t e d b y : Co m m . N o . : No . Da t e De s c r i p t i o n SHEET OF Re f e r e n c e F i l e s : RE V I S I O N S COA S T A L PRO T E C T I O N ENG I N E E R I N G OF NOR T H CAR O L I N A , INC . Dr a w n b y : De s i g n e d b y : DRAWING NO. Da t e : Pl o t S c a l e : Re v i e w e d b y : Ch e c k e d b y : Su b m i t t e d b y : Co m m . N o . : No . Da t e De s c r i p t i o n SHEET OF 40 3 8 M A S O N B O R O L O O P R D . WI L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 9 PH . ( 9 1 0 ) 3 9 9 - 1 9 0 5 17 KI T T Y H A W K BE A C H N O U R I S H M E N T P R O J E C T DA R E C O U N T Y , N O R T H C A R O L I N A Re f e r e n c e F i l e s : EN G I N E E R I N G L I C E N S E C E R T I F I C A T E # : C - 2 3 3 1 RE V I S I O N S FD 3/ 1 5 / 2 1 AS N O T E D NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY NORTH DARE COUNTY BEACHES KITTY HAWK BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 1 2 3-11 12-15 16 17 COVER SHEET PROJECT OVERVIEW BEACH FILL PLAN VIEWS BEACH FILL PROFILES BORROW AREA A PLAN VIEW & COORDINATE TABLE BORROW AREA A CROSS SECTIONS LOCATION MAP GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT 1600080000 TOWN OF SOUTHERN SHORES TOWN OF KILL DEVIL HILLS TOWN OF KITTY HAWK ATLANTIC OCEAN CU R R I T U C K S O U N D KITTY HAWK BAY BORROW AREA A CHARLOTTE GREENSBORO RALEIGH JACKSONVILLE OUTE R PAMI L I C O SOUN D SOUTH CAROLINA VIRGINIA CAPE HATTERAS CAPE LOOKOUT NORT H C A R O L I N A ATLANTIC OCEAN CURRITUCK SOUND DARE COUNTY PROJECT LOCATION CURRITUCK COUNTY PAMILICO SOUND CAPE FEAR ATLANTIC OCEAN BANK S TALLAHASSEE TOWN OF DUCK PROJECT FILL AREA PROJECT LOCATION N 83 7 0 0 0 E 29 6 2 0 0 0 E 30 1 2 0 0 0 E 30 3 7 0 0 0 E 30 1 2 0 0 0 E 29 8 7 0 0 0 E 29 6 2 0 0 0 E 29 3 7 0 0 0 N 86 2 0 0 0 N 83 7 0 0 0 N 86 2 0 0 0 N 88 7 0 0 0 N 91 2 0 0 0 N 88 7 0 0 0 N 91 2 0 0 0 E 29 8 7 0 0 0 E 29 3 7 0 0 0 N 93 7 0 0 0 N 81 2 0 0 0 PR O J E C T O V E R V I E W OV 2 --KWKWAP -- Dr a w n b y : De s i g n e d b y : DRAWING NO. Da t e : Pl o t S c a l e : Re v i e w e d b y : Ch e c k e d b y : Su b m i t t e d b y : Co m m . N o . : No . Da t e De s c r i p t i o n SHEET OF Re f e r e n c e F i l e s : RE V I S I O N S COA S T A L PRO T E C T I O N ENG I N E E R I N G OF NOR T H CAR O L I N A , INC . Dr a w n b y : De s i g n e d b y : DRAWING NO. Da t e : Pl o t S c a l e : Re v i e w e d b y : Ch e c k e d b y : Su b m i t t e d b y : Co m m . N o . : No . Da t e De s c r i p t i o n SHEET OF 40 3 8 M A S O N B O R O L O O P R D . WI L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 9 PH . ( 9 1 0 ) 3 9 9 - 1 9 0 5 17 KI T T Y H A W K BE A C H N O U R I S H M E N T P R O J E C T DA R E C O U N T Y , N O R T H C A R O L I N A Re f e r e n c e F i l e s : EN G I N E E R I N G L I C E N S E C E R T I F I C A T E # : C - 2 3 3 1 RE V I S I O N S FD 3/ 1 5 / 2 1 AS N O T E D NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY 0 4000 8000 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT N 1.DATE OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY: D ECEMBER 3, 2020. SENTINEL-2 (ESA) IMAGE COURTESY OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. 2.COORDINAT ES ARE IN FEET BASED ON THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83). 3.ELEVATIONS ARE IN FEET REFERENCED TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM, 1988 (NAVD88). ATLANTIC OCEAN CURRITUCK SOUND KITTY HAWK BAY TOWN OF SOUTHERN SHORES TOWN OF KITTY HAWK TOWN OF KILL DEVIL HILLS TOWN OF DUCK NOTES: BORROW AREA A 8.3 S T A T U T E M I L E S PROJECT LIMITS E H E L G A S T E S I B B E R N D R E A R C H S T SE A V I L L A G E L N N 85 5 0 0 0 N 85 5 0 0 0 ST A T I O N 1 9 9 + 8 1 SO U T H E R N P R O J E C T L I M I T VIRGINIA DARE TRAIL NORTH - N.C . 1 2 RAYMOND AVENUE 19 9 + 9 3 TO W N O F K I T T Y H A W K TO W N O F KI L L D E V I L H I L L S N 85 4 0 0 0 N 85 6 0 0 0 -10 0 10 -8 -6-4-2 2468 1214 18 9 + 8 7 N 85 4 0 0 0 -10 -10 -16 -16 -14 -14 -12 -12 -8 N 85 6 0 0 0 N E 29 8 1 0 0 0 E E 29 8 0 0 0 0 E 29 8 2 0 0 0 E 29 8 2 0 0 0 E 29 8 0 0 0 0 SEAWARD TOE OF FILL BEACH FILL BERM CREST LANDWARD LIMIT OF FILL SEAWARD TOE OF DUNE PROJECT BASELINE BKS INVESTMENTS, LLC 0 VIRGINIA DARE TRAIL KILL DEVIL HILLS, NC 27948 STAGING AREA CONSTRUCTION ACCESS 2020 MHW (1.18') 2020 MLW (-2.05') GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT 2001000 NOTES: 1.DATE OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH: AUGUST 5, 2020. 2.COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83). 3.ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET REFERENCED TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88). 4.CONTOURS SHOWN REPRESENT SURVEY DATA COLLECTED AT 1000 FOOT INTERVALS BY CPE-NC JUNE 2020. THE CONTOURS SHOWN ARE FOR GRAPHICAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NOT INTENDED FOR DESIGN. 5.SAND FENCING MAY BE INSTALLED BETWEEN THE CREST OF THE DESIGN DUNE AND A POINT 10 FT. SEAWARD OF THE TOE OF DUNE. 6.SOUTH TAPER NOT REQUIRED IF KITTY HAWK PROJECT CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME AS KILL DEVIL HILLS. 7.NORTH TAPER NOT REQUIRED IF SOUTHERN SHORES PROJECT CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME AS KITTY HAWK. 8.THE SEAWARD TOE OF BEACH FILL LINE AS SHOWN, IS NOT FIXED AND RATHER IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON THE CONDITIONS OF THE NEARSHORE BATHYMETRY AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. N BE A C H F I L L P L A N V I E W PV-1 3 LEGEND USACE BASELINE STATION 2020 MEAN HIGH WATER (1.18') 2020 MEAN LOW WATER ( -2.05) EXISTING CONTOURS JUNE 2020 MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY DUNE CREST -10 --KWKWAP -- Dr a w n b y : De s i g n e d b y : DRAWING NO. Da t e : Pl o t S c a l e : Re v i e w e d b y : Ch e c k e d b y : Su b m i t t e d b y : Co m m . N o . : No . Da t e De s c r i p t i o n SHEET OF Re f e r e n c e F i l e s : RE V I S I O N S COA S T A L PRO T E C T I O N ENG I N E E R I N G OF NOR T H CAR O L I N A , INC . Dr a w n b y : De s i g n e d b y : DRAWING NO. Da t e : Pl o t S c a l e : Re v i e w e d b y : Ch e c k e d b y : Su b m i t t e d b y : Co m m . N o . : No . Da t e De s c r i p t i o n SHEET OF 40 3 8 M A S O N B O R O L O O P R D . WI L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 9 PH . ( 9 1 0 ) 3 9 9 - 1 9 0 5 17 KI T T Y H A W K BE A C H N O U R I S H M E N T P R O J E C T DA R E C O U N T Y , N O R T H C A R O L I N A Re f e r e n c e F i l e s : EN G I N E E R I N G L I C E N S E C E R T I F I C A T E # : C - 2 3 3 1 RE V I S I O N S FD 3/ 1 5 / 2 1 AS N O T E D NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY 1+80 MA T C H L I N E S H E E T 4 POSEIDON CT. TA T E W A Y R D . N 85 6 0 0 0 N 85 7 0 0 0 TOWN OF KITTY HAWK W H I T E S T R E E T - S R 1 2 7 5 VIRGINIA DARE TRAIL NORTH - N.C. 1 2 16 0 + 0 0 16 9 + 7 0 17 9 + 8 8 N 85 7 0 0 0 N 85 8 0 0 0 E 29 8 0 0 0 0 E 0 10 -8 -6 -4-2 246 8 12 14 POSEIDON CT. -10-10 -16 -16 -14 -14 -12 -12 85 6 0 0 0 N 85 6 0 0 0 E 29 7 9 0 0 0 E 29 8 0 0 0 0 E 29 8 1 0 0 0 E 29 7 9 0 0 0 29 8 0 0 0 0 N 85 8 0 0 0 LANDWARD LIMIT OF FILL SEAWARD TOE OF DUNE BEACH FILL BERM CREST SEAWARD TOE OF FILL 2020 MHW (1.18') 2020 MLW (-2.05') PROJECT BASELINE N BE A C H F I L L P L A N V I E W PV-2 4 --KWKWAP -- Dr a w n b y : De s i g n e d b y : DRAWING NO. Da t e : Pl o t S c a l e : Re v i e w e d b y : Ch e c k e d b y : Su b m i t t e d b y : Co m m . N o . : No . Da t e De s c r i p t i o n SHEET OF Re f e r e n c e F i l e s : RE V I S I O N S COA S T A L PRO T E C T I O N ENG I N E E R I N G OF NOR T H CAR O L I N A , INC . Dr a w n b y : De s i g n e d b y : DRAWING NO. Da t e : Pl o t S c a l e : Re v i e w e d b y : Ch e c k e d b y : Su b m i t t e d b y : Co m m . N o . : No . Da t e De s c r i p t i o n SHEET OF 40 3 8 M A S O N B O R O L O O P R D . WI L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 9 PH . ( 9 1 0 ) 3 9 9 - 1 9 0 5 17 KI T T Y H A W K BE A C H N O U R I S H M E N T P R O J E C T DA R E C O U N T Y , N O R T H C A R O L I N A Re f e r e n c e F i l e s : EN G I N E E R I N G L I C E N S E C E R T I F I C A T E # : C - 2 3 3 1 RE V I S I O N S FD 3/ 1 5 / 2 1 AS N O T E D NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY MA T C H L I N E S H E E T 3 LEGEND USACE BASELINE STATION 2020 MEAN HIGH WATER (1.18') 2020 MEAN LOW WATER ( -2.05) EXISTING CONTOURS JUNE 2020 MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY DUNE CREST -10 1+80 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT 2001000 NOTES: 1.DATE OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH: AUGUST 5, 2020. 2.COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83). 3.ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET REFERENCED TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88). 4.CONTOURS SHOWN REPRESENT SURVEY DATA COLLECTED AT 1000 FOOT INTERVALS BY CPE-NC JUNE 2020. THE CONTOURS SHOWN ARE FOR GRAPHICAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NOT INTENDED FOR DESIGN. 5.SAND FENCING MAY BE INSTALLED BETWEEN THE CREST OF THE DESIGN DUNE AND A POINT 10 FT. SEAWARD OF THE TOE OF DUNE. 6.SOUTH TAPER NOT REQUIRED IF KITTY HAWK PROJECT CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME AS KILL DEVIL HILLS. 7.NORTH TAPER NOT REQUIRED IF SOUTHERN SHORES PROJECT CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME AS KITTY HAWK. 8.THE SEAWARD TOE OF BEACH FILL LINE AS SHOWN, IS NOT FIXED AND RATHER IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON THE CONDITIONS OF THE NEARSHORE BATHYMETRY AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. MA T C H L I N E S H E E T 5 VIRGINIA DARE TRAIL NORTH - N.C . 1 2 KIT T Y H A W K R O A D - S R 1 2 0 0 P E R R Y S T . 13 0 + 3 3 13 8 + 2 8 14 9 + 9 9 N 85 8 0 0 0 N 85 9 0 0 0 N 86 0 0 0 0 N 85 9 0 0 0 N 86 0 0 0 0 N 86 1 0 0 0 E 29 7 9 0 0 0 E 29 7 8 0 0 0 -20 -10 -18 -16 -14 -12 -20 -10 -24 -22 -18 -1 6 -14 -12 -8 -8 0 -8 -6 -4 -2 2 4 6 8 0 1010 -8 -8 -6-4 -2 222 4 6 8 N 3 29 7 9 0 0 0 E 29 7 9 0 0 0 E 29 7 8 0 0 0 E 29 7 7 0 0 0 E STAGING AREA CONSTRUCTION ACCESS LANDWARD LIMIT OF FILLSEAWARD TOE OF DUNE BEACH FILL BERM CREST SEAWARD TOE OF FILL 2020 MHW (1.18') 2020 MLW (-2.05') N BE A C H F I L L P L A N V I E W PV-3 5 --KWKWAP -- Dr a w n b y : De s i g n e d b y : DRAWING NO. Da t e : Pl o t S c a l e : Re v i e w e d b y : Ch e c k e d b y : Su b m i t t e d b y : Co m m . N o . : No . Da t e De s c r i p t i o n SHEET OF Re f e r e n c e F i l e s : RE V I S I O N S COA S T A L PRO T E C T I O N ENG I N E E R I N G OF NOR T H CAR O L I N A , INC . Dr a w n b y : De s i g n e d b y : DRAWING NO. Da t e : Pl o t S c a l e : Re v i e w e d b y : Ch e c k e d b y : Su b m i t t e d b y : Co m m . N o . : No . Da t e De s c r i p t i o n SHEET OF 40 3 8 M A S O N B O R O L O O P R D . WI L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 9 PH . ( 9 1 0 ) 3 9 9 - 1 9 0 5 17 KI T T Y H A W K BE A C H N O U R I S H M E N T P R O J E C T DA R E C O U N T Y , N O R T H C A R O L I N A Re f e r e n c e F i l e s : EN G I N E E R I N G L I C E N S E C E R T I F I C A T E # : C - 2 3 3 1 RE V I S I O N S FD 3/ 1 5 / 2 1 AS N O T E D NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY MA T C H L I N E S H E E T 4 LEGEND USACE BASELINE STATION 2020 MEAN HIGH WATER (1.18') 2020 MEAN LOW WATER ( -2.05) EXISTING CONTOURS JUNE 2020 MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY DUNE CREST -10 1+80 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT 2001000 NOTES: 1.DATE OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH: AUGUST 5, 2020. 2.COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83). 3.ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET REFERENCED TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88). 4.CONTOURS SHOWN REPRESENT SURVEY DATA COLLECTED AT 1000 FOOT INTERVALS BY CPE-NC JUNE 2020. THE CONTOURS SHOWN ARE FOR GRAPHICAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NOT INTENDED FOR DESIGN. 5.SAND FENCING MAY BE INSTALLED BETWEEN THE CREST OF THE DESIGN DUNE AND A POINT 10 FT. SEAWARD OF THE TOE OF DUNE. 6.SOUTH TAPER NOT REQUIRED IF KITTY HAWK PROJECT CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME AS KILL DEVIL HILLS. 7.NORTH TAPER NOT REQUIRED IF SOUTHERN SHORES PROJECT CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME AS KITTY HAWK. 8.THE SEAWARD TOE OF BEACH FILL LINE AS SHOWN, IS NOT FIXED AND RATHER IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON THE CONDITIONS OF THE NEARSHORE BATHYMETRY AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. MA T C H L I N E S H E E T 6 VIRGINIA DARE TRAIL NORTH - N.C . 1 2 HI S T O R I C S T R E E T LINDBERGH AVENUE ST A R F I S H L A N E - S R 1 4 0 0 W L I L L I A N S T R E E T 10 9 + 9 9 11 9 + 9 9 13 0 + 3 3 N 86 1 0 0 0 N 86 2 0 0 0 N 86 2 0 0 0 N 86 3 0 0 0 E 29 7 7 0 0 0 -20 -10 0 10 -18 -16 -14 -12 -8 -8 -8 -6 -4-4-4 -2 2 4 6 8 12 N 86 1 0 0 0 N 86 3 0 0 0 N E 29 7 8 0 0 0 E 29 7 6 0 0 0 4 E 29 7 6 0 0 0 E 29 7 7 0 0 0 E 29 7 7 0 0 0 E 29 7 8 0 0 0 LANDWARD LIMIT OF FILL SEAWARD TOE OF DUNE BEACH FILL BERM CREST SEAWARD TOE OF FILL 2020 MHW (1.18') 2020 MLW (-2.05') N BE A C H F I L L P L A N V I E W PV-4 6 --KWKWAP -- Dr a w n b y : De s i g n e d b y : DRAWING NO. Da t e : Pl o t S c a l e : Re v i e w e d b y : Ch e c k e d b y : Su b m i t t e d b y : Co m m . N o . : No . Da t e De s c r i p t i o n SHEET OF Re f e r e n c e F i l e s : RE V I S I O N S COA S T A L PRO T E C T I O N ENG I N E E R I N G OF NOR T H CAR O L I N A , INC . Dr a w n b y : De s i g n e d b y : DRAWING NO. Da t e : Pl o t S c a l e : Re v i e w e d b y : Ch e c k e d b y : Su b m i t t e d b y : Co m m . N o . : No . Da t e De s c r i p t i o n SHEET OF 40 3 8 M A S O N B O R O L O O P R D . WI L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 9 PH . ( 9 1 0 ) 3 9 9 - 1 9 0 5 17 KI T T Y H A W K BE A C H N O U R I S H M E N T P R O J E C T DA R E C O U N T Y , N O R T H C A R O L I N A Re f e r e n c e F i l e s : EN G I N E E R I N G L I C E N S E C E R T I F I C A T E # : C - 2 3 3 1 RE V I S I O N S FD 3/ 1 5 / 2 1 AS N O T E D NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY LEGEND USACE BASELINE STATION 2020 MEAN HIGH WATER (1.18') 2020 MEAN LOW WATER ( -2.05) EXISTING CONTOURS JUNE 2020 MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY DUNE CREST -10 1+80 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT 2001000 MA T C H L I N E S H E E T 5 NOTES: 1.DATE OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH: AUGUST 5, 2020. 2.COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83). 3.ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET REFERENCED TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88). 4.CONTOURS SHOWN REPRESENT SURVEY DATA COLLECTED AT 1000 FOOT INTERVALS BY CPE-NC JUNE 2020. THE CONTOURS SHOWN ARE FOR GRAPHICAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NOT INTENDED FOR DESIGN. 5.SAND FENCING MAY BE INSTALLED BETWEEN THE CREST OF THE DESIGN DUNE AND A POINT 10 FT. SEAWARD OF THE TOE OF DUNE. 6.SOUTH TAPER NOT REQUIRED IF KITTY HAWK PROJECT CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME AS KILL DEVIL HILLS. 7.NORTH TAPER NOT REQUIRED IF SOUTHERN SHORES PROJECT CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME AS KITTY HAWK. 8.THE SEAWARD TOE OF BEACH FILL LINE AS SHOWN, IS NOT FIXED AND RATHER IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON THE CONDITIONS OF THE NEARSHORE BATHYMETRY AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. MA T C H L I N E S H E E T 7 HI S T O R I C S T R E E T HA W K S S T R E E T E B A L C H E N S T R E E T 80 + 1 5 89 + 5 7 10 0 + 0 0 N 86 4 0 0 0 N 86 4 0 0 0 N 86 5 0 0 0 29 7 7 0 0 0 -10 -14 -12 -8 -8 -6 -6 -6 -6 N 86 3 0 0 0 E 29 7 7 0 0 0 LINDBERGH AVENUE N 86 3 0 0 0 -20 -10 0 10 -18 -16 -14 -12 -8 -6 -4 -2 2 4 6 8 12 5 E 29 7 5 0 0 0 E 29 7 6 0 0 0 E 29 7 7 0 0 0 E E 29 7 5 0 0 0 E N 86 5 0 0 0 E 29 7 6 0 0 0 LANDWARD LIMIT OF FILL SEAWARD TOE OF DUNE BEACH FILL BERM CREST SEAWARD TOE OF FILL 2020 MHW (1.18') 2020 MLW (-2.05') VIRGINIA DARE TRAIL NORTH - N.C. 12 N BE A C H F I L L P L A N V I E W PV-5 7 --KWKWAP -- Dr a w n b y : De s i g n e d b y : DRAWING NO. Da t e : Pl o t S c a l e : Re v i e w e d b y : Ch e c k e d b y : Su b m i t t e d b y : Co m m . N o . : No . Da t e De s c r i p t i o n SHEET OF Re f e r e n c e F i l e s : RE V I S I O N S COA S T A L PRO T E C T I O N ENG I N E E R I N G OF NOR T H CAR O L I N A , INC . Dr a w n b y : De s i g n e d b y : DRAWING NO. Da t e : Pl o t S c a l e : Re v i e w e d b y : Ch e c k e d b y : Su b m i t t e d b y : Co m m . N o . : No . Da t e De s c r i p t i o n SHEET OF 40 3 8 M A S O N B O R O L O O P R D . WI L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 9 PH . ( 9 1 0 ) 3 9 9 - 1 9 0 5 17 KI T T Y H A W K BE A C H N O U R I S H M E N T P R O J E C T DA R E C O U N T Y , N O R T H C A R O L I N A Re f e r e n c e F i l e s : EN G I N E E R I N G L I C E N S E C E R T I F I C A T E # : C - 2 3 3 1 RE V I S I O N S FD 3/ 1 5 / 2 1 AS N O T E D NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY LEGEND USACE BASELINE STATION 2020 MEAN HIGH WATER (1.18') 2020 MEAN LOW WATER ( -2.05) EXISTING CONTOURS JUNE 2020 MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY DUNE CREST -10 1+80 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT 2001000 MA T C H L I N E S H E E T 6 NOTES: 1.DATE OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH: AUGUST 5, 2020. 2.COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83). 3.ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET REFERENCED TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88). 4.CONTOURS SHOWN REPRESENT SURVEY DATA COLLECTED AT 1000 FOOT INTERVALS BY CPE-NC JUNE 2020. THE CONTOURS SHOWN ARE FOR GRAPHICAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NOT INTENDED FOR DESIGN. 5.SAND FENCING MAY BE INSTALLED BETWEEN THE CREST OF THE DESIGN DUNE AND A POINT 10 FT. SEAWARD OF THE TOE OF DUNE. 6.SOUTH TAPER NOT REQUIRED IF KITTY HAWK PROJECT CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME AS KILL DEVIL HILLS. 7.NORTH TAPER NOT REQUIRED IF SOUTHERN SHORES PROJECT CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME AS KITTY HAWK. 8.THE SEAWARD TOE OF BEACH FILL LINE AS SHOWN, IS NOT FIXED AND RATHER IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON THE CONDITIONS OF THE NEARSHORE BATHYMETRY AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. MA T C H L I N E S H E E T 8 VIRGINIA DARE TRAIL NORTH - N.C. 12 EC K N E R S T R E E T BL E R I O T S T R E E T E W I L K I N S S T R E E T 60 + 5 0 70 + 0 3 N 86 5 0 0 0 N 86 6 0 0 0 N 86 7 0 0 0 N 86 6 0 0 0 N 86 7 0 0 0 N 86 8 0 0 0 10 12 E 29 7 4 0 0 0 -10 -18 -16 -14 -12 -8 -6 -4 N -20 -10 -18 -16 -14 -12 -8 -8 6 E 29 7 4 0 0 0 E 29 7 6 0 0 0 E 29 7 5 0 0 0 29 7 5 0 0 0 E 29 7 5 0 0 0 29 7 6 0 0 0 LANDWARD LIMIT OF FILL SEAWARD TOE OF DUNE BEACH FILL BERM CREST SEAWARD TOE OF FILL 2020 MHW (1.18') 2020 MLW (-2.05') N BE A C H F I L L P L A N V I E W PV-6 8 --KWKWAP -- Dr a w n b y : De s i g n e d b y : DRAWING NO. Da t e : Pl o t S c a l e : Re v i e w e d b y : Ch e c k e d b y : Su b m i t t e d b y : Co m m . N o . : No . Da t e De s c r i p t i o n SHEET OF Re f e r e n c e F i l e s : RE V I S I O N S COA S T A L PRO T E C T I O N ENG I N E E R I N G OF NOR T H CAR O L I N A , INC . Dr a w n b y : De s i g n e d b y : DRAWING NO. Da t e : Pl o t S c a l e : Re v i e w e d b y : Ch e c k e d b y : Su b m i t t e d b y : Co m m . N o . : No . Da t e De s c r i p t i o n SHEET OF 40 3 8 M A S O N B O R O L O O P R D . WI L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 9 PH . ( 9 1 0 ) 3 9 9 - 1 9 0 5 17 KI T T Y H A W K BE A C H N O U R I S H M E N T P R O J E C T DA R E C O U N T Y , N O R T H C A R O L I N A Re f e r e n c e F i l e s : EN G I N E E R I N G L I C E N S E C E R T I F I C A T E # : C - 2 3 3 1 RE V I S I O N S FD 3/ 1 5 / 2 1 AS N O T E D NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY LEGEND USACE BASELINE STATION 2020 MEAN HIGH WATER (1.18') 2020 MEAN LOW WATER ( -2.05) EXISTING CONTOURS JUNE 2020 MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY DUNE CREST -10 1+80 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT 2001000 MA T C H L I N E S H E E T 7 NOTES: 1.DATE OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH: AUGUST 5, 2020. 2.COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83). 3.ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET REFERENCED TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88). 4.CONTOURS SHOWN REPRESENT SURVEY DATA COLLECTED AT 1000 FOOT INTERVALS BY CPE-NC JUNE 2020. THE CONTOURS SHOWN ARE FOR GRAPHICAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NOT INTENDED FOR DESIGN. 5.SAND FENCING MAY BE INSTALLED BETWEEN THE CREST OF THE DESIGN DUNE AND A POINT 10 FT. SEAWARD OF THE TOE OF DUNE. 6.SOUTH TAPER NOT REQUIRED IF KITTY HAWK PROJECT CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME AS KILL DEVIL HILLS. 7.NORTH TAPER NOT REQUIRED IF SOUTHERN SHORES PROJECT CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME AS KITTY HAWK. 8.THE SEAWARD TOE OF BEACH FILL LINE AS SHOWN, IS NOT FIXED AND RATHER IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON THE CONDITIONS OF THE NEARSHORE BATHYMETRY AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. MA T C H L I N E S H E E T 9 VIRGINIA DARE TRAIL NORTH - N.C. 12 MA Y N A R D S T R E E T BE N N E T T S T R E E T LU K E S T R E E T 30 + 0 6 40 + 2 4 50 + 2 8 N 86 8 0 0 0 N 86 9 0 0 0 N 87 0 0 0 0 N 86 9 0 0 0 N 87 0 0 0 0 0 -6 -4 -2 246 8 - 1 0 0 -18 -16 -14 -12 -8 -6 -4 -4 -4 -2 2 4 6 8 E 29 7 3 9 1 0 E 29 7 3 0 0 0 N 86 8 0 0 0 N 7 E 29 7 3 0 0 0 E 29 7 4 0 0 0 LANDWARD LIMIT OF FILL SEAWARD TOE OF DUNE 2020 MHW (1.18') 2020 MLW (-2.05') SEAWARD TOE OF FILL BEACH FILL BERM CREST N BE A C H F I L L P L A N V I E W PV-7 9 --KWKWAP -- Dr a w n b y : De s i g n e d b y : DRAWING NO. Da t e : Pl o t S c a l e : Re v i e w e d b y : Ch e c k e d b y : Su b m i t t e d b y : Co m m . N o . : No . Da t e De s c r i p t i o n SHEET OF Re f e r e n c e F i l e s : RE V I S I O N S COA S T A L PRO T E C T I O N ENG I N E E R I N G OF NOR T H CAR O L I N A , INC . Dr a w n b y : De s i g n e d b y : DRAWING NO. Da t e : Pl o t S c a l e : Re v i e w e d b y : Ch e c k e d b y : Su b m i t t e d b y : Co m m . N o . : No . Da t e De s c r i p t i o n SHEET OF 40 3 8 M A S O N B O R O L O O P R D . WI L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 9 PH . ( 9 1 0 ) 3 9 9 - 1 9 0 5 17 KI T T Y H A W K BE A C H N O U R I S H M E N T P R O J E C T DA R E C O U N T Y , N O R T H C A R O L I N A Re f e r e n c e F i l e s : EN G I N E E R I N G L I C E N S E C E R T I F I C A T E # : C - 2 3 3 1 RE V I S I O N S FD 3/ 1 5 / 2 1 AS N O T E D NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY LEGEND USACE BASELINE STATION 2020 MEAN HIGH WATER (1.18') 2020 MEAN LOW WATER ( -2.05) EXISTING CONTOURS JUNE 2020 MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY DUNE CREST -10 1+80 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT 2001000 MA T C H L I N E S H E E T 8 NOTES: 1.DATE OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH: AUGUST 5, 2020. 2.COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83). 3.ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET REFERENCED TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88). 4.CONTOURS SHOWN REPRESENT SURVEY DATA COLLECTED AT 1000 FOOT INTERVALS BY CPE-NC JUNE 2020. THE CONTOURS SHOWN ARE FOR GRAPHICAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NOT INTENDED FOR DESIGN. 5.SAND FENCING MAY BE INSTALLED BETWEEN THE CREST OF THE DESIGN DUNE AND A POINT 10 FT. SEAWARD OF THE TOE OF DUNE. 6.SOUTH TAPER NOT REQUIRED IF KITTY HAWK PROJECT CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME AS KILL DEVIL HILLS. 7.NORTH TAPER NOT REQUIRED IF SOUTHERN SHORES PROJECT CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME AS KITTY HAWK. 8.THE SEAWARD TOE OF BEACH FILL LINE AS SHOWN, IS NOT FIXED AND RATHER IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON THE CONDITIONS OF THE NEARSHORE BATHYMETRY AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. MA T C H L I N E S H E E T 1 0 VIRG I N I A D A R E T R A I L NOR T H - N . C . 1 2 PELICAN WATCH WAYBY R D S T R E E T FO N C K S T R E E T TO W N O F K I T T Y H A W K TO W N O F S O U T H E R N S H O R E S 0+ 0 0 10 + 0 0 20 + 0 3 N 87 1 0 0 0 N 87 1 0 0 0 N 87 2 0 0 0 10 8 E 29 7 2 0 0 0 E 29 7 3 0 0 0 N 87 0 0 0 0 N 87 0 0 0 0 -18 -16 -16 -10 -14 -12 -8-8 -8 -6 -10 - 1 8 -16 -14 -12 -8 8 E 29 7 2 0 1 0 E 29 7 1 0 0 0 E 29 7 3 0 0 0 E E 29 7 1 0 0 0 STAGING AREA CONSTRUCTION ACCESS CONSTRUCTION ACCESS BEACH FILL BERM CREST SEAWARD TOE OF FILL 2020 MHW (1.18') 2020 MLW (-2.05') LANDWARD LIMIT OF FILL SEAWARD TOE OF DUNE N BE A C H F I L L P L A N V I E W PV-8 10 --KWKWAP -- Dr a w n b y : De s i g n e d b y : DRAWING NO. Da t e : Pl o t S c a l e : Re v i e w e d b y : Ch e c k e d b y : Su b m i t t e d b y : Co m m . N o . : No . Da t e De s c r i p t i o n SHEET OF Re f e r e n c e F i l e s : RE V I S I O N S COA S T A L PRO T E C T I O N ENG I N E E R I N G OF NOR T H CAR O L I N A , INC . Dr a w n b y : De s i g n e d b y : DRAWING NO. Da t e : Pl o t S c a l e : Re v i e w e d b y : Ch e c k e d b y : Su b m i t t e d b y : Co m m . N o . : No . Da t e De s c r i p t i o n SHEET OF 40 3 8 M A S O N B O R O L O O P R D . WI L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 9 PH . ( 9 1 0 ) 3 9 9 - 1 9 0 5 17 KI T T Y H A W K BE A C H N O U R I S H M E N T P R O J E C T DA R E C O U N T Y , N O R T H C A R O L I N A Re f e r e n c e F i l e s : EN G I N E E R I N G L I C E N S E C E R T I F I C A T E # : C - 2 3 3 1 RE V I S I O N S FD 3/ 1 5 / 2 1 AS N O T E D NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY LEGEND USACE BASELINE STATION 2020 MEAN HIGH WATER (1.18') 2020 MEAN LOW WATER ( -2.05) EXISTING CONTOURS JUNE 2020 MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY DUNE CREST -10 1+80 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT 2001000 MA T C H L I N E S H E E T 9 NOTES: 1.DATE OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH: AUGUST 5, 2020. 2.COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83). 3.ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET REFERENCED TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88). 4.CONTOURS SHOWN REPRESENT SURVEY DATA COLLECTED AT 1000 FOOT INTERVALS BY CPE-NC JUNE 2020. THE CONTOURS SHOWN ARE FOR GRAPHICAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NOT INTENDED FOR DESIGN. 5.SAND FENCING MAY BE INSTALLED BETWEEN THE CREST OF THE DESIGN DUNE AND A POINT 10 FT. SEAWARD OF THE TOE OF DUNE. 6.SOUTH TAPER NOT REQUIRED IF KITTY HAWK PROJECT CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME AS KILL DEVIL HILLS. 7.NORTH TAPER NOT REQUIRED IF SOUTHERN SHORES PROJECT CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME AS KITTY HAWK. 8.THE SEAWARD TOE OF BEACH FILL LINE AS SHOWN, IS NOT FIXED AND RATHER IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON THE CONDITIONS OF THE NEARSHORE BATHYMETRY AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. MA T C H L I N E S H E E T 1 1 ST A T I O N - 1 0 + 0 0 NO R T H E R N P R O J E C T L I M I T OCEAN BOULEVARD - N.C. 12 PELICAN WATCH WAY SEA BASS CIRCLE N 87 2 0 0 0 N 87 3 0 0 0 N 87 3 0 0 0 -10 -18 -16 -14 -12 -8 -8 -8 -10 -14 -12 -8 E 29 7 0 0 0 0 E 29 7 1 0 0 0 E 29 7 2 0 0 0 N 87 4 0 0 0 N 87 4 0 0 0 N 87 5 0 0 0 9 -1 0 + 0 0 E 29 7 2 0 0 0 E 29 7 1 0 0 0 E 29 7 0 0 0 0 29 7 1 0 0 0 LANDWARD LIMIT OF FILL BEACH FILL BERM CREST SEAWARD TOE OF FILL 2020 MHW (1.18') 2020 MLW (-2.05') KAREN OLIVIA PRICE 18 OCEAN BLVD, KITTY HAWK, NC 27949 N BE A C H F I L L P L A N V I E W PV-9 11 --KWKWAP -- Dr a w n b y : De s i g n e d b y : DRAWING NO. Da t e : Pl o t S c a l e : Re v i e w e d b y : Ch e c k e d b y : Su b m i t t e d b y : Co m m . N o . : No . Da t e De s c r i p t i o n SHEET OF Re f e r e n c e F i l e s : RE V I S I O N S COA S T A L PRO T E C T I O N ENG I N E E R I N G OF NOR T H CAR O L I N A , INC . Dr a w n b y : De s i g n e d b y : DRAWING NO. Da t e : Pl o t S c a l e : Re v i e w e d b y : Ch e c k e d b y : Su b m i t t e d b y : Co m m . N o . : No . Da t e De s c r i p t i o n SHEET OF 40 3 8 M A S O N B O R O L O O P R D . WI L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 9 PH . ( 9 1 0 ) 3 9 9 - 1 9 0 5 17 KI T T Y H A W K BE A C H N O U R I S H M E N T P R O J E C T DA R E C O U N T Y , N O R T H C A R O L I N A Re f e r e n c e F i l e s : EN G I N E E R I N G L I C E N S E C E R T I F I C A T E # : C - 2 3 3 1 RE V I S I O N S FD 3/ 1 5 / 2 1 AS N O T E D NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY LEGEND USACE BASELINE STATION 2020 MEAN HIGH WATER (1.18') 2020 MEAN LOW WATER ( -2.05) EXISTING CONTOURS JUNE 2020 MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY DUNE CREST -10 1+80 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT 2001000 MA T C H L I N E S H E E T 1 0 NOTES: 1.DATE OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH: AUGUST 5, 2020. 2.COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83). 3.ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET REFERENCED TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88). 4.CONTOURS SHOWN REPRESENT SURVEY DATA COLLECTED AT 1000 FOOT INTERVALS BY CPE-NC JUNE 2020. THE CONTOURS SHOWN ARE FOR GRAPHICAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NOT INTENDED FOR DESIGN. 5.SAND FENCING MAY BE INSTALLED BETWEEN THE CREST OF THE DESIGN DUNE AND A POINT 10 FT. SEAWARD OF THE TOE OF DUNE. 6.SOUTH TAPER NOT REQUIRED IF KITTY HAWK PROJECT CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME AS KILL DEVIL HILLS. 7.NORTH TAPER NOT REQUIRED IF SOUTHERN SHORES PROJECT CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME AS KITTY HAWK. 8.THE SEAWARD TOE OF BEACH FILL LINE AS SHOWN, IS NOT FIXED AND RATHER IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON THE CONDITIONS OF THE NEARSHORE BATHYMETRY AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. i=' LU LU LL 6 > <( z 0 � > LU ....I LU i=' LU LU 6 > <( z z 0 j:: <( >LU ....I LU i=' LU LU LL 6 > <( z z 0 j:: <( >LU ....I LU 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 PROFILE: STA. 0+00 -r----.------r----,----"""T----.-----,----r----,-25 --1--i 1 __ 1-+--�2=5-�o· -�--±----+----+---+----+----+----I-20 F\_ EL. 18.0' ----h-'----\--\-,4-+----+-----+---+----+----+----I-15 ---�-/ , \71 \\ -+----t----'c'l-+---+-----+----+------t----+----1-10 '\ -� EL. 6.lil' _ M HW = !EL. 1.18' ______ "\f"�,----,�.,,5-+-_-_-__ -_-__ -_-_ t-_-__ -_-__ -_-__ -_+-_-_-__ -_-__ -_-_ +-__ -_-__ -_-__ -_+-5 >-M1'£i -=__i:L_:2M __ �'t--� _ _ _____ O '- -_r--_ "' -5 -----�----------+----+-----+---+-----+----+------t-----+-,-,---+--10 -------15 ----+-----+---+-----+----+------1----+----1--15 -20 -+-----------+-------------11-----1----1--20 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 0 100 200 300 400 500 DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET) -l-1 1 I 25.o' PROFILE: STA. 9+99 600 700 800 -----+,,-��1 ,-'+!-E _ L _ . _ 1 _ a. _ o· --+----+------1----+----t-----,- .,,.--1 I EL. 6.0' _M HW = !EL. 1.18' ____ ',�l_ ______ '�----___________________________ _ _ MLW -EL_:2.05" __ -\\-___ -� _______ _ -+----+------+-----+-''----_---+----ti'...-��---+----1-------------�----........ 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -+------------1---------+-------11-----t----t--20 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 0 100 --I 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET) PROFILE: STA. 20+03 25.0' ,-f,-�Ebl-. �18�.o=,-+-----+---+-----+----+----- /\,�.411 I \ J \ E . 6.0' M HW = �L. 1.18' \ I ""--� 1 ---------. -------------\ ---------------r'''·>--------------------------------- f-M 1'11 -=-..I= L_:2,.Q§_' _ _ � L ___ � _______ _ -----� � . .,,,___ ------------ 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -+-----------+--------+------11-----t----1--20 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET) NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY i=' LU LU LL 6 > <( z z j:: <( >LU ....I LU i=' LU LU LL 6 ;;:c z z 0 � LU ....I LU i=' LU LU LL 6 > <( z z 0 j:: <( >LU ....I LU 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 PROFILE: STA. 30+06 -r----.------r---..---"""T----.-----,----r----,-25 _I� I I 25.0'I ""'F'----t---f 20 K EL.18.0' ----1---1'·--\\--�--+----+----+----i------+----+-15 r---,fi\ ___ /}1 -�=---�'----,,,..-\-,-,,-�3�2,r-7�--+----+----+-----11-----+-10 \-,rtJ EL.6.h' -l----1----l-=��;::=::::::j::..__--1----+-----1---+ 5 _ M HW = I L. 1.18' ________ J ,-� _________ __________ _________ _ _______ _ 0 f-MLW -EL_:2.05' ____ ",, -�-________ _ , ,,I- -��-+-_-_-_--+----1-----1---5 ------------l-----+---+-----+---+----+----+----'=-,,..--1--10 ----+-----+---+-----+----+------1----+----1--15 -20 -+------------1----------------+----1--20 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET) PROFILE: STA. 40+24 -r----.------r----,----"""T----.-----,----r----,-25 25.0' ----1-j I-+---'� ,i-f,---dEbL-_�18�.o=,-1-----+---+-----+---+--------+-20 ---�-+-fr:\.,..,,��-------+-----+----+-------1----+-15 ; -, I;-\ \-.1,. -J ,L' ,\''' rra..--1-----+---+-----+---+----10 ' ',H EL. 6.0' -l ----l----l::::::::c::��:::::=--1----1---l----l----+-5 , 1 15 _M HW = !EL. 1.18' ________ ,, --�---____________________________________ _ f--MLW = E L_:2.05' _ _ _ _ _ � __________ _ -+----+------,f---+-\, ___ �� ----��--------- 0 -5 '-' ----+-----+---+-----+----+------1----,------_-_--+--10 -, ----+-----+---+-----+----+------1----+----1--15 -20 -+-----------+---------------+----+--20 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET) PROFILE: STA. 50+28 -r--------------------------r-----25 25.0' --I -j li-1-+--==� ,-f,--c!Ebl-. 1�8�.o=,-+-----+---+-----+---+----20 e---✓' � \ �+1----+------1----+----+-----+---+-15 v--,�-+----!------+----+-----+----+-10 EL. 6.0' -+----+------,f---'-,-,-'I,,�� -1�5---,f---+----+----+---1-5 M HW = EL. 1.18' \ "71 -------------------------\ ,._____ --------------------------------------- MLW = t L. -2.05' �'-,-+----+---+----+---1-0 f--------�--K_.--------------+-----+---+-'-<---+--"'-+-----+----+-----,--5 -------� --------------+----1------+----+------+----+-----l----+-"--<C-.__-_---+--10 ------1-----+---+-----+---+----+----+----1--15 -20 -+-----------+-------+------1----+----1--20 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET) 0 10 �-20 VERTICAL GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT 0 100 �-HORIZONTAL GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT LEGEND: EXISTING GRADE JUNE 2020 DESIGN TEMPLATE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE (MHW) MEAN LOW WATER LINE (MLW) NOTES: 1. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET REFERENCED TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88). 2. SURVEY PERFORMED JUNE 2020, BY CPE-NC. 3. NOT AN ENGINEERED OR CONSTRUCTION DRAWING, FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING ONLY. ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS PER ENGINEER. PROFILE(S) BASED ON 2020 DATA AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. (:> z ii2 w wu Zz 5-z ft w� z :i oO - II: I-ccfdUI-:z: 0 Im: II: a.0... z :! � (/) z 0 :;; i 1� � � Cf) w ...J u:: a. ...J ...J u:: DRAWING NO. XS-1 SHEET 12 OF 17 Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. Appendix B: Professional Archaeological Assessment A Phase I Remote-Sensing Archaeological Survey Of Two Proposed Borrow Areas Offshore of Dare County, North Carolina (Extract from 1590 Theodor de Bry map produced for Sir Walter Raleigh) Submitted to: Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina 4038 Masonboro Loop Road Wilmington, North Carolina 28409 30 April 2015 Title Page: A Phase I Remote-Sensing Archaeological Survey Of Two Proposed Borrow Areas Offshore of Dare County, North Carolina Submitted to: Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina 4038 Masonboro Loop Road Wilmington, North Carolina 28409 Submitted by: Gordon P. Watts, Jr., Ph. D, RPA Lead Marine Archaeologist Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc. P. O. Box 2494 Washington, North Carolina 27889 30 April 2015 i Executive Summary Coastal Planning and Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. (CPE-NC) is working with the Dare County, North Carolina towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk and Kill Devil Hills to identify sources of beach nourishment quality sand to restore eroding beaches. As a consequence of those activities, two offshore areas were classified as potential borrow sites and are identified as Area A and Area C in this document. In order to determine the proposed project’s effects on potentially significant submerged cultural resources, CPE-NC contracted with Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc. (TAR) of Washington, North Carolina to assist with the conduct a magnetometer, sidescan sonar, sub-bottom profiler and fathometer survey of the proposed borrow sites, to analyze the resultant data, to identify any evidence indicative of submerged cultural resources and to produce a report in accordance with Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) standards. Field research for the project was conducted between 20 and 29 October 2014. Analysis of the remote-sensing data generated during the survey of Area A identified ten sonar targets and nine magnetic anomalies. One of the sonar targets is a small single object, three are bottom surface features and the remaining six appear to be sections of pipe, cable, logs or pilings. None have an association with any of the magnetic anomalies. Four of the magnetic anomalies represent small single objects, three represent moderate single objects and two represent moderate single or multiple objects. Two of the moderate single or multiple object anomalies and one cluster of two moderate single objects are recommended for avoidance and are buffered. The buffered anomalies and anomaly cluster located in Area A have signature characteristics suggestive of potentially significant submerged cultural resources. Analysis of the remote-sensing data generated during the survey of Area C identified 9 sonar targets and 65 magnetic anomalies. Six of the sonar targets represent small single objects and three are bottom surface features. Four of the targets have no association with any of the magnetic anomalies and five have possible associations. Three of the 65 magnetic anomalies lie outside the survey area. Nineteen represent small single objects, seventeen represent moderate single objects, twenty more represent moderate single or multiple objects and six represent complex or clustered objects. Twenty-seven of the anomalies are recommended for avoidance and buffered. The buffered anomalies and anomaly clusters located in Area C have signature characteristics suggestive of potentially significant submerged cultural resources and could be associated with the wreck charted immediately east of the survey area. Avoidance of buffered anomalies and anomaly clusters is recommended. Should avoidance of the buffers prove impossible, additional investigation is recommended to identify material generating these anomalies and to assess their importance in terms of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility. ii In the event that unanticipated cultural resources are identified during proposed dredging, the on-site contractor should immediately cease operations in the subject area and notify the designated Point of Contact (POC) for CPE-NC, BOEM and the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Non-Technical Summary CPE-NC is working with the Dare County, North Carolina towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk and Kill Devil Hills to identify sources of beach nourishment quality sand to restore eroding beaches. Two borrow areas have been identified offshore of Kitty Hawk and Duck. In order to determine the proposed project’s impact on shipwreck remains and/or prehistoric submerged cultural resources, CPE-NC of Wilmington, North Carolina contracted with TAR of Washington, North Carolina to assist with the conduct a remote-sensing survey in October 2014 using a magnetometer, sidescan sonar, sub-bottom profiler and fathometer. The magnetometer identified ferrous metal objects that could be associated with shipwreck remains. The sidescan sonar used sound to produce images of the bottom surface and any exposed shipwreck or other material. The sub-bottom profiler employed sound to produce images of the bottom sediment layers and relict channels or other buried landforms. Analysis of the data generated during the survey of Borrow Area A off Kitty Hawk identified ten sonar targets and nine magnetic anomalies. One of the sonar targets is a small single object such as a fish trap, three are natural bottom surface features and the remaining six appear to be sections of pipe, cable, logs or pilings. Four of the magnetic anomalies represent small single objects such as traps. The remaining five magnetic signatures have signature characteristics suggestive of potentially significant submerged cultural resources such as historical vessel remains. Analysis of the remote-sensing data from Area C off Duck identified nine sonar targets and sixty-five magnetic anomalies. Six of the sonar targets represent small single objects and three are bottom surface features. Four of the targets have no association with any of the magnetic anomalies and five have possible associations. Three of the 65 magnetic anomalies lie outside the survey area. Nineteen represent small single objects, seventeen represent moderate single objects, twenty more represent moderate single or multiple objects and six represent complex or clustered objects. Based on their signatures, twenty-seven of the Area C anomalies are recommended for avoidance and are buffered. The buffered anomalies and anomaly clusters located in Area C have signature characteristics suggestive of potentially significant submerged cultural resources such as historical shipwreck remains and could be associated with a wreck charted immediately east of the survey area. If anomalies in the buffered areas prove impossible to avoid, additional investigation is recommended to identify material generating their signatures and assess their importance in terms of NRHP eligibility. In the event that unanticipated cultural resources are identified during dredging, the contractor should immediately cease operations in that area and notify the designated POC for CPE-NC, BOEM and the North Carolina SHPO. iii Table of Contents Page Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... i Non-Technical Summary .......................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... v Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 Field Project Methodology ....................................................................................................... 1 Project Personnel & Performance Roles ................................................................................... 2 Project Management Personnel ............................................................................................ 2 Project Field Personnel ......................................................................................................... 2 Project Cultural Resources Management Personnel ............................................................. 2 Data Analysis Overview ........................................................................................................... 2 Project Location ........................................................................................................................ 3 Literature and Historical Research ..................................................................................... 11 Cartographic Research ............................................................................................................ 12 National Register of Historic Places Listing ........................................................................... 12 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office Listing ..................................................... 13 Remote-Sensing Survey .......................................................................................................... 13 Magnetometer ..................................................................................................................... 14 Sidescan Sonar .................................................................................................................... 15 Sub-Bottom Profiler ............................................................................................................ 16 Positioning and Data Collection ......................................................................................... 17 Signature Analysis and Target Assessment ............................................................................ 20 Cultural Development ............................................................................................................. 21 Prehistoric Background ........................................................................................................... 21 The Cultural Sequence ............................................................................................................ 21 The Paleo-Indian Period (12,000-8000 B.C.) ..................................................................... 22 The Archaic Period (8000 -1000 B.C.) ............................................................................... 22 The Woodland Period (1000 B.C. -1650 A.D.) .................................................................. 23 Historical Background ............................................................................................................ 26 Exploration and Colonization (A.D. 1524-1776) ............................................................... 26 Revolutionary and Ante-Bellum Period 1776-1860 ........................................................... 37 Civil War Period 1860-1865 ............................................................................................... 43 Twentieth-Century Development ............................................................................................ 59 Outer Banks Area Shipwrecks ................................................................................................ 66 iv Previous Remote-Sensing Investigations ................................................................................ 67 Survey Weather Conditions .................................................................................................... 68 Survey Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 69 Magnetometer Data Analysis .............................................................................................. 69 Sonar Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 69 Sub-bottom Profiler Data Analysis ..................................................................................... 69 Description of Findings ........................................................................................................... 70 Borrow Area A .................................................................................................................... 70 Borrow Area C ........................................................................................................................ 77 Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 91 Unexpected Discovery Protocol ............................................................................................. 92 References Cited ..................................................................................................................... 93 Newspaper Sources ........................................................................................................... 100 Attachment A: Shipwreck Inventory .................................................................................... 101 Attachment B: Area A Sonar Target Table………………………………………………... 110 Attachment C: Area A Sonar Target Reports……………………………………………… 112 Attachment D: Area A Magnetic Anomaly Table ………………………………...………..117 Attachment E: Area C Sonar Target Table ………..………………………………………..119 Attachment F: Area C Sonar Target Reports………………………………………………..121 Attachment G: Area C Magnetic Anomaly Table……………………………………….... 126 v List of Figures Page Figure 1. Project location .................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2. Geophysical survey area and Borrow Area A ................................................... 5 Figure 3. Geophysical survey area and Borrow Area C ................................................... 6 Figure 4. Borrow Area A survey border configuration and control points. ...................... 7 Figure 5. Borrow Area C survey border configuration and control points. ...................... 9 Figure 6. Survey vessel MV Thunderforce. .................................................................... 13 Figure 7. Navigation computers on survey RV Thunderforce bridge. ........................... 14 Figure 8. Conex box navigation control and data collection stations. ............................ 14 Figure 9. Geometrics 882 cesium vapor marine magnetometer. .................................... 15 Figure 10. EdgeTech 4200-FS sidescan sonar system. .................................................... 16 Figure 11. EdgeTech 512i sub-bottom profiler towfish. .................................................. 17 Figure 12. As run tracklines in Borrow Area A. .............................................................. 18 Figure 13. As run tracklines in Borrow Area C. .............................................................. 19 Figure 14. John White painting that may depict Her Majesty's Tiger. ............................ 28 Figure 15. John White map dated 1585. .......................................................................... 29 Figure 16. White-DeBry map dated 1590. ....................................................................... 30 Figure 17. Oceangoing ships depicted in Thames River ................................................. 31 Figure 18. Engraving of earthfast [or post-in-the-ground] dwelling. .............................. 32 Figure 19. Ogilby map dated ca. 1672. ............................................................................ 33 Figure 20. John Lawson map dated 1709. ....................................................................... 34 Figure 21. "Sholes of Hatteras" from Herman Moll Map, 1729. ..................................... 36 Figure 22. Cape Hatteras depicted in 1770 Collett Map. ................................................. 37 Figure 23. The Collett map dated 1770 showing the inlets north of Hatteras. ................ 38 Figure 24. The MacRae-Brazier map dated 1833. ........................................................... 41 Figure 25. U.S. Coast Survey, topographic sheet, Bodies Island dated 1849. ................. 42 Figure 26. Chart depicting Hatteras Inlet details, 15 February 1862 ............................... 44 Figure 27. U.S. naval and army forces bombarding Hatteras Inlet fortifications. ........... 45 Figure 28. The US tugboat Fanny captured by Confederates ......................................... 47 Figure 29. Federal vessels encountering foul weather off Hatteras Inlet. ....................... 48 Figure 30. Loss of the City of New York at Hatteras Inlet. .............................................. 48 Figure 31. Montage showing wreck of Zouave in Hatteras Inlet. .................................... 49 Figure 32. Shipwreck of the Pocahontas near Rodanthe. ................................................ 50 Figure 33. Tragic loss of the USS Monitor off Cape Hatteras. ........................................ 52 Figure 34. Map of Hatteras Island drawn 1864. .............................................................. 52 Figure 35. Architectural sketch of the Cape Hatteras lighthouse .................................... 53 vi Figure 36. Modern image of the Bodie Island light, built 1872 ...................................... 55 Figure 37. Drawing of North Carolina sharpie, 1891 ...................................................... 57 Figure 38. Outer Banks oyster boat (b. 1889) .................................................................. 58 Figure 39. Lightship beached after 1899 San Ciriaco hurricane ..................................... 58 Figure 40. Extract from 1938 Dare County map .............................................................. 62 Figure 41. Extract of 1938 Dare County map . ................................................................. 63 Figure 42. Legend from 1938 Dare County map ............................................................. 64 Figure 43. U-71 attacks Dixie Arrow off Cape Hatteras. ................................................. 65 Figure 44. Image of Dixie Arrow, 11 February 1942. ..................................................... 65 Figure 45. Borrow Area A sonar coverage mosaic with targets ...................................... 71 Figure 46. Sub-bottom profiler data example from Borrow Area A survey line 383. ..... 72 Figure 47. Borrow Area A magnetic contours, anomalies and buffers . ......................... 73 Figure 48. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer A. .............. 74 Figure 49. Anomaly recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer B. ................. 75 Figure 50. Anomaly recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer C. ................. 76 Figure 51. Borrow Area A sonar coverage mosaic with targets . .................................... 77 Figure 52. Sub-bottom profiler data example from Borrow Area C-line 565 East. ........ 78 Figure 53. Sub-bottom profiler data example from Borrow Area C-line 565 West. ....... 78 Figure 54. Borrow Area C magnetic contours, anomalies and avoidance buffers .......... 79 Figure 55. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer A. .............. 80 Figure 56. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer B and ......... 81 Figure 57. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer D. .............. 82 Figure 58. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer E. ............... 83 Figure 59. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer F. ............... 84 Figure 60. Anomalies and sonar target recommended for avoidance in Buffer G. ......... 85 Figure 61. Anomaly recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer H. ................. 86 Figure 62. Anomalies and sonar target recommended for avoidance in Buffer I, Buffer J and Buffer K. ............................................................................................................ 87 Figure 63. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer L. ............... 88 Figure 64. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer M. .............. 89 Figure 65. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer N. .............. 90 Introduction Coastal Planning and Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. (CPE-NC) is working with the Dare County, North Carolina towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk and Kill Devil Hills to identify sources of beach nourishment quality sand to restore eroding beaches. Two offshore areas were classified as potential borrow sites and are identified as Area A and Area C in this document. In order to determine the proposed project’s effects on potentially significant submerged cultural resources, CPE-NC contracted with Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc. (TAR) of Washington, North Carolina to assist with the conduct a magnetometer, sidescan sonar, sub-bottom profiler and fathometer survey of proposed Borrow Area A and Borrow Area C, to analyze the data, to identify any evidence indicative of submerged cultural resources and to produce a report in accordance with Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) standards. The remote-sensing investigation conducted by CPE-NC was designed to provide accurate and reliable identification, assessment and documentation of submerged cultural resources in the two study areas. The assessment methodology was developed to comply with the criteria of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 11-190), Executive Order 11593, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Procedures for the protection of historic and cultural properties (36 CFR Part 800) and the updated guidelines described in 36 CFR 64 and 36 CFR 66. TAR personnel prepared this report to comply with BOEM requirements identified in 30 CFR Part 585, Appendix B. The results of the investigation were designed to furnish CPE-NC with the archaeological data required to comply with Federal submerged cultural resource legislation and regulations. Field Project Methodology Field research for the subject project was conducted between 20 and 29 October 2014 aboard the M/V Thunderforce, which was contracted to CPE-NC to serve as a platform for the survey. CPE-NC personnel planned survey activities and operated all remote- sensing equipment during data collection. The location and configuration of the survey of Area A and Area C was based on a geophysical reconnaissance carried out by CPE- NC between 9 and 13 June 2014 and was authorized by BOEM (E13-002). Survey equipment and methodology was based on BOEM “Guidelines for Providing Geological and Geophysical, Hazards, and Archaeological Information Pursuant to 30 CFR PART 585”. 2 Project Personnel & Performance Roles Project Management Personnel CPE-NC project managers and their respective roles follow: Project Manager Kenneth Willson, overall management of the design and permitting of the beach nourishment projects, including offshore sand resource investigations; Functional Geophysical and Survey Manager Jeffrey Andrews, overall management of geophysical and hydrographic survey operations; Geophysical Lead Beau Suthard, management of geophysical data acquisition and processing; and Hydrographic Survey Lead Michael Lowiec, management of hydrographic survey data acquisition and processing. Project Field Personnel CPE-NC field personnel and their respective roles follow: Party Chief Franky Stankiewicz, lead investigator on board M/V Thunderforce, sidescan sonar operator, and protected species observer; Hydrographic Surveyor Ben Alocer, operated hydrographic survey systems and served as protected species observer; Sub-bottom Profiler System Operator Natasha Florez; and Protected Species Observer Stephanie Bush. Dr. Gordon Watts, director of TAR, served as the lead marine archaeologist and supervised magnetometer system operations. Project Cultural Resources Management Personnel Senior historian and Section 106 Specialist Robin Arnold carried out the historical background investigation under the supervision of Dr. Watts. Dr. Watts and Mr. Gregory O. Stratton carried out analysis of the scientific data. Dr. Watts and Ms. Arnold prepared this report document. All personnel associated with the conduct of historical and literature research, supervision of survey operations, data analysis and report preparation meet, or exceed, the standards identified by the U.S. Department of Interior (USDI) Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-44739). Lead Marine Archaeologist Gordon Watts has over 40 years of experience in conducting high-resolution marine geophysical (HRG) surveys and processing and interpreting the resulting data for submerged cultural resource identification (30 CFR Part 585 Appendix B). Data Analysis Overview Analysis of the remote-sensing data generated during the survey of Area A identified ten sonar targets and nine magnetic anomalies. One of the sonar targets is a small single object, three are bottom surface features and the remaining six appear to be sections of pipe, cable, logs or pilings. None of the sonar targets have an association with any of the magnetic anomalies. Four of the magnetic anomalies represent small single objects, three 3 represent moderate single objects and two represent moderate single or multiple objects. Two of the moderate single or multiple object anomalies and one cluster of two moderate single objects are recommended for avoidance and buffered. The buffered anomalies and anomaly cluster located in Area A have signature characteristics suggestive of potentially significant submerged cultural resources. Analysis of the remote-sensing data generated during the survey of Area C identified 9 sonar targets and 65 magnetic anomalies. Six of the sonar targets represent small single objects and three are bottom surface features. Four of the targets have no association with any of the magnetic anomalies and five have possible associations. Three of the 65 magnetic anomalies lie outside the survey area. Nineteen represent small single objects, seventeen represent moderate single objects, twenty more represent moderate single or multiple objects and six represent complex or clustered objects. Twenty-seven of the anomalies are recommended for avoidance and buffered. The buffered anomalies and anomaly clusters located in Area C have signature characteristics suggestive of potentially significant submerged cultural resources and could be associated with the wreck charted immediately east of the survey area Project Location The Dare County remote-sensing survey project areas are located offshore of Croatan Shores and Duck, North Carolina (Figure 1). The location off Croatan Shores, identified as Borrow Area A, lies approximately 6.5 statute miles east of the Croatan Shores shoreline. Borrow Area A lies in Lease Block Number 980 (Figure 2). The location off Duck, identified as Borrow Area C lies approximately 4.6 miles east of the Duck shoreline. Borrow Area C lies in Lease Block Number 802 (Figure 3). 4 Figure 1. Project location (Extract of NOAA Chart 12200.) 5 Figure 2. Geophysical survey area and Borrow Area A located off Croatan Shores in Lease Block 980 (Extract from Topographic Map C3674a1 Currituck Sound 1969; 250,000 Scale). 6 Figure 3. Geophysical survey area and Borrow Area C located off Duck in Lease Block 802 (Topographic Map C35074a1 Manteo 1972; 250,000 Scale). 7 The survey area for Borrow Area A is a polygon that measures approximately 16,900 feet in north-south length and 7,500 feet in east-west width at its extreme points. The Borrow Area A survey area covers an area of 2.6 square miles and 1701 acres (Figure 4). Figure 4. Borrow Area A survey border configuration and control points. 8 Survey boundary control points for the Borrow Area A survey perimeter, defined in North Carolina State Plane Coordinates (NCSPC), based on NAD 83, U.S. Survey Foot, are as follows: BORROW AREA A SURVEY PERIMETER BORDER POINT X COORDINATE Y COORDINATE 1 3019374.6 855465.1 2 3020300.9 853540.8 3 3021496.4 853600.2 4 3021585.9 851422.2 5 3023214.7 851511.5 6 3023377.4 849590.1 7 3023618.1 848277.2 8 3021242.3 845533.3 9 3021466.4 844416.3 10 3021496.3 843222.6 11 3020823.9 838877.9 12 3020495.3 838564.5 13 3018881.5 838803.1 14 3017626.4 839742.9 15 3017805.6 841190 16 3017192.8 843189.3 17 3016475.7 844385 18 3016655.1 846130.6 19 3017611.4 846921.3 20 3017596.5 849768.9 21 3010326.4 850723.8 22 3016714.9 850256.2 Table 1. Borrow Area A survey perimeter coordinates. Borrow Area C lies approximately 4.6 miles east of Duck, North Carolina. The survey area for that site is a polygon that measures approximately 10,500 feet in north-south length and 6,500 feet in east-west width at its extreme points. The Borrow Area C survey covers an area of 1.4 square miles and 868 acres (Figure 5). 9 Figure 5. Borrow Area C survey border configuration and control points. 10 Survey boundary control points for the Borrow Area C survey perimeter, defined in NCSPC, based on NAD 83, U.S. Survey Foot, are as follows: BORROW AREA C SURVEY PERIMETER BORDER POINT X COORDINATE Y COORDINATE 1 2981289.7 912258.4 2 2982922.9 912239.6 3 2984619.2 911187.8 4 2984608.2 910058.8 5 2983200.2 909184.2 6 2984807.7 907854.1 7 2984453.3 905060.1 8 2983424.1 902899.2 9 2980204.8 902899.2 10 2979130.3 901640.7 11 2978426.1 901640.7 12 2977941.7 902419.9 13 2979506.3 904225.1 14 2980390.7 907238.6 15 2981092.8 908236.5 16 2981069.9 911226.1 Table 2. Borrow Area C survey perimeter coordinates. 11 Research Methodology Literature and Historical Research In conjunction with the conduct of North Carolina Outer Banks remote-sensing surveys, TAR historians previously examined the shipwreck inventories of the former Mariners Museum Library in Newport News, Virginia [now housed at Christopher Newport University]; the N.C. Division of Archives and History (NCDAH) in Raleigh; the Program in Maritime History and Underwater Research at East Carolina University in Greenville, North Carolina; and the David Stick Collection at the Outer Banks History Center at Manteo, North Carolina. At the North Carolina Kure Beach Underwater Archaeology Branch (UAB) facility, files were surveyed for prehistoric and historic submerged archaeological sites in the study area. In respect to the current Dare County project, the principal investigator consulted the “Bibliography of North Carolina Underwater Archaeology” compiled by UAB staff (Brooks et al. 1996), and conferred with the UAB director to ascertain if any newly discovered submerged cultural resources have been added to that shipwreck inventory (John W. Morris, pers. comm., October 2014; John W. Morris, pers. comm., March 2015). The literature and archival investigation focused on a survey of primary and secondary source materials associated with the historical development of the North Carolina Outer Banks. TAR historians focused on documented activities such as exploration, colonization, agriculture, industry, trade, shipbuilding, commerce, warfare, transportation, and fishing. These historical activities could be contributing factors in the loss of vessels in the project area. In examining each of these factors, special attention was committed to maritime activities associated with navigation along the project survey areas. Wreck-specific information was collected from scholarly and ancillary sources that include; National Political Manual (1868), Military and Naval Service of the United States Coast Survey (U. S. Department of Commerce 1916), Graveyard of the Atlantic (Stick 1952), An Oceanographic Atlas Of The Carolina Continental Margin (Newton, Pilkey and Blanton [Newton et al.] 1971), Encyclopedia of American Shipwrecks (Berman 1972), Shipwrecks of the Civil War (Shomette 1973), Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States 1790–1868 (Mitchell 1975), and supplements nos. 1-3 (Mitchell 1978, 1982, 1984), Shipwrecks in the Americas (Marx 1983), The Naval War of 1812 (Dudley, 2 vols., 1985, 1992), Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion (National Historical Society, series I & II, 31 vols., 1987), Shipwrecks: Diving the Graveyard of the Atlantic (Farb 1992), Shipwrecks of North Carolina: from the Diamond Shoals North (Gentile 1993), North Carolina Shipwreck Accounts, 1709 to 1950, Including Over 1100 Named Wrecks (Charles 2004), Naval Documents of the American Revolution (U.S. Department of the Navy, 11 vols., 1964- 2005), Shipwrecks of the Outer Banks (Duffus 2007), and Shipwrecks & Reefs of Oregon Inlet (Hudy 2007). 12 Additional maritime casualty information was generated by gratis and premium Internet databases that included: AccessibleArchives.com, the Automatic Wreck and Obstruction Information System (AWOIS) sponsored by NOAA, Eastern North Carolina Digital Library, GenealogyBank.com, Fold3.com, HathiTrust, JSTOR, NewspaperArchive.com, Newspapers.com, The American Memory Collection [historical newspapers] (Library of Congress [LOC]), and The New York Times. Technical reports provided another source of regional cultural resources analyses and shipwreck information. David Phelps's "The Archaeology of Colington Island" serves as an example of a report on the area’s prehistory. Wilson Angley's "An Historic Overview of Oregon Inlet" provided a local historical background and shipwreck data. James Delgado's "A Preliminary Assessment of Environmentally Exposed Shipwreck Remains, Cape Hatteras, North Carolina" provided historical insight and shipwreck specific data. Timothy Thompson and William Gardner's “A Cultural Resources and Impact Area Assessment of the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, Dare County, North Carolina” contributed to an understanding of prehistoric site potential in the region. Dames and Moore's "Report on a Remote Sensing Survey of Oregon Inlet, North Carolina" provided confirmation that unidentified remote-sensing targets have been located south of the project area. Another credible source consulted for contemporary wreck-specific data for the region included “East Carolina Nearshore Expedition: The Shipwrecks” (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2012). Cartographic Research TAR historians previously examined relevant cartographic records preserved in The National Archives (Washington, DC., Suitland, Maryland [MD], and College Park, MD); the North Carolina Department of Archives and History (NCDAH) [Raleigh NC]; the UAB (Kure Beach NC); the Outer Banks History Center (Manteo NC); the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Duke University (Durham NC); the USACE library (Wilmington, NC); the Duke Marine Laboratory (Beaufort NC); and Joyner Library (East Carolina University (Greenville NC). In addition to the large collection of North Carolina maps [originals and reproductions] located at TAR, numerous Internet sources of scholarly map collections were consulted during the current research phase including the American Memory Map Collection (LOC), the David Rumsey Historical Map Collection, and Old Maps Online. National Register of Historic Places Listing During the conduct of archival research and Section 106 compliance activities, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) database was queried on several occasions. The database was last queried on 30 April 2015 to check potential relevant updates. As of this date, the shipwreck of the USS Huron is listed in the vicinity (Nags Head) of the project area (National Park Service n.d.a.) 13 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office Listing During the conduct of Section 106 compliance activities, the North Carolina Listings in the NRHP was also queried. The state database was last queried on 30 April 2015 to check potential relevant updates. As of this date, one shipwreck (USS Huron) was listed in the vicinity of the project area off Nags Head (North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office 2015). Remote-Sensing Survey The remote-sensing survey, of Dare County borrow areas A and C, was designed to identify potentially significant submerged cultural resources that could be impacted by a proposed dredging of material for beach restoration. The survey methodology and equipment was based on standards identified by BOEM and the North Carolina SHPO. A combination of state-of-the-art seismic, magnetic and acoustic remote-sensing equipment was employed to generate sufficient data to reliable identify cultural material such as shipwreck sites and relict landforms that could be associated with prehistoric habitation. The offshore survey was carried out aboard the Florida registered 85-foot MV Thunderforce (Figure 6). Figure 6. Survey vessel MV Thunderforce. Data collection was controlled by the onboard computer (Figure 7) running precision survey software and connected to a differential global positioning system. Remote- sensing equipment employed in data collection during the survey was operated out of a small conex box wired for power and fitted for computer stations. The container was also 14 rigged for navigation hard and software and connected to the bridge for communication and navigation displays (Figure 8). Figure 7. Navigation computers on survey RV Thunderforce bridge. Figure 8. Conex box navigation control and data collection stations. Magnetometer An EG&G Geometrics G-882 marine cesium magnetometer, capable of plus or minus 0.001 gamma resolution, was employed to collect magnetic data in the survey areas (Figure 9). The cesium magnetometer provides a scalar measurement of the earth’s 15 magnetic field intensity expressed in gammas. To produce the most comprehensive magnetic record, data was collected at 10 samples per second. Figure 9. Geometrics 882 cesium vapor marine magnetometer. In order to maintain a depth of not more than 6 meters above the bottom surface, the magnetometer sensor was towed approximately 20 feet behind the sidescan sonar at a speed of approximately 3 to 4 knots. Magnetic data were recorded as a data file associated with the computer navigation system. Data from the survey were contour plotted using QUICKSURF computer software to facilitate anomaly location and definition of target signature characteristics. All magnetic data were correlated with the acoustic remote-sensing records. Sidescan Sonar An EdgeTech 4200-FS sidescan sonar system (Figure 10) was employed to collect acoustic data in the survey area (Figure 10). The 4200-FS uses full-spectrum chirp technology to deliver wideband, high-energy pulses coupled with high-resolution and superb signal to noise ratio echo data. The sonar package included a portable laptop configuration running DISCOVER acquisition software and a 120/410 kHz dual frequency 16 towfish running in high definition mode. Dual frequency provided a differential aid to interpretation. Due to shallow water in the survey area the sidescan sonar transducer was deployed and maintained between 2 to 3 feet below the water surface. Acoustic data were collected using a range scale of 50 meters (164 feet) to provide a combination of +250% coverage and high target signature definition. The digital sidescan data was merged with positioning data via the computer navigation system and logged to disk for post processing. Figure 10. EdgeTech 4200-FS sidescan sonar system. Sub-Bottom Profiler An EdgeTech 512i towfish (Figure 11) and Full Spectrum Sub-Bottom Topside Unit was employed to collect seismic data in the survey areas. The sub-bottom profiler sends an acoustic signal through the ocean bottom to record surface and subsurface geological features. Each distinct layer in the bottom sediment is indicated as a surficial trace, which is recorded in an electronic format onboard the survey vessel. The chart shows the presence of the sediment surface and other distinct layers or features within the sediment, such as buried river channels. The topside unit was utilized to control the 512i towfish and to display and archive the data, which was merged with positioning data via the computer navigation system. The area was surveyed using the 2 KHz to 12 KHz 20ms FM pulse setting. The pulse repetition rate was typically six pulses per second. 17 Figure 11. EdgeTech 512i sub-bottom profiler towfish. Positioning and Data Collection A TRIMBLE Real Time Kinematic (RTK) positioning system was used to control navigation and data collection in the survey area. That system has an accuracy of +/- one foot, and can be used to generate highly accurate coordinates for the computer navigation system. The DGPS was interfaced with HYPACK 2014, a state-of-the-art navigation and hydrographic surveying system. On-line screen graphic displays include the pre-plotted survey lines, the updated boat track across the survey area, adjustable left/right indicator, as well as other positioning information such as boat speed, quality of fix and line bearing. Navigation fixes (shot points) were recorded 10 times a second (approximately one fix every 0.9 feet) along all survey lanes. All data obtained were recorded on the computer’s hard disk and transferred to an external hard drive to provide a backup of the raw survey data. Data generated were correlated to remote-sensing records by DGPS to facilitate target location and anomaly analysis. All data were plotted to North Carolina State Plane, NAD 83, U.S. Survey Foot coordinates. Survey data were collected on survey lanes spaced 100 feet apart. That lane spacing was designed to provide complete lateral coverage with the sonar system and a representative sampling with the seismic and magnetometer systems. Survey lines in Borrow Area A were set up oriented northeast to southwest and run on headings of 49 and 229 degrees (Figure 12). Survey lines in Borrow Area C were set up oriented east to west and run on headings of 90 and 270 degrees (Figure 13). 18 Figure 12. As run tracklines in Borrow Area A. 19 Figure 13. As run tracklines in Borrow Area C. 20 Signature Analysis and Target Assessment While no absolute criteria for identification of potentially significant magnetic and/or acoustic target signatures exist, available literature confirm that reliable analysis must be made on the basis of certain characteristics. Magnetic signatures must be assessed on the basis of three basic factors. The first factor is intensity and the second is duration. The third consideration is the nature of the signature; e.g., positive monopolar, negative monopolar, dipolar or multi-component. Unfortunately, shipwreck sites have been demonstrated to produce each signature type under certain circumstances. Some shipwreck signatures are more apparent than others. Large vessels, whether iron or wood produce signatures that can be reliably identified. Smaller vessels, or disarticulated vessel remains, are more difficult to identify. Their signatures are frequently difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish from single objects and/or modern debris. In fact, some small vessels produce little or no magnetic signature. Unless ordnance, ground tackle or cargo associated with the hull produces a detectable signature, some sites are impossible to identify magnetically. It is also difficult to magnetically distinguish some small wrecks from modern debris. As a consequence, magnetic targets must be subjectively assessed according to intensity, duration and signature characteristics. The final decision concerning potential significance must be made on the basis of anomaly attributes, historical patterns of navigation in the project area and a responsible balance between historical and economic priorities. Acoustic signatures must also be assessed on the basis of several basic characteristics. Perhaps the most important factor in acoustic analysis is the configuration of the signature. As the acoustic record represents a reflection of specific target features, wreck signatures are often a highly detailed and accurate image of architectural and construction features. On sites with less structural integrity signatures often reflect more of a geometric pattern that can be identified as structural material. Where hull remains are disarticulated the pattern can be little more than a texture on the bottom surface representing structure, ballast or shell hash associated with submerged deposits. Unfortunately, shipwreck sites have been demonstrated to produce a variety of signature characteristics under different circumstances. Like magnetic signatures, some acoustic shipwreck signatures are more apparent than others. Large vessels, whether iron or wood, produce signatures that can be reliably identified. Smaller vessels, or disarticulated vessel remains are inevitably more difficult. Their signatures are frequently difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish from concentrations of snags and/or modern debris. In fact, some small vessels produce little or no acoustic signature. As a consequence, acoustic targets must be subjectively assessed according to intensity of return over background, elevation above bottom and geometric image characteristics. The final decision concerning potential significance of less readily identifiable targets must be made on the basis of anomaly attributes, historical patterns of navigation in the project area and a responsible balance between historical and economic priorities. 21 Seismic data generated by sub-bottom profilers can reveal evidence of relict landforms. Certain types of relict landforms such as river channels and confluences, lagoons and bays have a high potential for association with inundated prehistoric habitation sites. Although the process of inundation may have destroyed much of a prehistoric site’s integrity, significance evidence of paleo and archaic habitation has been identified. Detailed analysis of the sub-bottom data can identify those landforms. Cultural Development Prehistoric Background Modern archaeological research in North Carolina can be linked to the development of an archaeology program that commenced at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the 1930s. A few general works published in the 1940s and early 1950s summarized the available ethnographic and ethnohistoric data for the Coastal Plain (Phelps 1983:8). The first extensive archaeological survey of the Tidewater region was undertaken in 1954-1955. William Haag carried out this work in response to the development of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Haag 1958). Haag surveyed a considerable amount of coastline from the Neuse estuary northward to the Virginia border and recorded 81 sites, the majority of which were on Hatteras, Roanoke, Bodie, and Colington islands, the lower Currituck peninsula, and along the shores of the Pamlico estuary (Phelps 1983:9). Archaeological research increased during the 1970s when regional programs were developed at universities and schools within North Carolina. Archaeological surveys were done at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Thompson 1977), the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge (Thompson and Gardner 1979), Colington Island (Phelps 1981), and Roanoke Island (Phelps 1984). The cultural sequence of the Coastal Plain, first presented by Haag and South, is continually being refined through archaeological studies. An overview of the cultural sequence for the North Carolina Coastal Plain is discussed below. The Cultural Sequence Archaeologists have divided human occupation in the eastern United States into four temporal periods: Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Woodland, and Historic. Each temporal division is distinguished by the climate, technology, and subsistence patterns characteristic of the period. The Coastal Plain physiographic province can also be divided into two cultural-spatial units, the North Coastal and South Coastal regions, based upon cultural differences that seem to begin near the end of the Late Archaic period (Phelps 1983: 16). 22 The Paleo-Indian Period (12,000-8000 B.C.) The Paleo-Indian period of eastern North Carolina is the earliest and obscure of the cultural divisions. The adaptive subsistence of humans during this period is generally associated with specialized hunting and gathering, or big game hunting during the end of the Wisconsin glaciation when its retreat brought about climatic and environmental changes (Willey 1966: 37-38). Evidence of this period is almost entirely limited to the surface distribution of fluted, Clovis, or finely worked Cumberland, Quad, Dalton, and Hardaway projectile points. By 1983 less than 50 Paleo-Indian fluted points had been recorded at sites in Bertie, Carteret, Edgecombe, Hertford, Nash, and Pitt counties (Phelps 1983:18). Fluted points have been recorded in private collections for Beaufort, Craven, and Gates counties. For the most part, Paleo-Indian sites have been recorded in the uplands where the present conditions do not favor the preservation of early sites. Agricultural disturbance, erosion, and lack of appreciable soil accretion are factors that limit the preservation of Paleo- Indian sites. These sites lack the stratification needed for comparative analysis and dating. Paleo-Indian sites found in the Tidewater region would have been located on the Inner Coastal Plain at the time of their occupation. With the retreat of the last glaciers the sea level rose to near its present level, inundating coastal sites. Settlement patterns of Paleo-Indian short-term-activity sites or longer-utilized base camps seem to be associated with access to lithic materials for tool manufacture, such as quartz, quartzite, slate, rhyolite, chert, and jasper which were brought down from the mountains and Piedmont areas by rivers (Phelps 1983: 21). Other factors that influenced site location included access to water, habitats favorable to game, and sunlight exposure (Thompson and Gardner 1979: 23). The environment of the Coastal Plain during the Paleo-Indian period was one of broad river valleys with braided stream channels around numerous sandbars, freshwater marshes along the stream edges, and a boreal pine-spruce forest on the interstream uplands (Whitehead 1972:313). The retreat of the Wisconsin glaciation brought about changes in the environment and the disappearance of the megafauna, which gave way to a new subsistence strategy. The Archaic Period (8000 -1000 B.C.) The change in climate following the glaciation must have produced a favorable environment for human subsistence, since numerous Archaic sites can be found in the Coastal Plain. The density of Archaic sites within the Coastal Plain is higher than for any other prehistoric period. These locations can be found in all microenvironments from saline estuary shores to stream margins and their tributary systems as well as pocosins and floodplain swamps (Phelps 1983: 24). Each of these environments produced a diverse and abundant food source that helped contribute to a slight rise in human population. There is also a strong relationship between site location and accessibility to streams. 23 Surveys that have documented Archaic sites in the Coastal Plain indicate that the majority of sites represent short-term-activity localities evenly distributed along streams. Fewer base camps that may indicate seasonal utilization of available resources appear to be found near the confluence of major streams. All sites, however, are found in the Inner Coastal Plain. Stratified Archaic sites are scarce, but probably do exist in select undisturbed areas within the Inner Coastal Plain. Archaic sites are missing from the Tidewater area as a result of the environmental change that has occurred over the last several thousand years. Those sites that were located on the coast have been obliterated, buried, or inundated like sites of the earlier period. During the Archaic period a wider range of habitats were utilized for subsistence, and thus likely a wider range of plants and animals. A transition in climate brought pines, hemlock, birch, and northern hardwoods, such as beech and maple, replacing the earlier boreal forests. Diversity in faunal and plant types would also accompany these habitat changes (Phelps 1983: 23). Hunting strategies adapted to the diversification in faunal species with changes in lithic point styles. Spear points such as the Kirk corner-notched, which were gradually replaced by the Kirk stemmed type, are associated with hunting during the Early Archaic period. Other lithic tools, such as scrapers, blades and drills used for the processing of bone and hides are also identifiable to the Archaic period. A warmer and drier period during the Middle Archaic, referred to as the hypsithermal, distinguishes this subperiod from the previous one. During this time the pine-birch- hemlock forests of the Coastal Plain were being replaced by oak and hickory hardwoods. The numbers of sites increase slightly from the Early to Middle Archaic. Lithic point types experience a transition from the Kirk stemmed to Stanly stemmed points. New point types such as Morrow Mountain, Guilford, and Halifax that appear are believed to represent introduction and possible trade with other areas. Polished stone and semilunar spearthrower weights also appear for the first time. The Late Archaic is represented by less diversification with the Savannah River point style being prevalent. The Savannah River phase is generally associated with a higher degree of sedentism believed to be a result of improved subsistence adaptation. The appearance of steatite vessels for cooking and storage, as well as fiber-tempered ceramic wares seem to support this belief. A distinction between the North Coastal Plain and the South Coastal Plain can be based on the ceramic distribution of this ware (Phelps 1983: 26). Site diversity appears to remain relatively stable into the Late Archaic, but some localities show a noticeable reduction of Late Archaic site density along smaller tributary streams (Phelps 1983: 25). The Woodland Period (1000 B.C. -1650 A.D.) The Early Woodland period is marked by further development of the increased diversification in subsistence and use of ceramics that began to appear during the Late Archaic period. However, little is known about settlement patterns or subsistence on the Coastal Plain during this transition Settlement patterns are believed to be continuous with 24 the preceding Archaic. It is thought that cultigens are also introduced during this period, but their immediate effect is not readily seen in the archaeological record. At a few of the sites with Early Woodland components in the Northern Coastal region, Stallings fiber- tempered ceramics are replaced with Thom's Creek sand-tempered ceramics, showing an introduction of new traits. Thom's Creek ceramics are eventually followed by the Deptford series (Caldwell and Waring 1939). Lithic projectile points are of the small- stemmed variety, considered transitional from the older Savannah River type (Phelps 1975: 68), and are now classified as Gypsy points (Oliver 1981). In the South Coastal region New River is the named phase during the Early Woodland period. There is a similarity between the South Coastal New River phase and the Deep Creek phase for the North Coast, but the New River phase is believed to carry on characteristics found only in the Southeast. The Middle Woodland period is better understood than the preceding period. Phase names for this period are Mount Pleasant for the North Coastal region, and Cape Fear for the South Coastal region. During the Mount Pleasant phase there is a change in settlement patterns. Small sites along the smaller tributary streams decrease in number, while there is an increase in the number of sites along major streams and estuaries (Phelps 1983: 33). Sites found on Colington and Roanoke Islands indicate seasonal subsistence that relied primarily on shellfish collection. Inland riverine sites have the same pattern but reflect adaptations to shellfish and other species of the riverine environment (Phelps 1983: 33). Sedentary villages represent the largest single settlement type of the period. This shift in pattern from hunting and gathering camps is generally associated to an increased dependence on domesticated plants, including maize. Ceramics of the Mount Pleasant series are tempered with sand and inclusions of small pebbles with varying surface finishes of fabric-impressions, cord-marking and net-impressing, simple-smoothing to produce a plain type, and incising of plain surfaces (Phelps 1983: 32). Lithic projectile points of the small variety of the triangular Roanoke type are associated with the Mount Pleasant phase. Other artifacts known to occur in Mount Pleasant assemblages are blades (bifaces), sandstone abraders, shell pendants or gorgets, polished stone gorgets, celts, and mats woven of marsh grass (Phelps 1983: 33). Burial patterns found on the Inner Coastal Plain and on Roanoke Island at the Tillet site include both primary inhumation and cremation. During the Middle Woodland period the Cape Fear phase of the South Coastal region is less known. Ceramic types are similar to those of the North Coastal region. The distinguishing trait seems to be the manner of burial. Found in the South Coastal region is an extensive distribution of low sand burial mounds unique to the region. The high frequency of secondary cremation, platform pipes, and other objects in the mounds, and the fact that at least some of the mounds seem to be placed away from their contemporaneous habitation sites, points to southern influence during this period (Phelps 1983: 35). 25 The two local phases of the Late Woodland period for the North Coastal region are the Colington phase for the Algonkian culture of the Tidewater zone, and the Cashie phase for territory occupied by the Tuscarora and northern Iroquoian Meherrin and Nottaway in the interior Coastal Plain. The settlement pattern during the Late Woodland was relatively dispersed with site locations found along the sounds, estuaries, major rivers, and their tributaries. Most of the sites that occur on the mainland are found adjacent to streams or other bodies of water on high banks and ridges of sandy loams. Types of sites include capital villages (chiefdoms), villages, seasonal villages, and camps for specialized activities, as well as farmsteads likely occupied by extended families (Phelps 1983: 39-40). Except for the camps that appear to be directly related to seasonal gathering of shellfish, fishing, and perhaps collecting, all seasonal and larger villages are located where agriculture, hunting, gathering, and fishing could all be accomplished within the site catchment area (Phelps 1983: 40). Shellfish collecting and fishing camps have been found on Colington Island and major villages, except maybe for Hatteras Island, occur on the Inner Coastal Plain. Hatteras Island is one of the few barrier islands with sufficient area at its present south end to support the subsistence needs of a large population (Phelps 1983: 40). One chiefdom was located on the Outer Banks on Hatteras Island, with most sites reported by Haag destroyed through modern development. Limited evidence does remain at the Hatteras Village site (Phelps 1983: 40). Subsistence during this period relied upon gathering and hunting to support some agriculture. Exploitation of a wide range of habitats provided the needed food sources. Maize, hickory nuts, faunal remains of bears, deer, and a wide variety of small animals; alligators, terrapins, and turtles; fish, and both marine and riverine shellfish have been found at excavated sites of this period (Phelps 1983: 40). By the end of the Late Woodland period, cultigens of squash, beans and sunflower would have been grown as eventually noted by explorers. Colington ceramics of the Tidewater region are shell-tempered and divided into types based on surface decoration. In order of frequency are fabric-impressed, simple-stamped, plain, and incised. Shell tempering is either marine (oyster) or freshwater (mussel), depending upon the site location. Cashie ceramics associated with the Inner Coastal region are grit or pebble-tempered with the same surface treatments as those noted for Colington ware. Projectile points of the North Coastal region include the small variety of Roanoke triangular type with some occurrence of the smaller, equilateral triangular Clarksville points (Phelps 1983: 36-39). Bifacial blades of various shapes, polished stone celts, gorgets, sandstone abraders, and milling stones are part of the lithic assemblage. Shell hoes, ladles and shell beads are also found. Bone artifacts include antler flakers, fish hooks, awls and punches of various shapes, bone pins, and a panther mask. Ceramic pipes with bowls attached to stems either horizontally or at an angle are also well known (Phelps 1983: 39). 26 Burial patterns during the Colington phase are those of Algonkian and Iroquoian ossuaries. Five ossuaries have been located and excavated within the Tidewater zone, with one located on Hatteras Island. The smallest contained 38 individuals and the largest contained 58 persons. The individuals ranged from newborn to the elderly and included both males and females. Few artifacts accompany the burials (Phelps 1983:42). Cashie burials of the Inland Coastal region are also ossuaries. Unlike the Colington ossuaries, Cashie burials usually contain two to five individuals deposited as secondary bundle burials and may represent family rather than community interments (Phelps 1983:46). Bone awls are sometimes included with a few individuals and shell beads are always found. A difference in the quantity of the shell beads included with the burial may indicate differing levels of social status or rank. The Colington phase ends with the expansion of the European colonial frontier southward from Virginia into North Carolina. The Cashie phase, contemporary with Colington from A.D. 800, remained intact until A.D. 1715 when reservations were established for the Tuscarora and Meherrin after the Tuscarora War (Phelps 1983: 43). The Colington and Cashie phases of the North Carolina region are local variants of the same basic cultural tradition, but the South Coastal Plain has been presumed to be Siouian territory since the beginning of the Woodland period (Snow 1978:60-61). The Southern Coastal phase of the Late Woodland is known as Oak Island and continues into the modern Waccamaw culture. The Southern Coastal region is less well defined than for the north. The local phase in the narrow Tidewater zone appears to have been similar to the Colington phase, but probably represents acculturation of south coast groups to north coast patterns (Phelps 1983:48). Historical Background Exploration and Colonization (A.D. 1524-1776) Documented exploration along the present-day North Carolina Outer Banks commenced some 485 years ago. In 1524, Florentine pilot Giovanni da Verrazano sailed from the Cape Fear region northwards to Old Currituck Inlet. Verrazano was justifiably cautious, and stayed so far from the shore that he was unable to discern individual features and inlets in the area (Cumming 1988:4-7). The following year, Spanish pilot Pedro de Quejo sailed along the Outer Banks and entered two inlets north of Cape Hatteras and a third to the south of this promontory. The names and exact locations of these historic inlets are unknown (Hoffman 1987:3-4). Later that year, Portuguese pilot Estevan Gomez sailed as far as 40 degrees north along the Atlantic Coast of North America (Dunbar 1958:7). By 1542, Spanish treasure ships regularly passed within 50 to 75 miles of Cape Hatteras and the Outer Banks before heading east towards the Azores [972 miles due west of Lisbon] (Cumming 1988: 24). Spanish pilot Angel de Vilfane searched for the Jordan River [South Carolina] circa 1561, and sailed north along the North Carolina coast until a 27 storm off Cape Hatteras sank one of his ships and forced him to head southeast (Hoffman 1987: 8). The intensity of sixteenth-century storms off the Outer Banks is confirmed by the number of ships that were lost off the North Carolina coast in the early years of exploration. Ships were reported lost near Cape Hatteras in 1528, 1545, 1551, 1553, 1559, 1561, and 1564 (Cumming 1988:44). The first Europeans to consider permanent settlement in present day North Carolina were Englishmen. When the first explorers under Ralph Lane arrived in 1585, they found a thriving native Algonquian population that subsisted by hunting, fishing and cultivation of a variety of foods. Europeans soon established a reliance on the native population for subsistence. When the Indians of Roanoke Island tired of this one-sided arrangement the former group destroyed fish weirs that had been constructed for the Europeans and withdrew from Roanoke Island (Corbitt 1953:55). At the time of the historic Roanoke voyages (1584-1590), there were two known inlets, Port Fernando [Hatorask Inlet] and Port Lane [closed before 1657] just north of present day Oregon Inlet. These inlets were in close proximity to one another, however, Port Fernando was considered superior and was used by English vessels to establish and supply the settlement on Roanoke Island. That inlet also served as a base for important reconnaissance operations. A slipway was built just inside the inlet to facilitate these activities (Quinn 1955:78). In 1585, Sir Richard Grenville (1542-1591) established a colony on Roanoke Island, and returned to the location in 1586. Popular tradition relates that Tennyson’s poem “The Revenge” is based on the nobleman- adventurer’s adventures. Grenville’s ship Tyger [or Tiger] is assumed to be one of the earliest shipwrecks recorded in North Carolina. A contemporary painting thought to be Her Majesty’s Tyger flying the standards of Saint George was produced by John White in Puerto Rico during Grenville’s expedition (Hulton 1984:9; Plate 3; Figure 14). Shortly thereafter, Grenville returned to England for supplies leaving Ralph Lane in command of the colony. On 9 June 1586, Sir Francis Drake visited the settlement on his return from the Caribbean. Upon his arrival he determined Port Fernando to be an inadequate harbor for his fleet. His vessels, therefore, were anchored well offshore. On 13 June, disaster struck when a storm hit the Outer Banks. In the ensuing chaos several of Drake's smaller vessels were wrecked. The Colonists were disillusioned about the settlement and all but a small force decided to abandon the Roanoke Island and returned to England with Drake (Quinn 1955:passim). A second attempt to establish a colony on Roanoke Island was made in the following year. The expedition, led by John White, also utilized Port Fernando as a base of operations. After a few months White returned to England. King Philip of Spain's 1588 attempt to invade England prevented White's return to the colony until 1590 (Figure 15). Upon his arrival, the governor found that the colonists had abandoned the colony and disappeared. Over time, due to the mystery, the unfortunate settlement became known as the "Lost Colony." During White's futile attempts to locate the colony, Port Fernando was still used to access the sound. 28 Figure 14. John White painting that may depict Her Majesty's Tiger (Hulton 1984:Plate 3). On 17 August 1590, White sent out two small boats from his larger ships anchored off shore. One of these small vessels capsized while trying to cross the inlet bar, killing seven men. Ultimately, bad weather forced White to abandon his attempts to relocate the colonists (Quinn 1955:252-255, 468-506, and 553-560). English colonization efforts subsequently shifted to the Chesapeake Bay area where a successful settlement was established at Jamestown in 1607. One of the few attractive features of Roanoke Island was the relative security afforded by the barrier islands (Figure 16). It would be difficult for the Spanish to find and destroy the settlement. Although the Spanish suspected that the English had been trying to establish a colony for some time, they did not send an expedition until 1588. The expedition's leader, Captain Vincente Gonzalez, believed that the repudiated English settlement was somewhere on Chesapeake Bay. Failing to find any evidence of an English colony in that area, Gonzalez sailed back to Florida. It was during this return voyage that the Spanish captain happened to discover the English slipway in Port Fernando. He remained unconvinced, however, that there could be any settlement nearby so he continued on his voyage without further reconnaissance (Quinn 1955:773-812). 29 Figure 15. John White map dated 1585. 30 Figure 16. White-DeBry map dated 1590. 31 Roanoke Island was a focus of attention of explorers and settlers in the years that followed the historic Roanoke Voyages. The Claes Visscher panorama produced in 1616 illustrates the variety of English and other European vessels of the time (Figure 17), which may have reconnoitered the modern Dare County coast. In 1620 Marmaduke Rayner made a venture to Roanoke Island to explore (Dunbar 1958:16). Four years later, Francis Yardley, the governor of Virginia, noted in a letter that small sloops were trading in Carolina sounds with the local Indians for beaver skins. Later that year Yardley sponsored a group that visited Roanoke Island and bought land in eastern North Carolina from the local Indian tribes. These local Indian tribes died out or were absorbed by the close of the colonial period in eastern North Carolina (Dunbar 1958:16, 19). Figure 17. Oceangoing ships depicted anchored and at sail in Thames River in Visscher’s 1616 panorama (shown in: Noël Hume 1994:115). In 1664, interest in the North Carolina Outer Banks resumed when Sir John Colleton established a plantation (Figure 18) on what is currently known as Colington Island. The nobleman planned to grow tobacco, which had been shown to be a successful cash crop in the Chesapeake Bay area, and prosper from the increased demand for tobacco in Europe. Tobacco proved to be a failure and the only financial gain from the plantation venture was derived from oil extracted from beached sea mammals some years later (Stick 1958:22). 32 Figure 18. Engraving of earthfast [or post-in-the-ground] dwelling that may represent Outer Banks construction of the mid-seventeenth century (Noël Hume 1994:315). John Colleton's failure at growing tobacco on the Outer Banks was chiefly due to the instability of the ground surface and lack of soil development. The introduction of stock husbandry on the barrier islands further contributed to the deterioration of the ground cover and accelerated the natural processes of wind and water erosion. Figure 19 shows the area circa 1672; Colington Island, shown just to the right of Roanoke Island, is not named. The lack of a suitable agricultural environment, combined with the hazards of navigating the barrier islands, limited the growth of the Outer Banks for several years. Those that attempted to make a living in the area managed their income from the sea. Fishing and shell fishing proved to be profitable, as well as salvaging or piloting of the vessels that dared enter the Outer Banks. Until the hardwood forests of the barrier islands were depleted, boat building also provided a source of income for some individuals living on the Outer Banks. However, the rapid loss of the forests further contributed to the destabilization of the sandy soil and produced migrating dunes which threatened some communities (Stick 1958:286). In 1696, the Hady, a British ship, was driven ashore between Roanoke and Currituck inlets (Figure 20). The early trappers and fishermen camping along the Outer Banks pillaged the ship, transported some of her cannons ashore, and fired them into the vessel's side to ensure that the ship would never be refloated (Ashe 1908:149; Dunbar 1958: 20). The salvage and destruction of the Hady was not an extraordinary occurrence as wrecking developed as one of the earliest, albeit sporadic, occupations along the Outer Banks. 33 Figure 19. Ogilby map dated ca. 1672. More than a century after the last Roanoke voyage the first permanent white settlement and residence near Oregon Inlet was established. Mathew Midget, who lived near the Alligator River, received title to Bodie Island in the 1720s. Upon his death in 1734 he left the island to his four sons (Stick 1958:78). It appears that Midget's descendants were still living on the island at the time that Oregon Inlet opened in 1846 (Angley 1985:4-5). 34 Bodie Island went by many names over a period of years, including Bodys Island, Bodies Island, Body Island, Micher Island, and Cow Island. The island was originally 9.5 miles long and contained about 1900 acres (Stick 1958:278). The name Bodie Island first appeared on maps in the early 1700s, and the 1709 John Lawson map identifies “Body I.”, where the famous surveyor-general searched for coneys [rabbits] (Figure 20). Figure 20. John Lawson map dated 1709. 35 During the colonial period villages were established on Haterask Island on small wooded tracts on the sound side of the barrier island. Over time the English rendition for the Algonquian term, which translated to “there is less vegetation” was replaced with “Hatteras” (Powell 1968:216). On the islands of Roanoke and Colington, villages were also established within small wooded tracts that afforded protection from the harsh winter environment. There were also several villages located to the north of Roanoke Inlet (Dunbar 1958: 24). Although the shallow depth of Roanoke Inlet prevented it from being used by large vessels, navigation was sufficient to appoint a pilot in 1715. New Englanders frequently brought their vessels in through Roanoke Inlet and off-loaded their cargoes without payment of the required dues (Dunbar 1958: 21-23). The Quidley family appears to have settled at The Cape [present-day Buxton] circa 1720 according to genealogist and descendant Dallas E. Quidley, Jr. In that year, the wife of Patrick Quidley (formerly of Virginia) gave birth to William Quidley (Quidley 2013). As an adult, the younger Quidley was identified as a captain and his progeny, including John Quidley, figured in the early history of the maritime community. One descendant of John Quidley born on Hatteras Island would serve as a surfman at Kinnekeet “riding a horse watching for sailing ships” and later as a lighthouse keeper (Quidley 2013). The attention to vessels navigating along The Cape served several purposes for early eighteenth-century coastal families, whose lives and livelihoods depended on the goods being transported aboard the watercraft, as well as often having a familial connection to those on board. The Herman Moll map dated 1729 (Figure 21) illustrates the Sholes of Hatteras, which became popularly known as “Diamond Shoals” or “graveyard of the Atlantic”. Renowned North Carolina historian William Powell (1968:142) described the treacherous series of three shoals that extend in a southeasterly direction from Cape Hatteras as such: Nearest the Cape is Hatteras Shoals; Inner Diamond Shoal is in the middle, and Outer Diamond Shoal extends fartherest [sic] into the Atlantic. The channel between Hatteras Shoals and Inner Diamond Shoal is Hatteras Slough: Diamond Slough is the channel between the two Diamond Shoals. At this point warm Gulf Stream waters collide with cold artic waters from the north causing a constant turbulence in the Atlantic. Despite the obvious and constant dangers wrought by the Sholes of Hatteras, by the middle of the eighteenth century, a considerable trade had developed along the North Carolina coast. While Ocracoke was the dominant marine facility, Port Roanoke provided services important to the development of the Albemarle region. Port Roanoke has since developed into present-day Edenton. Commerce that left Port Roanoke travelled along three main routes according to 1772 customs records. Approximately two fifths of outbound cargoes were transported to the West Indies, one third went to the New England area, and one fifth was exported to the British Isles. 36 Figure 21. "Sholes of Hatteras" from Herman Moll Map, 1729 (Cumming 1998:Plate 50). It bears note that during the subject period, and in fact to 1846, that Hatteras Inlet was joined to Ocracoke Island as the fluctuating inlet had closed in 1760-70 (Powell 1968:217). Contemporary customs’ records indicate that of the incoming commerce one- half was from New England, one-fourth originated in the West Indies, and one-fifth was imported from the British Isles. At this date, eastern North Carolina residents were still not major consumers of goods. Of the incoming shipping, some 6,200 tons, which cleared Port Roanoke nearly one-fifth was ballast. A large proportion of the ships that passed through Port Roanoke were owned by merchants in the Albemarle area, as the 1772 custom records show that nearly one-third of the tonnage of ships that entered Port Roanoke were also registered there (Crittenden 1936: 70-71, 77-78, 105). 37 Revolutionary and Ante-Bellum Period 1776-1860 During the Revolutionary War, Roanoke and New Currituck inlets gained greater significance. Their shallow depths and constantly moving sand bars prevented strangers or the Enemy from safely navigating the waterways and afforded American coastal vessels safety within the sounds. Extracts from the 1770 Collett map show The Cape and “Occacock” Island (Figure 22) and three distinct inlets north of Hatteras (Figure 23), which depict the difficulties late-eighteenth-century mariners encountered as they sailed along the Outer Banks. Port Roanoke, although plagued by shallow and migrating channels, became a major North Carolina port that briefly rivaled Wilmington and the Cape Fear region (Crittenden 1936:42). While British warships captured numerous vessels in or near the inlets of the Outer Banks, and even made sorties across the barrier islands into the sounds to harass small coastal vessels, the dangerous inlet provided a means of escape from pursuing warships and privateers. (Dunbar 1958:22; Crittenden 1936:122). The hostilities that led to the Revolutionary War did little damage to the commerce that passed through Port Roanoke, and custom records show that for the period 1774 to 1776 exports at Port Roanoke increased. In 1775, there were 40 percent more exports than in 1772. Growth continued so that by 1778 Port Roanoke cleared 15,000 tons in commerce that year alone (Crittenden 1936:119-120, 158). Figure 22. Cape Hatteras depicted in 1770 Collett Map (Cumming 1998:Plate 63). 38 Figure 23. The Collett map dated 1770 showing the inlets north of Hatteras. 39 Under the dynamic leadership of its secretary, Alexander Hamilton, the newly-formed U.S. Treasury Department sought and received the authority to construct a beacon on the headland of Cape Hatteras in 1794. According to Cape Hatteras Lighthouse authority Kevin Duffus (2003:17): [T]he proposed lighthouse was among the first commissioned by the nation warning mariners to avoid a specific navigational hazard. Previously, colonial lights had been established to guide vessels into port. Urgency was paramount…As the young nation’s growth was being fueled by the cargoes of merchant vessels, an increasingly and disproportionate number of hulls were disgorging their wares on the dark and low-lying beaches along the Outer Banks. After a lengthy exercise to master numerous obstacles, the U.S. government purchased four acres of land for $50 from a Currituck family [and estate] named Jennett. When the deed was finally conveyed to the Federal government, the “lighthouse had already been under construction for two seasons and its castle-like, octagonal stone rampart was by far the tallest manmade structure on the island” (Duffus 2003:19). Despite constantly combatting erosion due to storm surges and gales especially during the annual hurricane and northeaster cycles, the builders prevailed and the lighthouse was illuminated in October 1803 (Duffus 2003:19). By 1808, a series of small islands developed in the sound immediately west of Roanoke Inlet, and navigation became especially hazardous. Trade through Port Roanoke finally ceased when the inlet closed in 1811. In 1828, Currituck Inlet to the north also closed, leaving the Albemarle region dependent upon facilities at Ocracoke, a considerable distance to the south. Figure 19 shows the coastline as of 1833. As part of a program to improve coastal navigation that was heavily supported by North Carolina legislator Archibald Murphy, construction of an inlet near Roanoke Island was proposed in 1816, 1820, 1829, 1840, and 1853. None of the proposals received necessary statewide political support (Dunbar 1958:26; Lefler 1965:199-205). In 1837, Congress did appropriate 5,000 U.S. dollars to build a lighthouse on Pea Island, near New Inlet. Captain Charles W. Skinner upon inspecting the site for the Navy Board found it unsatisfactory and recommended that the lighthouse be built upon another site farther north on Bodie Island. This seems to be the first printed use of “Pea Island”, but it must have been in use earlier as Pea Island was no longer an island after Roanoke Inlet between the former and Bodie Island closed in 1811 (Stick 1958: 282). The MacRae- Brazier Map of 1833 clearly illustrates the closed status of Roanoke Inlet (Figure 24). When plans for the lighthouse to be constructed on Pea Island north of Chicamacomico Inlet were revealed, the inhabitants of the area demanded that it be placed farther north on Bodie Island. The uproar they created kept anything from being decided until 1848. One factor complicating the decision was the opening of new inlets during a storm in the fall of 1846. On 7 September 1846, an intense storm drove water across the Outer Banks and 40 created two relatively small inlets. An assistant superintendent with the United States Survey was stationed on Bodie Island when the storm occurred and observed that: On the morning of the September gale the sound waters were all piled up to the southeast, from the effects of the northeast blow of the previous days. The weather was clear, nearly calm, until about 11 a. m., when a sudden squall came up from the southwest, and the waters came upon the beach with such fury that Mr. Midgett, within three quarters of a mile of his house when the storm began, was unable to reach it until four in the afternoon. He sat upon his horse on a small sand knoll, for five hours, and witnessed the destruction of his property and (as he then supposed) of his family also, without the power to move a foot to their rescue, and, for two hours, expecting every moment to be swept to sea himself. The force of the water coming in so suddenly, and having a head of two or three feet, broke through the small portion of sea beach which had formed since the March gale, and created the inlets. They were insignificant at first-- not more than twenty feet wide-- and the northern one much the deepest and the widest. In the westerly winds which prevailed in September, the current from the sound gradually widened them; and then in the October gale, they came about as wide as they are now. The northern one has since been gradually filling, and is now a mere hole at the low water... [but the southern one] between high water marks, measured on the line, is 202 yards [wide and] between low water marks, 107 yards (C. O. Boutelle quoted in: Stick 1958:279- 280). Although the northern inlet closed, the southern inlet continued to develop. It quickly became an important channel for vessels operating in both the Albemarle and Pamlico Sound (Angley 1985: 6). The inlet is said to have received its name from the steamboat Oregon, which was owned by merchant W. H. Willard, of Washington, North Carolina, when it passed through the inlet in June 1848 (Free Press, 8 July 1848; Sharpe 1954:104). 41 Figure 24. The MacRae-Brazier map dated 1833. 42 While Oregon Inlet provided the Albemarle region with a new Atlantic access, the shallow bar and shifting channels in the inlet made navigation difficult. Consequently, this elusive waterway was principally used by shallow draft vessels. Even navigation by small vessels was not without risk and the U.S. Coast Survey Chart of Bodies Island produced in 1849 identifies three wrecks in the inlet (Figure 25). Within a few years of its formation, navigation in Oregon Inlet came to the attention of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Considerable local support developed for improving Oregon Inlet and several proposals were made in Congress to provide support. Other priorities prevailed, however, and it would be more that a century before improvements to the channel would be approved and funded. Figure 25. U.S. Coast Survey, topographic sheet, Bodies Island dated 1849. 43 While navigation in the inlet remained hazardous, Congress did approve the construction of a lighthouse near Oregon Inlet. The first Bodie Island Lighthouse was constructed south of the inlet during 1847-1848 (Republican, 5 May 1847, Angley 1985: 6-7). The lighthouse was 56.5 feet tall and its light had a range of 12 nautical miles (North State Whig 19 January 1848, Free Press, 8 July 1848). Unfortunately, it fell into disrepair shortly after its construction, and in 1857 an appropriation of 25,000 dollars was required for building a second structure and procuring a new lens. The second lighthouse began its operation on 1 July 1859 (Times Daily 18 July 1872; Stick 1958: 277-278). The Bodie Island beacon was welcomed by those navigating North Carolina coastal waters, but it did not stop the loss of vessels in the Oregon Inlet vicinity. The same month that the second lighthouse began operations, the schooner Spy of Plymouth was wrecked on the beach three miles below the lighthouse (Democratic Pioneer 26 July 1859). The Spy carried a valuable cargo of pork, beef, fish, oils, paints, flour, sugar, bricks, gunney cloth, rope, shoes, hats, furniture, dry goods, doors, blinds, spirits, tobacco, butter, and cheese. Cargo salvaged from the wreck and rights to the vessel's remains were sold by Captain S. A. Baum [Commissioner of Wrecks] on 18 July 1859 (Democratic Pioneer 26 July 1859). Civil War Period 1860-1865 During the Civil War, the Confederate States Government and the State of North Carolina initiated construction of a series of fortifications designed to provide for the defense of the Outer Banks of North Carolina, but both the plan and the resources to carry it out were limited. The result was a series of hastily constructed defenses that included Fort Oregon, located south of the inlet between the breakers and the Bodie Island lighthouse (Angley 1985:7). North Carolina also began a buildup of naval forces to protect the sound and inlets. The "Mosquito Fleet" consisted of four vessels, the Winslow, Ellis, Raleigh, and Beaufort. The Winslow, under the command of Captain Thomas M. Crossan, was a side-wheel steamer armed with a single 32-pound gun. The other three vessels were small river boats such as the Beaufort which was 94 feet long, a 17-foot beam, carried a compliment of 35 officers and men, and mounted one 32-pounder on its bow. These three small river craft were sent to operate on the inland sounds and waterways, while the Winslow was ordered to Hatteras Inlet (Figure 26) to harass the enemy and capture coastal shipping. She was able to capture sixteen enemy vessels (Stick 1958:118). When the United States government received information that "pirates" were operating out of Oregon Inlet and that supplies were being run through the inlet, plans were devised to block the channel. The plan called for scuttling a number of stone-laden schooners. However, there is no historical evidence that the plan was ever implemented (Angley 1985:8). 44 Figure 26. Contemporary chart depicting Hatteras Inlet details (Harper’s Weekly 15 February 1862:103). 45 Instead, a joint Army and Navy force was dispatched to the North Carolina Outer Banks from Hampton Roads, Virginia, on 26 August 1861. The naval force, commanded by Commodore Silas H. Stringham, consisted of seven vessels mounting 143 guns. Stringham's fleet included the warships Minnesota, Wabash, Susquehanna, Pawnee, Monticello, Harriet Lane, and Cumberland. The land force, under the command of General Benjamin F. Butler, consisted of 880 men from the Ninth and Twentieth New York Volunteers, and detachments from the Union Coast Guard and Second U.S. Artillery. These troops were transported south on the tug Fanny, and the chartered steamers Adelaide and George Peabody (Stick 1958:120). Figure 27. U.S. joint naval and army forces bombarding Hatteras Inlet fortifications in August 1861 published by Currier & Ives (Courtesy Library of Congress). On arrival at Hatteras Inlet on 28 August, the warships began bombarding Fort Clarke. By the end of the day, it was under the control of Union officers. The next morning, the Federal force began shelling Fort Hatteras. After only a brief bombardment the Confederate garrison also surrendered (Figure 27). Upon learning of the attack on the forts, the Confederates sent a relieving force consisting of the Third Georgia Regiment from Norfolk onboard the steam tug Junaluska. The fall of both forts left the Confederate reinforcements without a practical mission and they landed on Roanoke Island on 30 August. After disembarking its troops the Junaluska went to Oregon Inlet and a council was held at Fort Oregon. 46 It was decided to evacuate the men and guns to Roanoke Island and join with other Confederate forces in resisting General Burnside. As they abandoned the fort, retreating Confederates destroyed the second Bodie Island Lighthouse (Stick 1958:129, 280). Meanwhile, supply lines were being established by the Federal force between Hatteras and Newport News, Virginia. In September, a detachment of men arrived to supplement those left to guard the Confederate forts. The Union gunboats Ceres and Putnam joined the three vessels that had been left by the original invading force, the Pawnee, Monticello, and Fanny. Fearing an attack, the commander of the Union detachments sent 600 men to the north end of Hatteras Island to set up a camp at Chicamacomico (Stick 1958: 130-131). The Confederate force on Roanoke Island mounted a rifled naval thirty-two pounder on the bow of the side-wheel steamer Curlew. The vessel, under the command of Commodore Lynch and manned by recruits from the Third Georgia Infantry, set out with the Junaluska and Raleigh towards Chicamacomico. Battle was initiated on 1 October 1861, when the small Confederate squadron met the Union steam tug Fanny. After only a 15-minute battle, the Fanny (Figure 28) was taken by Confederates, thus accomplishing their first capture of an armed ship (Stick 1958:132). On 5 October, two regiments of Confederate infantrymen were loaded onto the steamers Curlew, Cotton Plant, Raleigh, Fanny, Empire, and Junaluska and transported to a point about three miles off Chicamacomico in Pamlico Sound. The Cotton Plant was able to get about a mile closer in towards shore than the other vessels because of its shallower draft. A company of artillery along with two 6-pound boat howitzers and two companies of infantry disembarked into the shallow water and waded towards the shoreline, firing at the Union troops stationed on the beach. The other vessels headed south in an attempt to land their troops behind the Union forces. Seeing that they might be encircled, the Federals rapidly retreated to Fort Hatteras. Their pursuit by Confederates has been called the “Chicamacomico Races” (Stick 1958:133-136). Upon returning to Roanoke Island after the attack on Chicamacomico, Confederates set about fortifying their positions. Across Crotoan Sound, heavy pilings were sunk along with old sand-filled vessels. This strategy created a line of obstructions with only a few openings large enough to permit friendly vessel passage. An old canal boat was grounded opposite Redstone Point at the western end of the line of pilings and hulks. A battery of eight guns mounted upon the deck of the grounded hulk was called Fort Forrest. 47 Figure 28. The US tugboat Fanny captured by Confederates (Carbone 2001:18). On the eastern end at Roanoke Island, three forts were constructed. Fort Huger, which mounted twelve guns, was located at Weir Point, north of the piling line. Fort Blanchard, which had only four guns, was located a half-mile to the south of the line. Fort Bartow with eight guns was located on Pork Point near the line but invisible from the water (Stick 1958: 137). On 11 January 1862, a flotilla of more than 80 Federal vessels, composed of sailing boats, North River barges, and large passenger steamers, sailed from Newport News and arrived off Hatteras Inlet on 13 January. Land forces were under the command of General Ambrose Burnside and U.S. Navy divisions were under the direction of Admiral Louis M. Goldsborough. After arriving at the inlet, gales and storms prevented the Fleet from passing over the shallow sand bars and into the Pamlico Sound. The foul weather also caused the stranding and loss of five vessels; City of New York, Grapeshot, Pocahontas, Louisiana, and the Zouave (Figure 29; Figure 30; Figure 31). 48 Figure 29. Federal vessels encountering foul weather off Hatteras Inlet. Figure 30. Loss of the City of New York at Hatteras Inlet (Harper’s Weekly 15 February 1862:104-105). 49 Figure 31. Contemporary montage showing wreck of the Zouave in Hatteras Inlet, Union transports and Hatteras Island scenes (Harper’s Weekly 15 February 1862:101). 50 The City of New York, a 574-ton screw steamer transporting troops for the operation, foundered east of Hatteras Inlet on 13 January 1862 (Shomette 1973:36-37). The aging side- wheel steamer Pocahontas was also lost (Figure 32) while engaged in transporting horses and equipment to support the invasion of North Carolina near Rodanthe on 18 January 1862 (Delgado 1984:62). Once within the sound, grounded Union vessels were easier to refloat and losses were almost eliminated. On 4 February, the remainder of the Union fleet was finally able to pass the bar and sail for Roanoke Island. Figure 32. Shipwreck of the Pocahontas near Rodanthe on 13 January 1862 (Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper 15 March 1862:273). Confederate defense of Roanoke Island had been given to General Henry A. Wise, but as he was suffering from pneumonia, command was transferred to Colonel H. M. Shaw. Under the command of Commodore Lynch, a fleet of nine vessels--Black Warrior, Seabird, Appomattox, Ellis, Curlew, Forrest, Raleigh, Beaufort, and Fanny-- each with one 32- pounder, also guarded the island (Stick 1958:141-142). Union forces arrived off Roanoke and began shelling the Confederate batteries and gunboats on 7 February. The Confederate gunboat Curlew was hit and ran aground in front of Fort Forrest, blocking the battery's line of fire. The Forrest was also struck by enemy fire and forced to withdraw. By nightfall the Confederate fleet was out of ammunition and retreated up Albemarle Sound toward Elizabeth City (Stick 1958:143). Union land troops continued to land at Ashby's Harbor until late in the night. The next morning the 7,500-man force began an attack on the Confederate defenses and by nightfall had captured the island with only light losses on each side (Stick 1958:144-148). The fall of Roanoke Island, on 8 February 1862, provided the United States with a base of operations that supported the closures of Albemarle and Pamlico sounds to Confederate commerce for the duration of the war. Along with the captures of Hatteras Inlet and Fort 51 Macon, “organized Confederate resistance” on the Outer Banks was generally suppressed (Stick 1958:152-153). A routine account by Master Woodward of the USS Shawsheen stationed at Hatteras Inlet on 5 April 1862 described the local maritime scene with a variety of watercraft as such: I proceeded to the inlet [Hatteras] with schooner Napoleon and towed her to sea without much trouble; the took lighter alongside the schooner E. J. Raynor to lighten her; supplied myself with coals from the Charlotte Williams, she being the deepest draft…gave orders to schooner Neptune to proceed to Roanoke island…these being all the coal schooners in the inlet for the Navy. Found the schooner Charles H. Moller with stores; gave him orders, after towing him over the swash…After lightening the Raynor up to 8 feet, towed him over the swash. Went to the steamer Suwanee, took 73 boxes of shell for 100 pounder Parrott guns, the boxes in bad condition, and one cask of packing; then took lighter up over the swash and put ammunition on board the Raynor again…Having done all as directed…I left the inlet for New Berne…Passed on the way here schooner C. H. Moller, bound here, and schooner Palma, bound out (National Historical Society, ser. 1, v. 7, 1987:202). On the last day of December 1862, one of the more famous [modern perspective] Civil War Era shipwrecks occurred off Hatteras Island, when the USS Monitor foundered some 16 miles SSE of the Cape Hatteras Light in 225 feet of water (Figure 33). The ironclad steamer was being towed by the USS Rhode Island, in concert with the Passaic being towed by USS State of Georgia, when the Federal vessels encountered severe squalls (Berman 1973:148; Broadwater 2012 8-10). Owing to its historic status and the volume of public interest, the shipwreck site was “designated the first National Marine Sanctuary” on 30 January 1975 by the U.S. Department of Commerce secretary with approval by President Gerald Ford (Watts 1985:315). At this time of the Monitor’s tragic demise, some 1200 individuals lived on Hatteras Island and of this number nearly half were housed west of the lighthouse (Figure 34). Approximately 100 slaves were included in the larger figure, and the majority of all residents were dispersed in just over 200 dwellings (Stick 1958:154). Only the contemporary village of Hatteras was known by its present-day name; and a nearby small village was simply called “The Cape” (Stick 1958:154). 52 Figure 33. Tragic loss of the USS Monitor off Cape Hatteras. Figure 34. Map of Hatteras Island drawn 1864 by Union engineer (Courtesy National Archives Cartographic Section). 53 Figure 35. Architectural sketch of the Cape Hatteras lighthouse prepared in 1869 (courtesy National Archives). 54 Following the Civil War proposals were also developed for improving navigation in Oregon Inlet, but government surveys carried out in 1873-1874 and again in 1882 determined that dredging the inlet as impractical. Several other improvements to navigation were initiated (U.S. Congress 1874:85). The new Hatteras Light had been constructed (Figure 35) and was illuminated by 17 December 1870 (Duffus 2003:161-163). To provide a measure of safety for vessels navigating in the vicinity of Oregon Inlet, a third Bodie Island Lighthouse was built to replace the one destroyed by retreating Confederates. Constructed on a site bought for $150 from John B. Etheridge in 1871-1872, that lighthouse ultimately cost $14,000 (U.S. Congress 1883:2). Work began on the 150-foot structure on 1 October 1872 (Stick 1958: 277-278; Figure 36). During construction of the new lighthouse five sailing vessels were wrecked off Bodie Island, confirming the need for a navigation aid in the area (Times Daily 18 July 1872). From December 1873 to December 1874, the U.S. Lifesaving Service built seven new stations at Little Kinnakeet, Chicamacomico, Bodie Island, Kitty Hawk Beach, Nag's Head, Jones' Hill, and Caffrey's Inlet. Due to continued loss of life on the Outer Banks from vessel losses, the service built eleven more stations during the winter of 1878-1879. These were located at Tommy's Hummock (located north of Oregon Inlet and later renamed Bodie Island), Pea Island, Cedar Hummock, Big Kinnakeet, Creed's Hill, Hatteras, Deal's Island, Old Currituck Inlet, Poyner's Hill, Paul Gamiel's Hill, and Kill Devil Hills. Later in 1883, the service built a station at New Inlet (Stick 1958: 173). The Pea Island Life Station, which was opened in 1879 operated until 1946. For 63 years this highly efficient facility operated as an all Negro-manned station (Sharpe 1954:103). In 1870, the Church brothers from Rhode Island opened a menhaden processing plant at Oregon Inlet (Dunbar 1958: 231). The plant was closed two years later because of hazardous navigation in the inlet, the limited supply of menhaden, and the lack of oil in the fish that were being caught in the sounds (Dunbar 1958:149 and Angley 1985:8-9). Only a year after the Church brothers closed their plant, the Corps of Engineers surveyed Oregon Inlet to assess the feasibility of improving navigation. Their plan was designed to improve access to the Oregon Inlet passage to Albemarle Sound and thus reduce by 120 miles the distance vessels arriving from northern ports would have to travel to ports in the sound. The survey determined that the advantages of the plan did not justify its projected cost. A particularly important consideration in the decision was the southward migration of the inlet (Angley 1985:9; U.S. Congress 1874:85). Although nineteenth-century commercial fishing registered only nominal success in the Oregon Inlet vicinity, independent fishermen enjoyed success at Oregon Inlet and sport fishing became an important source of local income. By 1875, plentiful blue fish represented an important resource for both commercial and sport fisherman (Economist, 24 November 1875). Drum also became an important source of revenue for the area. Two years later that same Elizabeth City newspaper reported that "the sound near Oregon is alive with old drums 55 Figure 36. Modern image of the Bodie Island light, built 1872 (courtesy National Park Service). 56 and trolling furnishes sport and happiness to many an angler" (Economist, 6 June 1877). Herring also became an important resource and smoked herring brought two cents apiece in 1877 (Economist, 9 May 1877). By 1891, Captain John Ward of Roanoke Island was offering "choice Oregon Inlet herrings" that were described as the "best in North Carolina" at $5.50 per thousand (Economist, 5 May 1891). By 1876, sizable ocean vessels were also using Oregon Inlet to gain access to the Albemarle. On 23 August 1876, the Elizabeth City Economist reported that six large vessels had navigated the inlet within the past month and the editor observed that "with proper help the water would be deepened all the way through" (Economist 23 August 1876). In April 1878, there was about 12 feet of water on the bar at Oregon Inlet and a schooner of 200 tons was reported to have crossed without incident (Economist 23 April 1878). In 1882, increased use prompted the Corps of Engineers to re-examined plans for improving navigation channels at Oregon Inlet. However, the constant migration south and volatile nature of the inlet environment still proved to be major stumbling blocks to cost-effective improvements. The inlet was found to have moved south and widened to about 500 yards since the previous survey. The channel had deepened, however, and vessels drawing 11 feet could pass though at high water while those drawing nine feet could pass when the tide was out. The Corps of Engineers also noted that on the sound side, Old House Channel ran away to the southwest and was both crooked and highly active. The channel over the bar was more constant but still liable to change in response to storm energy. The high-energy environment made any attempt at improving the inlet costly if not futile. In 1897, the Oregon Inlet Coast Guard Station was built on the north end of Pea Island. The building was remodeled in 1933 and 1970 and was in use up until December 1988. The station was evacuated due to the constant erosion on the end of the island from the southward movement of Oregon Inlet. The station is listed on the NRHP as being the "oldest active Coast Guard Station in the State of North Carolina" (N.C. Department of Transportation 1989:C-3). 57 A letter forwarded to the U.S. life-saving service superintendent in December 1895 confirms that the Little Sampson of Buxton was engaged in commercial fishing. On 13 October of that year the schooner sailed from Buxton “for Elizabeth City, North Carolina, with a cargo of fresh fish” (United States Life-Saving Service [USLSS] 1897:257). Later that day, the vessel “was driven ashore on a reef in consequence of a gale”, however, due to the efforts of the Gull Shoal station, the Little Sampson was refloated a few days later (USLSS 1897:257). At the time of the mishap, the seven-ton schooner was under the command of Master Barnett and carried finfish valued at $120 (USLLS 1897:316-317). Another contemporary and popular vessel plying late-nineteenth-century Dare County waters was the sharpie (Stick 1958:179; Figure 37). Contemporary records compiled by District Six station heads (Cape Henry to Cape Fear) identified Dare County vessels including the schooner I. D. Jane of Hatteras [Avon], the sloop Little Inez of Kinnakeet, the sailboat Mary Caroline of Roanoke Island, the sailboat Rosette of Roanoke Island, the schooner Dorcas Jane of Big Kinnakeet, and one unknown “Fish boat” of Hatteras. The outbound cargoes carried aboard these vessels appeared to be chiefly fish or oysters (Figure 38), and inbound cargoes brought to their homeports included corn and wood, and “General” merchandise (USLSS 1897:316-317). Figure 37. Drawing of North Carolina sharpie, 1891 (Chapelle 1961:143). A highly visible vessel near Cape Hatteras seen at its official station was the Diamond Shoal lightship. This vessel served local watercraft, coastwise traders and foreign shipping in one of the most dangerous seaways in North America. Ironically, one of the lightships (Figure 39) survived the horrific effects of the San Ciriaco hurricane during August 1899, when the government-owned vessel was swept on the beach (Hairr 2001:72). Another would be destroyed some 19 years later by a German submarine stalking shipping along the Atlantic seaboard. 58 Figure 38. Outer Banks oyster boat (b. 1889) that sailed waters of Dare County for decades (Hairr 2001:81). Figure 39. Diamond Shoals lightship beached after 1899 San Ciriaco hurricane (Hairr 2001:72). 59 Twentieth-Century Development An interesting story published by The Washington Herald in January 1909 touched on local activities at Kill Devil Hills. Owing to the historic flight undertaken by the Wright brothers at that location, the small North Carolina town was known in international circles. An excerpt from the District of Columbian newspaper printed on 17 January follows: Reliable information from Kill Devil Hills, N.C. is that the Wright brothers, now in Europe, are making preparations there for experiments with an improved aeroplane, said to be far in advance of the machine which they are now using…When the Wrights left Kill Devil Hills last spring after a series of flights, which startled the world, and proved that navigation of the air with heavier than air machines was a fact, they announced that they would ‘probably return some day.’ At Kill Devil Hills the combined aerodrome workshop and living apartments of the Wrights is still intact, and in it is much aeroplane paraphernalia. It is believed that the departure of Orville Wright for Europe is for the purpose of hastening the conclusion of business deals there, that the experiments at Kill Devil Hills may be continued (The Washington Herald 17 January 1909). Although Dare County principally remained remote and underdeveloped in the years preceding The Great War, Gannon (1991:243) remarked that due to the brisk shipping passing along its barrier islands, “German U-boats worked the adjacent waters in 1918 destroying (by torpedo, mine, or driving aground) six tankers, a schooner, a bark, and the Diamond Shoals Lightship.” Some of these war losses are identified in Attachment A. In respect to military activities carried out in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras in the postwar period, a controversial bombing experiment was conducted by Brigadier General William Mitchell. According to Branch (2006), Mitchell “had demonstrated in 1921 what many naval strategists considered impossible-that battleships could be destroyed from the air-when he used airplanes to sink an old surplus battleship” off the coast of Virginia. In September 1923, Mitchell: [S]et up the experiment off Cape Hatteras to determine if battleships could be sunk by high-level bombing and to measure the potential for aircraft being called into combat from long distances to intercept a hostile warship. The target vessels, which were to be scrapped under postwar naval limitation treaties, were the 14,949-ton New Jersey and Virginia, built between 1902 and 1906 at a cost of $6 million each and anchored 18 miles southeast of Cape Hatteras (Branch 2006). The initial air attack was made by planes flying in from Langley Airfield in Virginia, some 175 miles to the north, while Mitchell’s own planes flew out to the site from a make-shift airfield located on Hatteras Island. In the aftermath, the two vessels were successfully 60 destroyed; the Virginia sank in 30 minutes, and the New Jersey disappeared in the ocean within minutes (Branch 2006). Due to his popularity with Hatteras Islanders, the airfield at Buxton was eventually named for “Billy” Mitchell (Hairr 2001:85). The development of a lucrative fishing industry at Manteo increased pressure to improve navigation between that island and the Atlantic, which affected the region including the project area. In 1910 and 1911, dredging was begun to link Shallowbag Bay with Oregon Inlet. Proposed improvements called for a 6-foot-deep, 100-foot- wide channel across Shallowbag. Maintenance dredging of this channel was carried out in 1916, 1929, and 1934 (Angley 1985:12-13). The next step in the process of linking Manteo with Oregon Inlet was proposed in 1927. The Corps of Engineers investigated the feasibility of maintaining a 6- foot-deep, 150-foot-wide channel from Manteo through Roanoke Sound and into the main channel across the Pamlico Sound. However, It was not until 1940/1941 that a channel of this nature was approved and work completed. It was approximately 13 miles long at the same depth as the 1927 proposal, but for economy the channel was dredged some 50 feet more narrow (Angley 1985:13). The improvements were designed to stimulate local commerce and improve navigation for the 5,000 to 15,000 vessels that navigated between Roanoke Island and Oregon Inlet (Angley 1985: 14). By 1940, local interest groups began to push for additional improvements to the channel from Manteo to Oregon Inlet and called for dredging and maintaining a channel through the inlet itself. They believed that this would "stimulate further growth in the fishing industry, increase salinity in the sounds, and provide a badly needed place of refuge for deep- sea trawlers fishing along the Outer Banks" (Angley 1985: 14). Three years earlier the Elizabeth City Daily Advance reported that there were "100 boats occupied in the fishing industry around Oregon Inlet" and recorded that "President Roosevelt asked about fishing at Oregon Inlet" in conjunction with a visit to Roanoke Island in August 1937 (Daily Advance 23 June 1937). The newspaper went on to report the sport fishing for drum and channel bass at Oregon Inlet, "annually attracts thousands of sportsmen from northern cities as well as nearby towns" and each year brings approximately $100,000 into the economy of Dare County (Daily Advance 23 June 1937). Other significant regional infrastructure improvements were constructed and installed during the pre-World War II era as depicted by a 1938 Dare County map prepared by the North Carolina State Highway and Public Works Commission. In addition to relevant extracts taken from the publication that includes the Currituck County Township of Duck, the map’s legend is also included to convey the impressive extent of the “modern” improvements (Figure 40; Figure 41, and Figure 42). In Operation Drumbeat, Gannon (1991) provides an excellent overview of Germany’s initial World War II Unterseeboot attacks along the vulnerable Outer Banks, which focused on the waters off Cape Hatteras. Specifically, the work sheds light on the remarkable albeit terrifying exploits of Reinhard Hardegen, commander of U-123 as the Bremen-born former Naval airman carried out Operation Paukenschlag. The German High Command astutely 61 recognized that the destruction of civilian maritime commerce making the critical turn at Cape Hatteras would cripple the United States military and its allies. A dramatic photograph taken on 26 March 1942 shows the devastating torpedo attack on the Dixie Arrow off Cape Hatteras by U-71 (Figure 43). This “Second Battle of the Atlantic” period was boldly called [in translation] “The Second Happy Time” or the “American shooting season” by many German submarine commanders. An additional image depicts the massive tanker in the previous month (Figure 44). At the time of its destruction, the 8046- ton Dixie Arrow was transporting 96,000 barrels of crude oil from Texas to New Jersey. War losses from this period are identified, when possible, in Attachment A. 62 Figure 40. Extract from 1938 Dare County map (North Carolina State Highway & Public Works Commission [SH&PWC] 1938). 63 Figure 41. Extract of 1938 Dare County map (SH&PWC 1938). 64 Figure 42. Legend from 1938 Dare County map (SH&PWC 1938). 65 Figure 43. U-71 attacks Dixie Arrow off Cape Hatteras in March 1942 (U.S. Coast Guard [USCG] photo from McKay Collection). Figure 44. Image of Dixie Arrow, 11 February 1942 (USCG photo from McKay Collection). In 1950, Congress gave approval for a 14-foot-by-400-foot channel across the ocean bar at Oregon Inlet and also authorized maintenance dredging of Old House Channel, Manteo- Oregon Inlet channel, and a channel from Manteo Oregon Inlet channel to Wanchese. A 200-foot-by- 600-foot basin was to be dredged at Manteo and a 200-foot-square harbor 66 created at Wanchese (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987). To stabilize the inlet channel and deter its southward migration, the Corps proposed the idea of building two rubble-mound jetties. The jetties would extend seaward from either shoulder of the inlet and stabilize the channel. After careful consideration this plan was not deemed economical (Angley 1985: 16). By 1950, the Outer Banks' reputation as a recreational area was increasing rapidly. The town of Nags Head became a popular resort and that popularity provided support for rapid commercial development of the oceanfront. In addition, sport-fishing boats catering to the tourist joined the fishing fleets operating out of Oregon Inlet. Vessel traffic substantially increased the demand for improvements to navigation and political support for such projects. Over the next ten years the Corps worked to meet the channel specification outlined in 1950. After the National Park Service opened the Cape Hatteras National Seashore in 1953, demands for ferry transportation across Oregon Inlet increased dramatically (Angley 1985:17). By 1957, a 12-foot-deep channel was dredged across Oregon Inlet from the north ferry slip on Bodie Island to Pea Island. This channel was maintained over the course of the following two years by the hopper dredge Barracuda. Navigating the inlet remained a hazardous endeavor, however, and the ferry was frequently delayed by stranded fishing boats blocking the narrow channel (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1959; Angley 1985:16). In response to these problems local residents began to lobby for an Oregon Inlet bridge. In August 1961, politician Herbert C. Bonner suggested to his colleagues in Congress that a bridge, financed by both state and Federal revenue, should be built across the inlet. Shortly after Bonner's petition was approved, specifications for the bridge were developed. According to Angley (1985:17), “the structure would be two and a half miles long, ...would curve westerly over the inlet, ...[and] would be twenty eight feet wide and elevated sixty-five feet above the water". The historic opening of the Bonner Bridge provided ready access to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore and attracted countless tourists to all parts of remote Dare County, including access to the northern Outer Banks. This event stimulated the origins of the modern economy of the project area. Outer Banks Area Shipwrecks Historical source materials for the earliest periods of exploration and colonization are extremely limited and contain few geographically specific details. This was primarily a factor of the state-of-the-art of navigation. In later periods shipwreck references become more frequent, but until well into the twentieth century, location data was rarely accurate. This was because of the limitations of navigational accuracy and the methods of communicating and recording wreck-specific information. In addition, the loss of a vessel, cargo, and crew was certainly more important than the precise location of the disaster. Those complications make exact correlation of historical shipwreck information with remote- sensing data difficult under most circumstances. However, an inventory of documented vessel losses off Dare County provides a basis for preliminary vessel specific association 67 with remote-sensing targets. This inventory, which covers the coast from Currituck Inlet to Hatteras Inlet, is added as Attachment A. The remains of vessels from Sir Francis Drake's fleet preserve evidence associated with the earliest English colony in the New World on Roanoke Island. Other sixteenth-century shipwreck sites have provided information about the Spanish conquest and colonization of the Americas. Vessels lost during the seventeenth century represent sources of data concerning the exploration and earliest permanent settlement along the North Carolina coast. Evidence of our colonial development and Revolutionary War survives in association with shipwreck sites of the eighteenth century. Nineteenth-century vessel remains document one of the most dynamic period of United States maritime history, during which dramatic changes took place in the design and construction of ships. During the Civil War considerable maritime and naval activity took place along the North Carolina Outer Banks and many Union and Confederate vessels were sunk. Evidence of modern ship development and the ultimate decline of American maritime power survives in the remains of twentieth- century shipwrecks. Those include the last working sailing vessels as well as steamers, submarines, and warships. The remains of vessels provide valuable opportunities to examine and reconstruct important aspects of our maritime heritage that frequently have not survived in the written historical record. Historic shipwrecks contain information concerning the design and construction of vessels that was never a part of the written record. Well into the twentieth century, shipwrights continued to build vessels without benefit of plans or documentation. Although the displacement of shipwrights by engineers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries brought increasing documentation, much of that evidence has not survived. This makes shipwrecks one of the most important sources of data concerning the evolution of vessel architecture and construction. Ships and small vessels provided the most important element of trade and transportation system until late in the nineteenth century. They were the essential element of European exploration and development of the western hemisphere. Because of the instrumental role vessels played in that historical process, their remains contain an important record of the evolving material culture in the area. Artifacts associated with wrecks provide insight into shipboard life that permits the reconstruction of historic lifeways. Material carried as cargo reflects the development of the economic system that supported European development of North America. Cargo also reflects the development of technologies associated with virtually every aspect of life along the Atlantic seaboard. Previous Remote-Sensing Investigations Between 1997 and 1998, two surveys, under separate contracts, were undertaken by Mid- Atlantic Technology and Environmental Research, Inc. of Castle Hayne, North Carolina in order to ensure that no significant shipwrecks or cultural resources would be adversely impacted by offshore dredging designed to renourish beaches between Oregon Inlet and Kitty 68 Hawk (Hall 1999). Two separate borrow areas were surveyed; one offshore from Kitty Hawk, the other east of Nags Head. In addition, a terrestrial reconnaissance was conducted to identify any exposed shipwreck remains along the beach. As a result of these surveys, three single-source magnetic anomalies were identified in the borrow areas offshore from Kitty Hawk. No targets were discovered in the borrow area near Nags Head. No additional investigation was recommended. In 2009, TAR carried out a remote-sensing survey of three offshore borrow sites located east of Nags Head, North Carolina. Those sites were surveyed for Coastal Science and Engineering, Inc. (CSE). CSE was working with the Town of Nags Head to identify a source of beach nourishment quality sand to restore local beaches. That survey was carried out between 2 and 5 July 2009. Analysis of the remote-sensing data generated during the survey identified a total of six magnetic and no acoustic anomalies in Area 1 and no magnetic or acoustic targets in Areas 2 and 3. These six magnetic anomalies, grouped in two clusters, had signature characteristics suggestive of potentially significant cultural material. Avoidance of these two target clusters was recommended by the creation of 400-foot diameter buffers around each site. Survey Weather Conditions Weather conditions during survey operations varied considerably as is almost always the case during any extended period in the autumn season off the North Carolina Outer Banks. At the start of the survey on 20 October 2014, winds were northeast at about 10 knots and seas were three to four feet under a partly cloudy sky. On 21 October winds shifted to the southwest and remained about 10 knots. Seas moderated to between two and three feet under a partly cloudy sky. On the following day, conditions were was overcast and the wind shifted to the northwest and increased all day from 15 to above 20 knots in advance of a storm. Due to inclement weather, survey operations were suspended and the Thunderforce cruised to Portsmouth, Virginia in eight to ten foot seas. Surveying resumed on 25 October. The sea state was two to three feet and winds were north- northwest from five to seven knots. The sky was clear with pleasant temperatures. On 26 October 2014 wind increased early to 10 to 15 knots gusting to 20 and seas increased from four to six feet. By late afternoon conditions improved with winds and seas dropping. The sky remained clear all day. By 27 October, winds shifted from southwest to northwest with speeds from five to ten knots under a clear sky. On the final day of operations winds were southwest to south-southwest and blowing five to eight knots. Seas remained at two to three feet all day under a clear sky. 69 Survey Data Analysis Magnetometer Data Analysis Analysis of the magnetic data generated by the Borrow Site A and Borrow Site B surveys was carried out using HYPACK 2014 and QUICKSURF. Each line of raw magnetic data was reviewed and edited using HYPACK’S “single beam editor” to identify and characterize anomalies and remove spurious data. Edited data files were saved and then sorted to produce georeferenced x, y, z format data for contouring. Each anomaly was saved as a target file and the line number, target number on line, signature characteristics, gamma intensity and signature duration used to identify the anomaly. Using QUICKSURF contouring software, magnetic data generated during the survey were contour plotted at 5-gamma intervals for additional analysis, accurate location and graphic representation. An EXCEL spreadsheet, which contained each of those characteristics and an assessment of potential significance was created for the anomalies. This spreadsheet was used to create a shapefile for inclusion into a project GIS. The contoured data was edited in AutoCAD and the contours saved as a DWG or DXF for inclusion in the project GIS. Potentially significant anomalies and/or anomaly clusters were buffered and recommended for avoidance or additional investigation. Sonar Data Analysis Sidescan sonar acoustic records were analyzed using Chesapeake Technology’s SONARWIZ software. Each line of data was reviewed to identify targets on the basis of configuration, areal extent, target intensity and contrast with background, elevation and shadow image. Each target image was imported into an Excel spreadsheet file that contained an assessment of potential significance for both of the survey areas. Those Excel spreadsheets were used to create shapefiles of Borrow Area A and Borrow Area C for inclusion in a project GIS. SONARWIZ software was also used to create a mosaic of each of the survey areas. Potentially significant sonar targets and/or target clusters were buffered and recommended for avoidance or additional investigation. Sub-bottom Profiler Data Analysis Sub-bottom profiler acoustic records were analyzed using SONARWIZ software. Each line of data was reviewed to identify features that could be associated with anomalies and sonar targets. Features that represent relict landforms were also identified to determine if there might be a potential association with prehistoric submerged cultural resources. Each landform image was captured and included in a target report produced with SONARWIZ software. 70 Description of Findings Borrow Area A Acoustic data generated by the survey of Borrow Area A produced in excess of 200 percent coverage of the bottom surface (Figure 45). Analysis of the acoustic data identified 10 sonar targets (Attachment B). One of the sonar targets is a small single object, three are bottom surface features and the remaining six appear to be sections of pipe, cable, logs or pilings (Attachment C). None have an association with any of the magnetic anomalies. Analysis of the Borrow Area A sub-bottom profiler data confirmed excellent sediment penetration and revealed that no stratigraphic features are associated with either the sidescan sonar targets or the magnetic anomalies. No evidence of complex relict landforms such as channels, lagoons and estuaries that might be associated with prehistoric habitation are present. Only one image on a single lane contained evidence of such features (Figure 46). 71 Figure 45. Borrow Area A sonar coverage mosaic with targets (NOAA Chart 12200). 72 Figure 46. Sub-bottom profiler data example from Borrow Area A survey line 383. Line by line analysis and contouring of the magnetic remote-sensing data generated during the survey of Borrow Area A identified nine anomalies (Figure 47). Four of the magnetic anomalies represent small single objects, three represent moderate single objects and two represent moderate single or multiple objects (Attachment D). One cluster of two moderate single objects, 360-1-pm-19.3g-102.1f and 360-2-nm-70.8g-122.8f (Figure 48), and two of the moderate single or multiple object anomalies, 352-1-nm-21.3g-398f (Figure 49) and 306- 1-pm-101.1g-136.2f (Figure 50) are recommended for avoidance and buffered. The buffered anomalies and anomaly cluster located in Borrow Area A have signature characteristics suggestive of potentially significant historical vessel remains. 73 Figure 47. Borrow Area A magnetic contours, anomalies and recommended avoidance buffers (NOAA Chart 12200). 74 Figure 48. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer A. 75 Figure 49. Anomaly recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer B. 76 Figure 50. Anomaly recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer C. 77 Borrow Area C Acoustic data generated by the survey of Borrow Site C produced in excess of 200 percent coverage of the bottom surface (Figure 51). Analysis of the acoustic data identified nine sonar targets (Attachment E). Four of the sonar targets represent small single objects, three are bottom surface features and the remaining six appear to be clusters of small objects (Attachment F). Four of the targets have no association with any of the magnetic anomalies and five have possible associations. Figure 51. Borrow Area A sonar coverage mosaic with targets (NOAA Chart 12200). 78 Analysis of the Borrow Area C sub-bottom profiler data confirmed excellent sediment penetration (Figure 52) and revealed that no stratigraphic features are associated with either the sidescan sonar targets or the magnetic anomalies. No evidence of complex well- preserved relict landforms such as channels, lagoons and estuaries that might be associated with prehistoric habitation is present. However, along and outside the western perimeter of Borrow Area C a paleochannel feature is present (Figure 53). The almost vertical nature of the fill suggests a highly active progradational sequence that would not be conducive to prehistoric site preservation. Figure 52. Sub-bottom profiler data example from Borrow Area C survey line 565 East. Figure 53. Sub-bottom profiler data example from Borrow Area C survey line 565 West. Line by line analysis and contouring of the magnetic remote-sensing data generated during the survey of Borrow Site C identified 65 anomalies (Figure 54). Three of the 65 magnetic anomalies lie outside the survey area. Nineteen represent small single objects, seventeen represent moderate single objects, twenty more represent moderate single or multiple objects and six represent complex or clustered objects (Appendix G). 79 Figure 54. Borrow Area C magnetic contours, anomalies and recommended avoidance buffers (Extract from NOAA Chart 12200). 80 Twenty-seven of the anomalies are recommended for avoidance and are included in 14 buffers (A through L). The buffered anomalies and anomaly clusters located in Area C have signature characteristics suggestive of potentially significant submerged cultural resources and could be associated with the wreck immediately east of the survey area on NOAA Chart 12200. Buffer A (Figure 55) includes two anomalies 600-1-mc-9.5g-165.5f and 601-1-mc- 4.8g-106.3f. Figure 55. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer A. 81 Buffer B includes anomaly 594-1-mc-10.4g-462.9f and Buffer C includes anomaly 587-1- mc-14.6g-462.2f (Figure 56). Figure 56. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer B and Buffer C. 82 Buffer D includes two anomalies 581-2-dp-16.7g-166F and 582-1-dp-17.3g-169.5f (Figure 57). Figure 57. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer D. 83 Buffer E includes two anomalies 567-1-dp-12.5g-103.1f and 568-1-dp-14.7g-166.9f (Figure 58). Figure 58. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer E. 84 Buffer F includes two anomalies 555-1-nm-10.4g-196.6f and 556-1-nm-11.3g-303.6f (Figure 59). Figure 59. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer F. 85 Buffer G includes two anomalies 553-1-nm-11.1g-274.6f and 555-2-dp-29.4g-93.6f and sonar target SSS C 003 (Figure 60). Figure 60. Anomalies and sonar target recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer G. 86 Buffer H includes anomaly 534-1-pm-11.1g-328.2f (Figure 61). Figure 61. Anomaly recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer H. 87 Buffer I includes two anomalies, 530-1-mc-15g-348.2f and 532-1-pm-20.2g-174.3f, and sonar target SSS C 002. Buffer J includes one anomaly, 528-1-mc-9.5g-276.3f, and Buffer K includes anomalies 525-1-nm-10.5g-242.9f and 526-1-dp-14.6g-294f (Figure 62). Figure 62. Anomalies and sonar target recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer I, Buffer J and Buffer K. 88 Buffer L includes anomalies 514-3-dp-27.7g-62.4f and 515=1=dp-6g-42.4f (Figure 63). Figure 63. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer L. 89 Buffer M includes anomalies 512-2-pd-32.3g-55.7f, 513-2-pm-9.6g-135.6f and 514-2-dp- 15.6g-372.2f (Figure 64). Figure 64. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer M. 90 Buffer N includes anomalies 511-1-pm-8.3g-102.2f, 512-1-dp-9.9g-181.7f, 513-1-dp-9.2g- 181.9f and 513-1-mc-10.7g-235.4f (Figure 65). Figure 65. Anomalies recommended for avoidance and included in Buffer N. 91 Conclusions and Recommendations Although the project area lies in the Graveyard of the Atlantic, no known or historically documented shipwrecks have been identified inside the survey areas. However the proposed borrow site locations correspond with the vicinity of sixteenth-century Port Fernando and the anchorage used by Sir Francis Drake and vessels that supported Sir Walter Raleigh’s attempts to establish a colony on Roanoke Island. One charted wreck is identified immediately east of Borrow Area C. Because of the number of historically documented shipwrecks in the area and the geographical association with the first English attempt to establish a settlement in North America, the project locations should be considered as an area of high sensitivity for submerged cultural resources. Although Dr. John G. Newton’s superlative collaboration with Pilkey and Blanton (1971) entitled An Oceanographic Atlas Of The Carolina Continental Margin does not include the current project area, it sheds light on the potential to discover unknown cultural resources in Dare County’s nearshore and offshore waters. The groundbreaking study confirmed that at least 368 documented shipwrecks occurred off one section of coastal Dare County (from the Francis E. Waters site located 2¾ miles N-NW of Nags Head Station to the Richard H. Wyatt site located at 34½º N, 74º W) (Newton et al. 1971:24-25, 28-29). The methodically researched North Carolina Shipwreck Accounts, 1709 to 1950 compiled by shipwreck authority Joan Charles confirms that at least 48 named or unknown vessels were lost “off”, “near” or simply along the “coast” of North Carolina. Of the first classification, the earliest documented loss off the Colony of North Carolina was the Adriatic in February 1740/41 at some unknown site (Charles 2004:159). Several coasting or sea-going vessels (named and unknown) were lost off the North Carolina coast during the years preceding the American Revolution (Charles 2004:159-160). Analysis of the remote-sensing data generated during the survey of Area A identified 10 sonar targets and 9 magnetic anomalies. One of the sonar targets is a small single object, three are bottom surface features and the remaining six appear to be sections of pipe, cable, logs or pilings. None have an association with any of the magnetic anomalies. Four of the magnetic anomalies represent small single objects, three represent moderate single objects and two represent moderate single or multiple objects. Two of the moderate single or multiple object anomalies and one cluster of two moderate single objects are recommended for avoidance and buffered. Analysis of the remote-sensing data generated during the survey of Area C identified 9 sonar targets and 65 magnetic anomalies. Four of the sonar targets represent small single objects, three are bottom surface features and the remaining six appear to be clusters of small objects. Four of the targets have no association with any of the magnetic anomalies and five have possible associations. 92 Three of the 65 magnetic anomalies lie outside the survey area. Nineteen represent small single objects, seventeen represent moderate single objects, twenty more represent moderate single or multiple objects and six represent complex or clustered objects. Twenty-seven of the anomalies and 2 of the sonar targets are recommended for avoidance and are included in 14 buffers. The buffered anomalies, anomaly clusters and sonar targets located in Borrow Area A and Borrow Area C have signature characteristics suggestive of potentially significant submerged cultural resources. The buffered anomalies and sonar targets in Borrow Site C could be associated with a wreck charted immediately east of the survey area. AWOIS data indicates that the wreck (RECORD 2440) is the tug “TEENS TOW” and this casualty was classified as “dangerous to surface navigation”. While that comment suggests that the vessel is relatively modern, additional investigation could provide more comprehensive data that would permit an assessment of historical significance. If modern, buffered anomalies potentially associated with the wreck could be reassessed. At this point all of the buffered anomalies and sonar targets in Borrow Area A and Borrow Area C should be avoided during dredging operations. Should avoidance prove impossible, additional investigation is recommended to determine the nature of the material generating those anomalies and targets and more definitively to assess their significance in terms of NRHP eligibility. Unexpected Discovery Protocol In the event that any project activities expose prehistoric or historic cultural material not identified during the remote-sensing survey, the dredging company under contract to the Dare County townships should immediately cease operations in that vicinity and notify the respective Point of Contact for Dare County, CPE-NC, BOEM and for the North Carolina SHPO. Notification should address the exact location, where possible, the nature of material exposed by the project activities, and options for immediate archaeological inspection and assessment of the site(s). 93 References Cited Abbot, Willis J. The Naval History of the United States. Vol. 2. Peter Fenelon Collier, New York, NY. Angley, Wilson 1985 An Historic Overview of Oregon Inlet. Report on file at the Research Branch, North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh. Ashe, Samuel A’ Court 1908 History of North Carolina, volume I, From 1584 to 1783. Charles L. Van Noppen, Greensboro, NC. Berman, Bruce D. 1972 Encyclopedia of American Shipwrecks. The Mariners Press, Boston, MA. Broadwater, John D. 2012 USS Monitor: A Historic Ship Completes Its Final Voyage. National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, Washington, DC. Brooks, Barbara Lynn, Ann M. Merriman, and Mark Wilde-Ramsing (compilers) 1996 Bibliography of North Carolina Underwater Archaeology. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Underwater Archaeology Branch, Kure Beach. Burgess, Robert H. 1978 Coasting Schooner: The Four-Masted Albert F. Paul. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville. Caldwell, Joseph R., and Waring, A.J., Jr. 1939 Pottery Type Descriptions. In: Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter, 1(5):4-12. Carbone, John S. 2001 The Civil War In Coastal North Carolina. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh. Chapelle, Howard I. 1961 The Migrations of an American Boat Type. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Corbitt, David L. (editor) 1953 Explorations, Descriptions and Attempted Settlements of Carolina, 1584-1590. North Carolina Department of Archives and History, Raleigh. 94 Crittenden, Charles C. 1936 The Commerce of North Carolina, 1763-1789. Yale University Press, New Haven, NJ. Cumming, William P. 1988 Mapping the North Carolina Coast, Sixteenth-Century Cartography and the Roanoke Voyages. Division of Archives and History, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh. 1998 The Southeast In Early Maps. Third edition, revised & enlarged by Louis de Vorsey, Jr. The Fred Morrison Series in Southern Studies. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Dames and Moore 1979 A Remote Sensing Survey of Oregon Inlet, North Carolina. Report to U. S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington, North Carolina, from Dames and Moore, Raleigh, NC. Delgado, James P. 1984 A Preliminary Assessment of Environmentally Exposed Shipwreck Remains, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina. Report to U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, National Park Service, Washington, DC, and East Carolina University, Greenville, NC. Dudley, William S. (editor) 1985 The Naval War of 1812: A Documentary History. Vol. I. Naval Historical Center, Washington, DC. 1992 The Naval War of 1812: A Documentary History. Vol. 2. Naval Historical Center, Washington, DC. Duffus, Kevin P. 2003 The Lost Light: The Mystery Of The Missing Cape Hatteras Fresnel Lens. Looking Glass Productions, Raleigh, NC. 2007 Shipwrecks of the Outer Banks-An Illustrated Guide. Looking Glass Productions, Raleigh, NC. Dunbar, Gary S. 1958 Historical Geography of the North Carolina Outer Banks. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. Farb, Roderick M. 1992 Shipwrecks: Diving the Graveyard of the Atlantic. Menasha Ridge Press, Birmingham, AL. 95 Gannon, Michael 1991 Operation Drumbeat: The Dramatic True Story Of Germany’s First U-Boat Attacks Along The American Coast In World War II. Reprint of 1990 first edition. HarperCollins Publishers, New York. Gentile, Gary 1993 Shipwrecks of North Carolina. Gary Gentile Productions, Philadelphia, PA. Haag, William G. 1958 The Archaeology of Coastal North Carolina. Louisiana State University Coastal Studies Series 2. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Hairr, John 2001 Outer Banks. In: Images of America series. Arcadia Publishing Company, Charleston, SC. Hall, Wesley K. 1999 A Phase I Upland and Underwater Archaeological Survey of the Dare County Beaches and Borrow Areas, North Carolina. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Wilmington, NC, from Mid-Atlantic Technology and Environmental Research, Castle Hayne, NC. Hoffman, Paul E. 1987 Spain and the Roanoke Voyages. Division of Archives and History North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh. Hudy, Paul M. 2009 Shipwrecks & Reefs of Oregon Inlet <http://www.nc- wreckdiving.com/LOCATIONS/OREGON.html >, last accessed 30 April 2015. Hulton, Paul 1984 America 1585: The Complete Drawings of John White. Published jointly by The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and British Museum Publications, London, England. Lefler, Hugh Talmage 1965 North Carolina History told by Contemporaries. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 96 Marx, Robert F. 1983 Shipwrecks in the Americas: A complete guide to every major shipwreck in the Western Hemisphere. Bonanza Books, New York, NY. Mitchell, C. Bradford (editor) 1975 Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States, 1790-1868. “The Lytle-Holdcamper List” initially compiled by William Lytle and Forrest Holdcamper. Revised and edited by C. Bradford Mitchell. The Steamship Historical Society of America, Staten Island, NY. 1978 Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States, 1790-1868. “The Lytle-Holdcamper List” initially compiled by William Lytle and Forrest Holdcamper. Supplement Number 1. Prepared by C. Bradford Mitchell. The Steamship Historical Society of America, Staten Island, NY. 1982 Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States, 1790-1868. “The Lytle-Holdcamper List” initially compiled by William Lytle and Forrest Holdcamper. Supplement Number 2. Prepared by C. Bradford Mitchell. The Steamship Historical Society of America, Providence, RI. 1984 Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States, 1790-1868. “The Lytle-Holdcamper List” initially compiled by William Lytle and Forrest Holdcamper. Supplement Number 3. Prepared by C. Bradford Mitchell. The Steamship Historical Society of America, Providence, RI. National Historical Society 1987 Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion. Historical Times, Harrisburg, PA. National Park Service n.d.a. Dare County, North Carolina Search. National Register of Historic Places Database. National Park Service <http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/>, last accessed 30 April 2015. n.d.b. Lost to the Perils of the Sea. Cape Hatteras: National Seashore, North Carolina. National Park Service <http://www.nps.gov>, last accessed 29 March 2015. n.d.c. The Ghost Ship of the Outer Banks. Cape Hatteras: National Seashore, North Carolina. National Park Service <http://www.nps.gov>, last accessed 29 March 2015. n.d.d. Abandoned Shipwreck Act Guidelines. Part IV. Shipwrecks in the National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service <http://www.nps.gov/archeology/submerged/NRShips.htm>, last accessed 30 April 2015. 97 National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2010 East Carolina Nearshore Expedition: The Shipwrecks. Sponsored by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD. National Marine Sanctuaries <http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/missions/2010ecu_nearshore/shipwrecks.html>, last accessed 31 March 2015. Newton, John G., O. H. Pilkey, and J. O. Blanton 1971 An Oceanographic Atlas Of The Carolina Continental Margin. In association with Duke University Marine Laboratory, Beaufort, NC. Supported by the North Carolina Board of Science and Technology, Raleigh, in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Conservation & Development, Raleigh, and U.S. National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, and U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC. Noël Hume, Ivor 1994 The Virginia Adventure, Roanoke To James Towne: An Archaeological And Historical Odyssey. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY. North Carolina Division of Archives and History 1989 Memorandum [14 November] from David Brook, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer to H. Franklin Vick, Planning and Research Branch, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh. North Carolina Department of Transportation 1989 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact: Report on the Construction of a Terminal Groin and Revetment at Pea Island for Protection of the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge and North Carolina Highway 12, Dare County, North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh. North Carolina Humanities Council n.d. Many Stories, One People. Programs. Road Scholars. “How Shipwrecks Shaped the Destiny of the Outer Banks.” [Kevin P. Duffus]. North Carolina Humanities Council <http://nchumanities.org/programs/road-scholars/how-shipwrecks-shaped-destiny- outer-banks>, last accessed 29 March 2015. North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office 2015 North Carolina Listings In The National Register Of Historic Places. “As of February 1, 2015.” North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office <http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/NR-PDFs.html>, last accessed 29 March 2015. Oliver, Billy L. 1981 The Piedmont Archaic: Reflections and Perspectives. Paper presented at the 37th Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, New Orleans, LA. 98 Phelps, David S. 1975 Test Excavations at the Parker Site (31Ed29) at Speed, Edgecombe County, North Carolina. In: Archaeological Surveys of Four Watersheds in the North Carolina Coastal Plain, pp. 106-137. North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication 16 (1981). 1981 The Archaeology of Colington Island. East Carolina University Archaeological Research Report No. 3. East Carolina University, Greenville, NC. 1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plain: Problems and Hypotheses. In: The Prehistory of North Carolina. Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, eds. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh. 1984 Archaeology of the Tillett Site: The First Fishing Community at Wanchese, Roanoke Island. East Carolina University Archaeological Research Report No. 6, Greenville, NC. Powell, William S. 1968 The North Carolina Gazetteer: A Dictionary Of Tar Heel Places. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Pullen, Drew 2001 Portrait of the Past, The Civil War On Hatteras Island North Carolina: A Pictorial Tour. Aerial Prospective, Mt. Holly, NJ. Quidley, Jr., Dallas Edward 2013 The Lighthouse Keeper’s Son. LifeRich Publishing, Bloomington, IN. Quinn, David B. (editor) 1955 The Roanoke Voyages, 1584-1590. Hakluyt Society, London, England. Sharpe, William 1954 A New Geography of North Carolina. Four vols. Sharpe Publishing Company, Raleigh, NC. Shomette, Donald G. 1973 Shipwrecks of the Civil War: the Encyclopedia of Union and Confederate Naval Losses. Donic Ltd., Washington, DC. Snow, Dean R. 1978 Late Prehistory of the East Coast. In: Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15:357-361 (Northeast), edited by B. G. Trigger. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 99 Stick, David. 1952 Graveyard of the Atlantic: Shipwrecks of the North Carolina Coast. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1958 The Outer Banks of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1970 Dare County: A History. North Carolina State Department of Archives and History, Raleigh. Thompson, Timothy A. 1977 Archaeological Resources at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, A Management Study. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh. Thompson, Timothy A. and William M. Gardner 1979 A Cultural Resources and Impact Area Assessment of the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, Dare County, North Carolina. Thunderbird Research Corporation, Port Royal, Virginia. U. S. Congress 1874 House Executive Document, No. 1, 43rd Congress, 2nd Session, U.S. Congress, Washington DC. U. S. Congress 1883 Senate Executive Document, No. 1, 47rd Congress, 2nd Session, U.S. Senate, Washington D.C. U.S. Department of Commerce 1916 Military and Naval Service of the United States Coast Survey. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington DC. U.S. Department of the Navy 1964-2005 Naval Documents of the American Revolution. U.S. Department of the Navy, Washington, DC. United States Life-Saving Service (USLSS) 1897 Annual Report Of The Operations Of The United States Life-Saving Service For The Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1896. Treasury Department, Document No. 1926. United States Life-Saving Service, U.S. Treasury Department, Washington, DC. Watts, Gordon P., Jr. 1985 Deep-Water Archaeological Investigation and Site Testing in the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary. In: Journal of Field Archaeology 12:315-332. 100 Whitehead, Donald R. 1972 Development and Environmental History of the Dismal Swamp. Ecological Monographs, Vol. 42:301-315. Willey, Gordon R. 1966 An Introduction to American Archaeology, Volume I. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Newspaper Sources Daily Advance, Elizabeth City, North Carolina (NC) Democratic Pioneer, Elizabeth City, NC. Economist, Elizabeth City, NC. Flake’s Bulletin, Galveston, Texas Free Press, Tarboro, NC. North Carolina Times, New Bern, NC North State Whig, Washington, NC. Republican, New Bern, NC. The Washington Herald, Washington, DC. Times Daily, New Bern, NC. Attachment A (Shipwreck Inventory) Attachment A: Select Outer Banks Shipwreck Inventory VESSEL NAME TYPE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE LOSS DATE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE SHIPWRECK LOCATION REFERENCE Tiger [or Tyger] English ship 29 June 1585 Ocracoke Inlet K Multiple Unknown 13 June 1586 Oregon Inlet C HMS Garland English warship 29 November 1710 “a little southward of Currituck Inlet” K Unknown English ship 1728 “wrecked 6 miles seaward from Ocracoke Inlet” K Adriatick English merchantman 1739 “wrecked at Cape Hatteras” K Hoylin English merchantman 1741 “lost off Cape Hatteras” K Woolford English merchantman 1741 “lost off Cape Hatteras” K George American coastal trader 1743 “near Oregon Inlet” CK Katherine & Elizabeth English merchantman 1744 “on Diamond Shoals” K Neptune English merchantman 1744 “on Diamond Shoals” K Seven Unknown English merchantmen 7/8 October 1749 “sank inside the [Ocracoke] bar” K Two Unknown English merchantmen 7/8 October 1749 “wrecked 5 miles north of the inlet” K Unknown Unknown August 1750 Cape Hatteras A Nuestra Señora de la Soleda Galleon of New Spain Flota 18 August 1750 “wrecked 10 leagues north of Ocracoke Inlet” K El Salvador Merchant nao of New Spain Flota 18 August 1750 “wrecked 15 leagues north of Ocracoke Inlet” K Unknown English merchantman 18 August 1750 “off Cape Hatteras” K Two Unknown Schooners-merchantmen 1752 “wrecked on the Ocracoke Bar” K Union American merchantman January 1757 “lost at Cape Hatteras” K Virginia Packet English packet boat 1757 “lost at Cape Hatteras” K Unknown American schooner 1757 “lost at Cape Hatteras” K Friendship English merchantman 1758 “lost at Cape Hatteras” K Peggy English merchantman 1758 “lost at Cape Hatteras” K Princess Amelia English merchantman 1758 “lost at Cape Hatteras” K Nancy English merchantman 1760 “wrecked near Cape Hatteras” K Charming Betsey Scottish merchantman 1760 “foundered off Cape Hatteras” K Shannon Scottish merchantman 1764 “wrecked at Currituck Inlet” K Revenge English merchantman June 1765 “wrecked…two miles north of Currituck Inlet” K Good Intent English slaver 1767 “lost off Cape Hatteras” K Charming Polly English merchantman 1770 “totally lost off Cape Hatteras” K Lively English merchantman 1771 “lost off Cape Hatteras” K Betsey English merchantman Before September 1772 “lost crossing… [Ocracoke] bar” K (14/15) Unknown Large merchantmen Early September 1772 “totally lost near the Ocracoke Inlet bar” K Charming Betsey English merchantman 1774 “wrecked on Ocracoke Island” K Sally English merchantman 1774 “lost on Cape Hatteras” K Clementina English merchantman 1775 “at Cape Hatteras” K Austin English merchantman 1775 “lost off Cape Hatteras” K Aurora English troop-transport 11 November 1777 “off Cape Hatteras” K Peggy American merchantman 1783 “off Cape Hatteras” K (17) Unknown Ships 23/24 July 1788 “wrecked at Ocracoke Inlet” K VESSEL NAME TYPE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE LOSS DATE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE SHIPWRECK LOCATION REFERENCE Molly English merchantman 1789 “wrecked at Cape Hatteras” K Pitt English merchantman 1792 “lost on the Ocracoke Inlet bar” K Experiment American merchantman 1792 “off Cape Hatteras” K (6) Unknown Ships 2 August 1795 Ocracoke Inlet bar K Multiple Unknown Spanish flota ships 2 August 1795 “off Cape Hatteras” K Betsey American sloop 6 September 1797 “at Currituck Inlet” K Industry American merchantman 1798 “on Cape Hatteras” K Expectation English merchantman 1802 “on Cape Hatteras” K Brunshill English merchantman 1802 “on Cape Hatteras” K Lydia English ship 1804 “on Cape Hatteras” K Molly American merchantman 1804 “wrecked near Cape Hatteras” K Fortura Portuguese merchantman 1805 “on Cape Hatteras” K Maria French ship 1810 Cape Hatteras K Lively Lass American ship Late September 1810 “drifted onshore at Ocracoke Island’ K Patriot American pilot boat January 1813 Nags Head K #140 American gunboat 23 September 1814 Ocracoke Island K (20+) Unknown Ships Early September 1815 “wrecked or sunk at Ocracoke Inlet and on Ocracoke Island” K Superior American merchantman 3 October 1815 “near Cape Hatteras” K Sero English merchantman 25 September 1815 “off Cape Hatteras” K Atlanta American brig 8 November 1815 Diamond Shoals K Mary Ship 15 April 1816 Currituck Beach K Eliza American merchantman 1816 Ocracoke Island K Bolina American merchantman 26 September 1816 “Boddy Island” K Mary & Francis American ship March 1817 “near Cape Hatteras’ K Rosetta Ship 4 March 1817 “lost…crossing the Ocracoke Inlet bar” K Emperor of Russia Ship 18 March 1817 “near Currituck Inlet” K John Adams American merchantman 19 May 1817 “on Cape Hatteras” K Voucher Ship 19 November 1817 Chicamacomico A William Carlton American merchantman 15 May 1818 [or 22 May] Kill Devil Hills KQ Georgia English brig 15 July 1818 Currituck Inlet K (2) Unknown American merchantmen 3 October 1818 “wrecked near Cape Hatteras” K Revenge American sloop January 1819 Currituck Inlet K Phoenix American schooner 13 May 1819 Cape Hatteras K Henry American sloop January 1820 Ocracoke Island K Islington American merchantman 16 March 1820 Cape Hatteras K Horatio American ship April 1820 “on Diamond Shoals” K Unknown 125-ton English merchantman September 1821 “at Cape Hatteras” K Charles K. Mallory American merchantman 10 September 1821 “on Cape Hatteras” K Martha English merchantman 1821 Currituck Sands K Nereus Ship 1 January 1822 “totally lost…on Cape Hatteras” K Enterprise Schooner 27 October 1822 New Inlet ACK Peter Francisco American ship 7 October 1823 “Bodies Island” K VESSEL NAME TYPE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE LOSS DATE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE SHIPWRECK LOCATION REFERENCE Caroline du Nord French merchantman 19 January 1824 Ocracoke Inlet bar K Susan American schooner 1 June 1824 Ocracoke Inlet bar K Emulous American schooner 22 January 1825 Off Kitty Hawk E Diomede American schooner 23 January 1825 Kitty Hawk K Washington American ship 24 January 1825 Ocracoke Island K Nancy American ship 21 February 1825 Ocracoke Inlet Bar K Horam American merchantman 6 April 1825 Ocracoke Inlet Bar K (25+) Unknown Ships 4 June 1825 “wrecked north of Ocracoke Inlet” K Harvest Schooner 18 November 1825 Bodie Island ACK Victory American schooner December 1825 Kitty Hawk K Louisa Matilda Packet 24 August 1827 On Bodie Island E Belle Packet 15 August 1836 On Bodie Island EF William Gibbons Steamer 10 October 1836 New Inlet/Bodie Island AE Victory Schooner 6 February 1837 Bodie Island A Aurora Schooner June 1837 Ocracoke Bar F Hunter Schooner 19 August 1837 Kitty Hawk E Alhambra Schooner 26 August 1837 Bodie Island AEF Enterprise Brig 9 October 1837 Bodie Island A Milledgeville Packet 30 August 1839 Chicamacomico A William J. Watson Schooner 15 November 1840 Bodie Island A Alonzo Schooner 24 August 1841 Currituck Beach E American Trader Schooner 24 August 1841 Currituck Beach E Astoria Bark 29 January 1842 Hatteras Inlet F Trident Schooner 14 June 1842 Bodie Island AC Kilgore Brig 24 August 1842 On Currituck Beach E Marion Brig 4 November 1842 Bodie Island AE William Taylor Brig 20 October 1843 Bodie Island CD Danube Schooner 14 May 1844 Bodie Island E C.C. Thorn Schooner 2 June 1846 New Inlet A Antilla Schooner 6 November 1846 Nags Head EF R.W. Brown Schooner 11 December 1848 New Inlet AD Evergreen Schooner 9 January 1849 Currituck Beach E Franklin Steamer 14 September 1850 Currituck E Belle Brig July 1850 Diamond Shoals F America Side-wheel steamer 29 January 1851 Off Cape Hatteras F P.B. Savery Schooner 11 August 1851 Chicamacomico A Magnolia Schooner 3 December 1852 Chicamacomico A Henrietta Pierce Schooner 16 January 1853 Kitty Hawk E Augustus Moore [or Augusta Moore] Schooner 15 April 1853 Kitty Hawk EFQ Bladen McLaughlin Steamer 6 May 1853 Kitty Hawk EF Albemarle Brig 7 September 1853 Off Hatteras F Rio Schooner December 1853 Bodie Island AC VESSEL NAME TYPE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE LOSS DATE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE SHIPWRECK LOCATION REFERENCE A. S. Willers Schooner September 1857 Off Cape Hatteras F Baltic Schooner November 1857 Currituck Beach E Atlanta Steam side wheel 1 March 1858 Bodie Island, “Body Island” EF Amanda Coons Brig 11 November 1858 Currituck Beach E Charles Schooner November 1859 Off Nags Head E Lady Whidbee Schooner 17 January 1860 New Inlet A Black Squall Brig 8 April 1861 Ocracroke F B. T. Martin Brig 24 July 1861 Chicamacomico AF Oriental Union Transport 8 May 1862 Bodie Island ACE Volant Brig September 1862 New Inlet A Acton Schooner 9 September 1862 “Kill Devil Hills (ashore)” Q USS Monitor Ironclad steamer December 1862 16 miles SSE of the Cape Hatteras Light in 225 feet of water FO Vera Cruz Steamer 12 April 1866 Bodie Island E King Fisher Steamship November 1866 “about six miles south of Hatteras” I Martha Schooner 10 January 1867 Currituck Beach E Alfred Thomas Schooner 10 March 1867 Chicamacomico AC Quick Brig March 1867 Oregon Inlet ABCD Adamantine Schooner November 1867 Bodie Island/Inlet AEF Alliance Steamer 4 March 1869 Off Hatteras Inlet F Ezra Bark September 1869 Bodie Island AC Eagle Steamer 4 March 1870 Bodie Island ACE Kensington Steamer 27 January 1871 Chicamacomico A Harriet N. Rogers Schooner 15 January 1873 Bodie Island ACE Annie McFarland Brig 30 January 1873 Currituck Beach E William Schooner 6 February 1873 Chicamacomico A Ariadne Steam screw 7 February 1873 Oregon Inlet F Waltham Brig 4 May 1874 Bodie Island ABC J. Means Schooner 12 October 1874 Bodie Island AE Blaisdell Schooner May 1875 Off Cape Hatteras F Mary H. Westcott Schooner 25 June 1875 Oregon Inlet BCD Harvest Schooner 17 November 1875 Off Nags Head E J.H. Lockwood Schooner 20 November 1876 Chicamacomico AE America Bark 24 December 1876 Chicamacomico AEF Iona Schooner 9 April 1877 Chicamacomico A Benjamin W. Robinson Schooner 10 April 1877 Chicamacomico AF Edward J. Hearaty Wooden Schooner 10 April 1877 Kitty Hawk LSS, N 5 miles Q Hattie L. Fuller Schooner 13 April 1877 Oregon Inlet ABCD Western Star Schooner 11 September 1877 Bodie Inlet [or Kitty Hawk LSS, N 12 miles] AQ Huron Steam screw 24 November 1877 “short distance offshore from Nags Head” EN Success Bark 15 January 1879 Bodie Inlet AC M&E Henderson Schooner 30 November 1879 [or 3 December 1879] Pea Island [or Kitty Hawk LSS, S 2 miles] AQ Benjamin Dickerson Bark 18 October 1880 Off Cape Hatteras F VESSEL NAME TYPE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE LOSS DATE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE SHIPWRECK LOCATION REFERENCE A. B. Goodman Schooner 4 April 1881 Creed Hill Station-Diamond Shoals F Thomas J. Lancaster Schooner 5 October 1881 New Inlet A Resolute Steamer 1881 Oregon Inlet D Mary L. Vankirk Schooner 5 February 1882 New Inlet A Unqua Sloop 15 August 1882 Oregon Inlet D Angela Italian bark 4 March 1883 ¼ m. E of northern end of Kitty Hawk Beach EF Luola Murchison Schooner 3 October 1883 Kitty Hawk EQ Florence Schooner 5 January 1884 Chicamacomico A A. F. Crockett Schooner 7 February 1885 Ocracoke F Ella May Sloop 8 August 1885 Oregon Inlet BCD Jennie Beasley Schooner 26 January 1886 Currituck Inlet E Charles Schooner 23 August 1887 Oregon Inlet BCD Annchen Barge 18 July 1888 Off Cape Hatteras F Allie R. Chester Schooner 20 January 1889 Outer edge of Diamond Shoals F Josie Troop Bark 22/23 February 1889 Chicamacomico AE Hattie Lollies Schooner 7 April 1889 Nags Head E Francis E. Waters American schooner 23 October 1889 Nags Head N Lizzie S. Haynes Schooner 24 October 1889 Pea Island/Bodie Island* ABCE* Annie E. Blackman Schooner 24 October 1889 New Inlet A Sue Williams Schooner 22 March 1890 Chicamacomico A Blanche Schooner 18 December 1890 Ocracoke Inlet F Dudley Farlin Schooner 26 December 1890 Bodie Island E J.W. Gaskill Schooner 16 February 1891 Pea Island AE Strathairly Steamer 24 March 1891 Chicamacomico AN Irene Thayer Schooner 19 November 1892 Oregon Inlet ABCD Ravenwood Barkentine 13 October 1893 Chicamacomico AD Florence C. Magee Schooner 26 February 1894 Bodie Island AC A. P. Richardson Schooner 26 September 1894 Ocracoke F Laura Nelson Schooner 30 March 1895 Bodie Island AE Addie Henry Schooner 14 April 1895 Ocracoke F J. W. Dresser American Barkentine 23 July 1895 “outer Diamond Shoal” M Emma C. Cotton Schooner 27 December 1895 Pea Island AC James Woodall Steamer 12 January 1896 New Inlet A Maggie J. Lawrence Schooner 10 February 1896 Pea Island ACE E.S. Newman Schooner 11 October 1896 Pea Island E Mathilda Ship 27 October 1897 Bodie Island A Samuel W. Hall Schooner 24 December 1897 Chicamacomico A Samuel W. Tilton Schooner 17 February 1898 Chicamacomico A Milton Schooner 27 April 1898 Bodie Island AC George C. Fessenden Schooner 27 April 1898 Chicamacomico A June Sloop 11 August 1899 Oregon Inlet ABCD Minnie Berge Schooner 18 August 1899 Chicamacomico A VESSEL NAME TYPE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE LOSS DATE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE SHIPWRECK LOCATION REFERENCE Ariosto Schooner 24 December 1899 “3 miles south of Hatteras Inlet” F Jane C. Harris Schooner 25 February 1900 Oregon Inlet ABCD William H. Shubert Schooner 16 February 1903 Bodie Island A J.F. Becker Schooner 26 April 1903 Oregon Inlet ABCD Benjamin M. Wallace Schooner 26 March 1904 Chicamacomico AF Montana Schooner 11 December 1904 Pea Island AC Jennie Lockwood Schooner 13 February 1906 Pea Island ACE Addie Morrill Barkentine 3 October 1907 Cape Hatteras F Bluefields Iron steam screw 4 January 1908 Cape Hatteras F Flora Rogers Schooner 23 October 1908 Bodie Island AC Governor Ames Schooner 13 December 1909 Chicamacomico A Charles J. Dumas Schooner 26/27 December 1911 Pea Island ACE Annie F. Kimball Schooner 8 January 1912 Cape Hatteras F Richard F.C. Hartle Schooner 2 September 1913 Chicamacomico A Helen H. Benedict Schooner 6 February 1914 6.5 miles N Bodie Island Light E George N. Reed Schooner 20 January 1915 Pea Island AC Alice Murphy Schooner 3 April 1915 Cape Hatteras F Josephine [The Josephine] Wooden Schooner 3 April 1915 ¾ mile S Kill Devil Hill Lightship [or KDH USCG Station] EQ Hattie George Steam screw 29 June 1918 Oregon Inlet BD Nordhav Bark 17 September 1918 Off Bodie Island A Gracie D. Chambers Schooner 13 February 1919 Currituck Beach E Black Hawk Yacht 6 November 1919 Oregon Inlet AC Explorer Tugboat 12 December 1919 200 yds. Off Nags Head Pier N Louisa M. Schooner 8 December 1920 Off Currituck light E Laura A. Barnes Schooner June 1921 Bodie Island ACEN I. C. White Steam screw 21 January 1922 Off Bodie Island E Blanche C. Pendleton Schooner 21 January 1922 Off Bodie Island EF Agawam Gas yacht 16 March 1922 NE of Diamond Shoal Lightship F Dorothea L. Brinkman Schooner 22 March 1924 Oregon Inlet ABCDEL Irma Schooner 29 April 1925 Bodie Island E Isabella Parmenter Schooner 1 November 1925 Chicamacomico A Beatrice Gas yacht 27 January 1927 Cape Hatteras F Adelaide Day Schooner 8 November 1927 Off Cape Hatteras F Kyzikes [or Kyzickes] Greek? 4 December 1927 1.5 miles N Kill Devil Hills CG station F Bainbridge Schooner 4 February 1929 Nags Head F Brainbridge Schooner 5 February 1929 Nags Head E Anna May Oil screw trawler 9 December 1931 Off Diamond Shoals F St. Rita Oil screw 13 January 1932 Kitty Hawk Q Glory Steamer 26 August 1933 Off Nags Head E Blink Norwegian registry 11 February 1942 Off Cape Hatteras F Anna R. Heidritter 4-masted schooner 2 March 1942 Off Ocracoke FL Ceiba Freighter 15 March 1942 Off Nags Head EF VESSEL NAME TYPE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE LOSS DATE ACTUAL OR APPROXIMATE SHIPWRECK LOCATION REFERENCE Acme Tanker 17 March 1942 “12 miles, 148˚ from Cape Hatteras Light” F Dixie Arrow Steel tanker 26 March 1942 25 miles SW of Hatteras Light F Agra 20 April 1942 Off Cape Hatteras F U-576 German submarine 15 July 1942 30 miles off Cape Hatteras P Bluefields American freighter 15 July 1942 30 miles off Cape Hatteras P Benson H. Riggin Oil screw 3 December 1953 In Ocracoke Inlet F Miss Pamlico Oil screw 20 June 1960 Oregon Inlet BCD Sarah J. Oil screw trawler 14 January 1961 Oregon Inlet BD Townsend April 1962 Oregon Inlet BD W.J. Townsend Oil Screw 15 December 1962 Oregon Inlet BCD Lois Joyce Trawler 12 December 1982 Oregon Inlet CD USS LST-471 WW-II ship Scrapped-lost in transit Near Rodanthe N USS LST-292 WW-II ship Scrapped-lost in transit 1.4 miles S of Rodanthe pier N Shipwreck Inventory References: A=(Stick 1952:244-257) B=(Dames and Moore 1979:9-12) C=(North Carolina Department of Transportation 1989: C5-C6) D=(North Carolina Division of Archives and History, UAB Site File) E=(Mitchell 1975) F=(Berman 1972) G=(National Park Service n.d.a; n.d.b.; n.d.c., n.d.d.) H=(North Carolina Humanities Council) I=(Flake’s Bulletin 5 December 1866:11 [Galveston TX]) J=(Watts 1985) K=(Marx 1983) L=(Burgess 1978) M=(USLSS 1897) N=(NOAA 2010) O=(Watts 1985) P=(The Washington Post, 21 October 2014) Q=(Charles 2004) Attachment B: Borrow Area A Sonar Target Table Target X Coordinate Y Coordinate Assessment Anomaly Association SSS A 001 3017502.427 851974.1759 Bottom surface feature No SSS A 002 3020555.238 852726.1212 Posssible pipe or cable No SSS A 003 3022241.534 850169.7206 Small single object No SSS A 004 3021100.723 841822.3953 Posssible pipe or cable No SSS A 005 3018938.652 842158.7049 Posssible pipe or cable No SSS A 006 3020700.7 845023.2802 Posssible pipe or cable No SSS A 007 3018606.349 843592.662 Posssible pipe or cable No SSS A 008 3021760.761 849979.1769 Botton surface feature No SSS A 009 3019465.545 850917.5342 Posssible pipe or cable No SSS A 010 3016791.406 851692.8774 Bottom surface features No Attachment C: Borrow Area A Sonar Target Reports Target Info User Entered Info Generated on 3/13/2015 2:55:57 PM Target Image Borrow Area A Sonar Target Reports SSS A 001 ● Water Depth: 38.45 US ft ● Sonar Time at Target: 10/20/2014 2:18:10 PM 36.0423936597 -75.5576635638 (WGS84) ● Click Position 36.0422240640 -75.5580466605 (NAD27LL) 36.0423936597 -75.5576635638 (LocalLL) ● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014 \Sidescan\10.20.2014 \OBII_A_14_Line_317_SW_2.jsf ● Ping Number: 90227 ● Map Projection: NC83F (X) 3017502.43 (Y) 851974.18 (Projected Coordinates) ● Range to target: 71.33 US ft ● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft ● Heading: 258.900 Degrees ● Event Number: 0 ● Line Name: OBII_A_14_Line_317_SW_2 ● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000 Dimensions and attributes ● Target Height: 0.00 US ft ● Target Width: 21.21 US ft ● Target Length: 14.87 US ft ● Target Shadow: 17.16 US ft ● Mag Anomaly: No ● Avoidance Area: ● Classification1: ● Classification2: ● Area: ● Block: ● Description: Bottom surface feature SSS A 002 ● Water Depth: 33.64 US ft ● Sonar Time at Target: 10/20/2014 4:00:43 PM 36.0441668499 -75.5472553984 (WGS84) ● Click Position 36.0439970507 -75.5476388500 (NAD27LL) 36.0441668499 -75.5472553984 (LocalLL) ● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014 \Sidescan\10.20.2014 \OBII_A_14_Line_327_NE.jsf ● Ping Number: 156438 ● Map Projection: NC83F (X) 3020555.24 (Y) 852726.12 (Projected Coordinates) ● Range to target: 223.60 US ft ● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft ● Heading: 41.190 Degrees ● Event Number: 0 ● Line Name: OBII_A_14_Line_327_NE ● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000 Dimensions and attributes ● Target Height: 0.00 US ft ● Target Width: 2.02 US ft ● Target Length: 27.69 US ft ● Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft ● Mag Anomaly: No ● Avoidance Area: ● Classification1: ● Classification2: ● Area: ● Block: ● Description: Possible piece of pipe or cable SSS A 003 ● Water Depth: 36.34 US ft ● Sonar Time at Target: 10/21/2014 11:46:25 AM 36.0369873642 -75.5418560935 (WGS84) ● Click Position 36.0368172820 -75.5422399870 (NAD27LL) 36.0369873642 -75.5418560935 (LocalLL) ● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014 \Sidescan\10.21.2014 \OBII_A_14_Line_354_SW.jsf ● Ping Number: 111699 ● Map Projection: NC83F (X) 3022241.53 (Y) 850169.72 (Projected Coordinates) ● Range to target: 132.91 US ft ● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft ● Heading: 255.090 Degrees ● Event Number: 0 ● Line Name: OBII_A_14_Line_354_SW ● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000 Dimensions and attributes ● Target Height: 0.00 US ft ● Target Width: 4.87 US ft ● Target Length: 12.82 US ft ● Target Shadow: 7.20 US ft ● Mag Anomaly: No ● Avoidance Area: ● Classification1: ● Classification2: ● Area: ● Block: ● Description: Small single object SSS A 004 ● Water Depth: 50.83 US ft ● Sonar Time at Target: 10/22/2014 9:40:18 AM 36.0141797750 -75.5466941568 (WGS84) ● Click Position 36.0140093105 -75.5470785881 (NAD27LL) 36.0141797750 -75.5466941568 (LocalLL) ● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014 \Sidescan\10.22.2014 \OBII_A_14_Line_399_SW.jsf ● Ping Number: 29897 ● Map Projection: NC83F (X) 3021100.72 (Y) 841822.40 (Projected Coordinates) ● Range to target: 112.76 US ft ● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft ● Heading: 278.500 Degrees ● Event Number: 0 ● Line Name: OBII_A_14_Line_399_SW ● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000 Dimensions and attributes ● Target Height: 0.00 US ft ● Target Width: 4.36 US ft ● Target Length: 22.60 US ft ● Target Shadow: 11.59 US ft ● Mag Anomaly: No ● Avoidance Area: ● Classification1: ● Classification2: ● Area: ● Block: ● Description: Possible pipe or cable SSS A 005 ● Water Depth: 58.21 US ft ● Sonar Time at Target: 10/25/2014 11:06:51 AM 36.0153094347 -75.5539608140 (WGS84) ● Click Position 36.0151391737 -75.5543449291 (NAD27LL) 36.0153094347 -75.5539608140 (LocalLL) ● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014 \Sidescan\10.25.2014 \OBII_A_14_Line_386_SW.jsf ● Ping Number: 103006 ● Map Projection: NC83F (X) 3018938.65 (Y) 842158.70 (Projected Coordinates) ● Range to target: 196.25 US ft ● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft ● Heading: 261.900 Degrees ● Event Number: 0 ● Line Name: OBII_A_14_Line_386_SW ● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000 Dimensions and attributes ● Target Height: 0.00 US ft ● Target Width: 4.09 US ft ● Target Length: 31.10 US ft ● Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft ● Mag Anomaly: No ● Avoidance Area: ● Classification1: ● Classification2: ● Area: ● Block: ● Description: Possible pipe, wire or cable SSS A 006 ● Water Depth: 65.42 US ft ● Sonar Time at Target: 10/25/2014 12:33:10 PM 36.0230056991 -75.5476696044 (WGS84) ● Click Position 36.0228354503 -75.5480537160 (NAD27LL) 36.0230056991 -75.5476696044 (LocalLL) ● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014 \Sidescan\10.25.2014 \OBII_A_14_Line_375_SW.jsf ● Ping Number: 151394 ● Map Projection: NC83F (X) 3020700.70 (Y) 845023.28 (Projected Coordinates) ● Range to target: 165.54 US ft ● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft ● Heading: 259.190 Degrees ● Event Number: 0 ● Line Name: OBII_A_14_Line_375_SW ● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000 Dimensions and attributes ● Target Height: 0.00 US ft ● Target Width: 0.00 US ft ● Target Length: 0.00 US ft ● Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft ● Mag Anomaly: No ● Avoidance Area: ● Classification1: ● Classification2: ● Area: ● Block: ● Description: Possible wire or cable SSS A 007 ● Water Depth: 62.01 US ft ● Sonar Time at Target: 10/25/2014 1:21:40 PM 36.0192779111 -75.5549155232 (WGS84) ● Click Position 36.0191077583 -75.5552994736 (NAD27LL) 36.0192779111 -75.5549155232 (LocalLL) ● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014 \Sidescan\10.25.2014 \OBII_A_14_Line_420_SW.jsf ● Ping Number: 178587 ● Map Projection: NC83F (X) 3018606.35 (Y) 843592.66 (Projected Coordinates) ● Range to target: 165.54 US ft ● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft ● Heading: 256.500 Degrees ● Event Number: 0 ● Line Name: OBII_A_14_Line_420_SW ● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000 Dimensions and attributes ● Target Height: 0.00 US ft ● Target Width: 1.57 US ft ● Target Length: 30.85 US ft ● Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft ● Mag Anomaly: No ● Avoidance Area: ● Classification1: ● Classification2: ● Area: ● Block: ● Description: Possible wire or cable SSS A 008 ● Water Depth: 41.69 US ft ● Sonar Time at Target: 10/25/2014 6:24:12 PM 36.0365102375 -75.5435036219 (WGS84) ● Click Position 36.0363401837 -75.5438874657 (NAD27LL) 36.0365102375 -75.5435036219 (LocalLL) ● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014 \Sidescan\10.25.2014 \OBII_A_14_Line_351_SW.jsf ● Ping Number: 348186 ● Map Projection: NC83F (X) 3021760.76 (Y) 849979.18 (Projected Coordinates) ● Range to target: 93.09 US ft ● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft ● Heading: 259.800 Degrees ● Event Number: 0 ● Line Name: OBII_A_14_Line_351_SW ● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000 Dimensions and attributes ● Target Height: 0.00 US ft ● Target Width: 58.12 US ft ● Target Length: 101.53 US ft ● Target Shadow: 17.29 US ft ● Mag Anomaly: No ● Avoidance Area: ● Classification1: ● Classification2: ● Area: ● Block: ● Description: Bottom surface feature SSS A 009 ● Water Depth: 26.67 US ft ● Sonar Time at Target: 10/26/2014 12:30:45 PM 36.0393056331 -75.5511515781 (WGS84) ● Click Position 36.0391358195 -75.5515350315 (NAD27LL) 36.0393056331 -75.5511515781 (LocalLL) ● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014 \Sidescan\10.26.2014 \OBII_A_14_Line_415_SW.jsf ● Ping Number: 159923 ● Map Projection: NC83F (X) 3019465.54 (Y) 850917.53 (Projected Coordinates) ● Range to target: 160.74 US ft ● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft ● Heading: 256.590 Degrees ● Event Number: 0 ● Line Name: OBII_A_14_Line_415_SW ● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000 Dimensions and attributes ● Target Height: 0.00 US ft ● Target Width: 0.58 US ft ● Target Length: 32.69 US ft ● Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft ● Mag Anomaly: No ● Avoidance Area: ● Classification1: ● Classification2: ● Area: ● Block: ● Description: Possible pipe or wire SSS A 010 ● Water Depth: 42.73 US ft ● Sonar Time at Target: 10/26/2014 3:21:00 PM 36.0416890795 -75.5601000736 (WGS84) ● Click Position 36.0415195256 -75.5604830968 (NAD27LL) 36.0416890795 -75.5601000736 (LocalLL) ● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014 \Sidescan\10.26.2014 \OBII_A_14_Line_316_SW.jsf ● Ping Number: 255368 ● Map Projection: NC83F (X) 3016791.41 (Y) 851692.88 (Projected Coordinates) ● Range to target: 128.59 US ft ● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft ● Heading: 255.500 Degrees ● Event Number: 0 ● Line Name: OBII_A_14_Line_316_SW ● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000 Dimensions and attributes ● Target Height: 0.00 US ft ● Target Width: 14.73 US ft ● Target Length: 35.23 US ft ● Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft ● Mag Anomaly: No ● Avoidance Area: ● Classification1: ● Classification2: ● Area: ● Block: ● Description: Bottom surface features Attachment D: Borrow Area A Magnetic Anomaly Table Anomaly X Coordinate Y Coordinate Line #Target #Signature Intensity Duration Assessment Avoidance Buffers 315-‐1-‐dp-‐6.5g-‐56.7f 3016556.2 851446.4 315 1 Dipolar 6.5g 56.7f Small single object No 318-‐1-‐dp-‐8g-‐38.6f 3017024.6 851377.7 318 1 Dipolar 8g 38.6f Small single object No 331-‐1-‐dp-‐6.9g-‐93.6f 3020502 852290.9 331 1 Dipolar 6.9g 93.6f Small single object No 341-‐1-‐nm-‐5.7g-‐40f 3021091.5 851133 341 1 Negative Monopolar 5.7g 40f Small single object No 352-‐1-‐nm-‐21.3g-‐398f 3019395.6 847949.9 352 1 Negative Monopolar 21.3g 398f Moderate object(s)Buffer B 354-‐1-‐dp-‐27g-‐113.6f 3017150.3 845576 354 1 Dipolar 27g 113.6f Moderate single object No 360-‐1-‐pm-‐19.3g-‐102.1f 3016934.9 844504.3 360 1 Positive Monopolar 19.3g 102.1f Moderate single object Cluster Buffer A 360-‐2-‐nm-‐70.8g-‐122.8f 3017126.4 844674.2 360 2 Negative Monopolar 70.8g 122.8f Moderate single object Cluster Buffer A 366-‐1-‐pm-‐101.1g-‐136.2f 3018006.3 844359 366 1 Positive Monopolar 101.1g 136.2f Moderate object(s)Buffer C Attachment E: Borrow Area C Sonar Target Table Target X Coordinate Y Coordinate Assessment Anomaly Association SSS C 001 2982383.872 909862.2835 Small single object No SSS C 002 2981223.849 909594.9132 Small single object(s)No SSS C 003 2983408.851 906895.8117 Bottom surface feature 555-‐2 Possible SSS C 004 2983032.328 905958.8844 Bottom surface feature 564-‐1 Possible SSS C 005 2982110.086 904810.504 Small single object 572-‐2 Possible SSS C 006 2982401.932 909813.5558 Small single object No SSS C 007 2983181.039 907410.2336 Small single object(s)No SSS C 008 2980809.053 904685.6529 Small single object 574-‐1 Possible SSS C 009 2982121.612 904865.6474 Bottom surface feature 572-‐2 Possible Attachment F: Borrow Area C Sonar Target Reports Target Info User Entered Info Generated on 3/13/2015 2:57:38 PM Target Image Borrow Area C Sonar Target Reports SSS C 001 ● Water Depth: 40.94 US ft ● Sonar Time at Target: 10/28/2014 5:38:45 PM 36.2046064363 -75.6698160347 (WGS84) ● Click Position 36.2044419671 -75.6701887817 (NAD27LL) 36.2046064363 -75.6698160347 (LocalLL) ● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014 \Sidescan\10.28.2014\OBII_C_14_Line_526_W.jsf ● Ping Number: 499260 ● Map Projection: NC83F (X) 2982383.87 (Y) 909862.28 (Projected Coordinates) ● Range to target: 119.64 US ft ● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft ● Heading: 291.800 Degrees ● Event Number: 0 ● Line Name: OBII_C_14_Line_526_W ● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000 Dimensions and attributes ● Target Height: 0.00 US ft ● Target Width: 1.98 US ft ● Target Length: 9.61 US ft ● Target Shadow: 1.65 US ft ● Mag Anomaly: No ● Avoidance Area: ● Classification1: ● Classification2: ● Area: ● Block: ● Description: Small single object SSS C 002 ● Water Depth: 50.67 US ft ● Sonar Time at Target: 10/28/2014 5:09:03 PM 36.2039792346 -75.6737758141 (WGS84) ● Click Position 36.2038148154 -75.6741484038 (NAD27LL) 36.2039792346 -75.6737758141 (LocalLL) ● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014 \Sidescan\10.28.2014\OBII_C_14_Line_532_E.jsf ● Ping Number: 475085 ● Map Projection: NC83F (X) 2981223.85 (Y) 909594.91 (Projected Coordinates) ● Range to target: 156.10 US ft ● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft ● Heading: 88.100 Degrees ● Event Number: 0 ● Line Name: OBII_C_14_Line_532_E ● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000 Dimensions and attributes ● Target Height: 0.00 US ft ● Target Width: 10.15 US ft ● Target Length: 12.86 US ft ● Target Shadow: 7.60 US ft ● Mag Anomaly: No ● Avoidance Area: ● Classification1: ● Classification2: ● Area: ● Block: ● Description: Small single object(s) SSS C 003 ● Water Depth: 42.75 US ft ● Sonar Time at Target: 10/28/2014 2:59:52 PM 36.1963681033 -75.6666816050 (WGS84) ● Click Position 36.1962034578 -75.6670547941 (NAD27LL) 36.1963681033 -75.6666816050 (LocalLL) ● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014 \Sidescan\10.28.2014\OBII_C_14_Line_556_E.jsf ● Ping Number: 369891 ● Map Projection: NC83F (X) 2983408.85 (Y) 906895.81 (Projected Coordinates) ● Range to target: 134.99 US ft ● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft ● Heading: 90.000 Degrees ● Event Number: 0 ● Line Name: OBII_C_14_Line_556_E ● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000 Dimensions and attributes ● Target Height: 0.00 US ft ● Target Width: 10.05 US ft ● Target Length: 39.37 US ft ● Target Shadow: 7.31 US ft ● Mag Anomaly: 555-2 ● Avoidance Area: ● Classification1: ● Classification2: ● Area: ● Block: ● Description: Bottom surface feature. Possible association with Anomaly 555-2 SSS C 004 ● Water Depth: 46.71 US ft ● Sonar Time at Target: 10/28/2014 2:10:53 PM 36.1938306654 -75.6680634452 (WGS84) ● Click Position 36.1936660016 -75.6684366642 (NAD27LL) 36.1938306654 -75.6680634452 (LocalLL) ● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014 \Sidescan\10.28.2014\OBII_C_14_Line_564_E.jsf ● Ping Number: 330006 ● Map Projection: NC83F (X) 2983032.33 (Y) 905958.88 (Projected Coordinates) ● Range to target: 93.73 US ft ● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft ● Heading: 85.100 Degrees ● Event Number: 0 ● Line Name: OBII_C_14_Line_564_E ● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000 Dimensions and attributes ● Target Height: 0.00 US ft ● Target Width: 3.37 US ft ● Target Length: 42.90 US ft ● Target Shadow: 5.37 US ft ● Mag Anomaly: 564-1 ● Avoidance Area: ● Classification1: ● Classification2: ● Area: ● Block: ● Description: Bottom surface feature possibly associated with Anomaly 564-1. SSS C 005 ● Water Depth: 58.39 US ft ● Sonar Time at Target: 10/28/2014 1:13:17 PM 36.1907629729 -75.6713174618 (WGS84) ● Click Position 36.1905983124 -75.6716906460 (NAD27LL) 36.1907629729 -75.6713174618 (LocalLL) ● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014 \Sidescan\10.28.2014\OBII_C_14_Line_572_E.jsf ● Ping Number: 283093 ● Map Projection: NC83F (X) 2982110.09 (Y) 904810.50 (Projected Coordinates) ● Range to target: 84.45 US ft ● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft ● Heading: 94.290 Degrees ● Event Number: 0 ● Line Name: OBII_C_14_Line_572_E ● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000 Dimensions and attributes ● Target Height: 0.00 US ft ● Target Width: 3.77 US ft ● Target Length: 9.67 US ft ● Target Shadow: 6.85 US ft ● Mag Anomaly: 572-2 ● Avoidance Area: ● Classification1: ● Classification2: ● Area: ● Block: ● Description: Small single object possible association with anomaly 572-2. SSS C 006 ● Water Depth: 50.57 US ft ● Sonar Time at Target: 10/27/2014 1:23:36 PM 36.2044710003 -75.6697603982 (WGS84) ● Click Position 36.2043065283 -75.6701331527 (NAD27LL) 36.2044710003 -75.6697603982 (LocalLL) ● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014 \Sidescan\10.27.2014\OBII_C_14_Line_527_E.jsf ● Ping Number: 134181 ● Map Projection: NC83F (X) 2982401.93 (Y) 909813.56 (Projected Coordinates) ● Range to target: 93.09 US ft ● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft ● Heading: 98.390 Degrees ● Event Number: 0 ● Line Name: OBII_C_14_Line_527_E ● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000 Dimensions and attributes ● Target Height: 0.00 US ft ● Target Width: 1.43 US ft ● Target Length: 6.87 US ft ● Target Shadow: 2.00 US ft ● Mag Anomaly: No ● Avoidance Area: ● Classification1: ● Classification2: ● Area: ● Block: ● Description: Small single object. SSS C 007 ● Water Depth: 36.09 US ft ● Sonar Time at Target: 10/27/2014 3:33:50 PM 36.1978013537 -75.6673946928 (WGS84) ● Click Position 36.1976367416 -75.6677677976 (NAD27LL) 36.1978013537 -75.6673946928 (LocalLL) ● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014 \Sidescan\10.27.2014\OBII_C_14_Line_551_E.jsf ● Ping Number: 240226 ● Map Projection: NC83F (X) 2983181.04 (Y) 907410.23 (Projected Coordinates) ● Range to target: 66.54 US ft ● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft ● Heading: 83.100 Degrees ● Event Number: 0 ● Line Name: OBII_C_14_Line_551_E ● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000 Dimensions and attributes ● Target Height: 0.00 US ft ● Target Width: 6.28 US ft ● Target Length: 5.42 US ft ● Target Shadow: 0.00 US ft ● Mag Anomaly: No ● Avoidance Area: ● Classification1: ● Classification2: ● Area: ● Block: ● Description: Small single object(s). SSS C 008 ● Water Depth: 51.54 US ft ● Sonar Time at Target: 10/27/2014 6:00:21 PM 36.1905399486 -75.6757379430 (WGS84) ● Click Position 36.1903753543 -75.6761109364 (NAD27LL) 36.1905399486 -75.6757379430 (LocalLL) ● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014 \Sidescan\10.27.2014\OBII_C_14_Line_573_W.jsf ● Ping Number: 359540 ● Map Projection: NC83F (X) 2980809.05 (Y) 904685.65 (Projected Coordinates) ● Range to target: 95.96 US ft ● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft ● Heading: 291.900 Degrees ● Event Number: 0 ● Line Name: OBII_C_14_Line_573_W ● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000 Dimensions and attributes ● Target Height: 0.00 US ft ● Target Width: 2.03 US ft ● Target Length: 4.51 US ft ● Target Shadow: 10.83 US ft ● Mag Anomaly: 574-1 ● Avoidance Area: ● Classification1: ● Classification2: ● Area: ● Block: ● Description: Small single object possible association with anomaly 574-1. SSS C 009 ● Water Depth: 46.11 US ft ● Sonar Time at Target: 10/27/2014 5:44:34 PM 36.1909132975 -75.6712721613 (WGS84) ● Click Position 36.1907486386 -75.6716453420 (NAD27LL) 36.1909132975 -75.6712721613 (LocalLL) ● Acoustic Source File: F:\CB&I_OBX_II_2014 \Sidescan\10.27.2014\OBII_C_14_Line_571_E.jsf ● Ping Number: 346686 ● Map Projection: NC83F (X) 2982121.61 (Y) 904865.65 (Projected Coordinates) ● Range to target: 125.71 US ft ● Fish Height: 0.00 US ft ● Heading: 95.290 Degrees ● Event Number: 0 ● Line Name: OBII_C_14_Line_571_E ● Positioning System to Sensor: 0.0000 Dimensions and attributes ● Target Height: 0.00 US ft ● Target Width: 6.78 US ft ● Target Length: 24.75 US ft ● Target Shadow: 8.19 US ft ● Mag Anomaly: 572-2 ● Avoidance Area: ● Classification1: ● Classification2: ● Area: ● Block: ● Description: Bottom surface feature possibly assoiated with anomaly 572-2. Attachment G: Borrow Area C Magnetic Anomaly Table Anomaly X Coordinate Y Coordinate Line #Target #Signature Intensity Duration Assessment Avoidance Buffers 507-‐1-‐dp-‐5g-‐115.1f 2982390.7 912045.9 507 1 Dipolar 5g 115.1f Small Single Object No 509-‐1-‐nm-‐3.4g-‐62.4f 2983840.7 911869.3 509 1 Negative Monopolar 3.4g 62.4f Out of Area No 511-‐1-‐pm-‐8.3g-‐102.2f 2981111.2 911652.8 511 1 Positive Monopolar 8.3g 102.2f Small Single Object Buffer N 512-‐1-‐dp-‐9.9g-‐181.7f 2981159.2 911589.3 512 1 Dipolar 9.9g 181.7f Moderate Single Object Buffer N 512-‐2-‐dp-‐32.3g-‐55.7f 2982153.2 911567.3 512 2 Dipolar 32.3g 55.7f Moderate Single Object Buffer M 513-‐1-‐dp-‐9.2g-‐181.9f 2981045.9 911452.6 513 1 Dipolar 9.2g 181.9f Moderate Single Object Buffer N 513-‐2-‐pm-‐9.6g-‐135.6f 2982106.5 911465.4 513 2 Positive Monopolar 9.6g 135.6f Moderate Object(S)Buffer M 514-‐1-‐mc-‐10.7g-‐235.4f 2980981.8 911359.2 514 1 Multicomponent 10.7g 235.4f Moderate Object(S)Buffer N 514-‐2-‐dp-‐15.6g-‐372.2f 2982237.9 911356.7 514 2 Dipolar 15.6g 372.2f Moderate Object(S)Buffer M 514-‐3-‐dp-‐27.7g-‐62.4f 2983753 911364 514 3 Dipolar 27.7g 62.4f Moderate Single Object Buffer L 515-‐1-‐dp-‐5.6g-‐42.4f 2983783.8 911245 515 1 Dipolar 5.6g 42.4f Small Single Object Buffer L 517-‐1-‐pm-‐16.7g-‐193.9f 2980950.3 910988.2 517 1 Positive Monopolar 16.7g 193.9f Moderate Object(S)No 517-‐2-‐nm-‐8.3g-‐145.7f 2981504.7 910993.2 517 2 Negative Monopolar 8.3g 145.7f Moderate Object(S)No 517-‐3-‐pm-‐5.4g-‐49.8f 2981996.5 910987.2 517 3 Positive Monopolar 5.4g 49.8f Small Single Object No 521-‐1-‐pm-‐15.4g-‐104.6f 2980721.2 910593.4 521 1 Positive Monopolar 15.4g 104.6f Out of Area No 523-‐1-‐dp-‐7.4g-‐61.1f 2983430.2 910404.9 523 1 Dipolar 7.4g 61.1f Small Single Object No 525-‐1-‐nm-‐10.5g-‐242.9f 2981068.1 910087.3 525 1 Negative Monopolar 10.5g 242.9f Moderate Object(S)Buffer K 526-‐1-‐dp-‐14.6g-‐294f 2981029.6 909980.4 526 1 Dipolar 14.6g 294f Moderate Single Object Buffer K 527-‐1-‐pm-‐7.4g-‐32.6f 2983938.7 909908.7 527 1 Positive Monopolar 7.4g 32.6f Small Single Object No 528-‐1-‐mc-‐9.5g-‐276.3f 2981603 909812.3 528 1 Multicomponent 9.5g 276.3f Moderate Object(S)Buffer J 530-‐1-‐mc-‐15g-‐348.2f 2980910.5 909582.1 530 1 Multicomponent 15g 348.2f Moderate Object(S)Buffer I 532-‐1-‐pm-‐20.2g-‐174.3f 2981148.3 909434.8 532 1 Positive Monopolar 20.2g 174.3f Moderate Single Object Buffer I 534-‐1-‐pm-‐11.1g-‐328.2f 2981757.2 909097.7 534 1 Positive Monopolar 11.1g 328.2f Moderate Single Object Buffer H 538-‐1-‐nm-‐4.8g-‐71.5f 2981158.6 908701.2 538 1 Negative Monopolar 4.8g 71.5f Small Single Object No 542-‐1-‐dp-‐10.2g-‐143.4f 2981134.5 908318.3 542 1 Dipolar 10.2g 143.4f Moderate Single Object No 542-‐2-‐dp-‐8.3g-‐88.5f 2981824.6 908313.7 542 2 Dipolar 8.3g 88.5f Small Single Object No 550-‐1-‐nm-‐6.1g-‐66.8f 2983669.5 907427.3 550 1 Negative Monopolar 6.1g 66.8f Small Single Object No 551-‐1-‐pm-‐42.7g-‐53.1f 2984818.2 907354 551 1 Positive Monopolar 42.7g 53.1f Out of Area No 553-‐1-‐nm-‐11.1g-‐274.6f 2983457.6 907023.9 553 1 Negative Monopolar 11.1g 274.6f Moderate Object(S)Buffer G 555-‐1-‐nm-‐10.4g-‐196.6f 2980644.2 906851.8 555 1 Negative Monopolar 10.4g 196.6f Moderate Object(S)Buffer F 555-‐2-‐dp-‐29.4g-‐93.6f 2983497.2 906844.3 555 2 Dipolar 29.4g 93.6f Moderate Object(S)Buffer G 556-‐1-‐nm-‐11.3g-‐303.6f 2980586.4 906757.8 556 1 Negative Monopolar 11.3g 303.6f Moderate Object(S)Buffer F 558-‐1-‐dp-‐17.2g-‐230.2f 2981187.3 906544.4 558 1 Dipolar 17.2g 230.2f Moderate Single Object No 558-‐2-‐nm-‐6g-‐69.2f 2983447.4 906543.5 558 2 Negative Monopolar 6g 69.2f Small Single Object No 558-‐3-‐dp-‐4.2g-‐106.9f 2983666.7 906534.1 558 3 Dipolar 4.2g 106.9f Moderate Single Object No 560-‐1-‐dp-‐8.2g-‐214.2f 2982187 906374.6 560 1 Dipolar 8.2g 214.2f Moderate Object(s)No 563-‐1-‐mc-‐9.8g-‐172.4f 2980188.3 905982.7 563 1 Multicomponent 9.8g 172.4f Moderate Object(s)No 564-‐1-‐nm-‐7.4g-‐58.6f 2982940.1 905858.9 564 1 Negative Monopolar 7.4g 58.6f Small Single Object No 565-‐1-‐dp-‐5.3g-‐82.6f 2981582.4 905660.8 565 1 Dipolar 5.3g 82.6f Small Single Object No 566-‐1-‐dp-‐13g-‐78.7f 2981418.4 905558 566 1 Dipolar 13g 78.7f Small Single Object No 567-‐1-‐dp-‐12.5g-‐103.1f 2980852.7 905473.9 567 1 Dipolar 12.5g 103.1f Moderate Single Object Buffer E 568-‐1-‐dp-‐14.7g-‐166.9f 2980836.9 905380.8 568 1 Dipolar 14.7g 166.9f Moderate Single Object Buffer E 568-‐2-‐dp-‐6.6g-‐162.5f 2981625.8 905380.2 568 2 Dipolar 6.6g 162.5f Moderate Object(s)No 569-‐1-‐nm-‐12g-‐232.9f 2980730.4 905160.4 569 1 Negative Monopolar 12g 232.9f Moderate Object(s)No 570-‐1-‐pm-‐21.8g-‐130.9f 2983000.6 905063.1 570 1 Positive Monopolar 21.8g 130.9f Moderate Object(s)No 571-‐1-‐pm-‐13.9g-‐78.5f 2984062.3 904988.5 571 1 Positive Monopolar 13.9g 78.5f Small Single Object No 572-‐1-‐dp-‐10.4g-‐134.6f 2980678 904894.1 572 1 Dipolar 10.4g 134.6f Moderate Single Object No 572-‐2-‐nm-‐7.4g-‐43.1f 2981949.6 904894.6 572 2 Negative Monopolar 7.4g 43.1f Small Single Object No 572-‐3-‐dp-‐25.5g-‐83.8f 2982623.1 904889.1 572 3 Dipolar 25.5g 83.8f Moderate Single Object No 573-‐1-‐pm-‐10.3g-‐144.1f 2984282.9 904763.2 573 1 Positive Monopolar 10.3g 144.1f Moderate Object(s)No 574-‐1-‐nm-‐13.7g-‐179f 2980732.4 904674.5 574 1 Negative Monopolar 13.7g 179f Moderate Single Object SSS C 008 Single Object 576-‐1-‐nm-‐5.7g-‐64.6f 2983213.2 904501.4 576 1 Negative Monopolar 5.7g 64.6f Small Single Object No 577-‐1-‐dp-‐15.7g-‐180.8f 2980869.9 904373.2 577 1 Dipolar 15.7g 180.8f Moderate Single Object No 580-‐1-‐dp-‐7.1g-‐48.1f 2983130.7 904002 580 1 Dipolar 7.1g 48.1f Small Single Object No 581-‐1-‐dp-‐13.2g-‐217.8f 2979498 903880.4 581 1 Dipolar 13.2g 217.8f Moderate Single Object No 581-‐2-‐dp-‐16.7g-‐166f 2980515.5 903882 581 2 Dipolar 16.7g 166f Complex Object(s)Buffer D 581-‐3-‐pm-‐8.6g-‐192.1f 2981091.4 903878.7 581 3 Positive Monopolar 8.6g 192.1f Moderate Object(s)No 582-‐1-‐dp-‐17.3g-‐169.5f 2980381.6 903782.4 582 1 Dipolar 17.3g 169.5f Complex Object(s)Buffer D 583-‐1-‐nm-‐9.4g-‐102.6f 2979328.5 903720.4 583 1 Negative Monopolar 9.4g 102.6f Small Single Object No 583-‐2-‐pm-‐30.7g-‐100.9f 2983723.2 903710.4 583 2 Positive Monopolar 30.7g 100.9f Moderate Object(s) 587-‐1-‐mc-‐14.6g-‐462.2f 2980409.6 903196.5 587 1 Multicomponent 14.6g 462.2f Complex Object(s)Buffer C 594-‐1-‐mc-‐10.4g-‐462.9f 2980601.9 903017.5 594 1 Multicomponent 10.4g 462.9f Complex Object(s)Buffer B 596-‐1-‐dp-‐12.4g-‐56.4f 2978189.8 902805.6 596 1 Dipolar 12.4g 56.4f Small Single Object No 600-‐1-‐mc-‐9.5g-‐165.5f 2978970.2 902417.2 600 1 Multicomponent 9.5g 165.5f Complex Object(s)Buffer A 601-‐1-‐mc-‐4.8g-‐108.3f 2978804.6 902241.1 601 1 Multicomponent 4.8g 108.3f Complex Object(s)Buffer A Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. Appendix C: Geotechnical Report Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina COMPREHENSIVE MARINE SAND SEARCH AND BORROW AREA DESIGN REPORT: TOWNS OF DUCK, KITTY HAWK, and KILL DEVIL HILLS DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Prepared by: Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. Prepared for: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Kills, North Carolina Recommended Citation: Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc., 2015. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina. 49p. (Prepared for the Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina). August 2015 Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina Executive Summary In 2013, Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. (CPE-NC) was authorized to provide services in support of the effort by the Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills to obtain the necessary permits and authorizations required for beach nourishment along portions of the three Towns. As part of these efforts, CPE-NC was tasked with conducting a comprehensie marine sand search investigation and borrow area design. During the comprehensive marine sand search investigation, CPE-NC researchers conducted geophysical (sidescan sonar, magnetometer, sub-bottom and bathymetric) and geotechnical (beach characterization) surveys and compiled these data with existing information supplied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and other Federal and non-federal entities. Approximately 230 nautical miles of geophysical survey data were acquired in June and October of 2014. Geophysical data were correlated with 100 vibracores collected by CPE-NC in July 2014 to characterize sediments. From these data, two (2) proposed borrow areas were designed. Sediment samples were collected along the shorelines of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills by CPE-NC and combined with samples taken by the USACE in 1993. The compatibility of the proposed borrow areas with the existing beaches was evaluated according to wet Munsell color, percent fine-size sediment, percent granular-size sediment, percent gravel-size sediment, carbonate content and grain size. For the proposed borrow areas all values meet the allowable limits defined by Rule 15A NCAC 07H .0312. Quantum of work summary. Reconnaissance level total nautical miles surveyed (bathymetric and magnetometer) 60.0 Number of CPE-NC vibracores collected 100 Design level total nautical miles surveyed (bathymetric, magnetometer, sub-bottom and sidescan sonar) 170.2 Number of proposed borrow areas identified 2 i COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ iv List of Appendices .................................................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 INVESTIGATION SEQUENCING ................................................................................................. 1 PHASE I INVESTIGATION .......................................................................................................... 4 Geological Background ................................................................................................................. 4 Previous Investigations .................................................................................................................. 6 Sand Resource Inventory .............................................................................................................. 8 Beach Characterization ................................................................................................................. 8 Results of Phase I Investigations .................................................................................................. 15 PHASE II INVESTIGATION ....................................................................................................... 16 Investigation Details .................................................................................................................... 16 Equipment and Methods ............................................................................................................. 17 Results and Discussion of Phase II: ............................................................................................ 24 PHASE III INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................................... 28 Equipment and Methods ............................................................................................................. 28 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................. 33 PROPOSED BORROW AREA DESIGN ....................................................................................... 42 Design Considerations ................................................................................................................. 42 Data Quality ................................................................................................................................. 43 Compatibility Analysis ................................................................................................................... 44 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 47 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 48 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................. 48 ii COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project locations and sand search investigation areas. ................................................... 2 Figure 2. Map of the study area in northeastern North Carolina modified from Thieler et al. 2014. ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3. Figure showing historic areas of investigation by USACE, the Town of Nags Head, and BOEM (MMS) and preliminary investigation areas targeted by CPE-NC in this investigation. ...... 7 Figure 4. Map showing the locations of jet probes and reconnaissance geophysical survey tracklines as well as resulting preliminary areas of investigation. ................................................. 8 Figure 5. Representative cross section showing the location of samples collected along beach profiles at Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills to characterize the existing beach. ................... 10 Figure 6. Map showing locations of sediment samples collected by CPE-NC along the Town of Duck ocean shoreline. ................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 7. Map showing locations of sediment samples collected by CPE-NC along the Town of Kitty Hawk ocean shoreline. ......................................................................................................... 13 Figure 8. Map showing locations of sediment samples collected by CPE-NC along the Town of Kill Devil Hills ocean shoreline. ..................................................................................................... 14 Figure 9. Schematic diagram showing the deployment of a joint sub-bottom reflection profile, bathymetric, magnetometer and sidescan sonar survey. ............................................................ 17 Figure 10. Photograph of the Geometrics G-882 Digital Cesium Marine Magnetometer used to investigate magnetic anomalies within the potential sediment source. ..................................... 20 Figure 11. Photographs of the EdgeTech X-STAR SB-512i sub-bottom profiling system. ............ 21 Figure 12. Photographs of the EdgeTech 4200-HFL (left) and EdgeTech 4125 (right) sidescan sonar systems. .............................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 13. Map showing the locations of tracklines surveyed and bathymetric data collected in Area A during Phase II reconaissance geophysical survey and vibracores collected during Phase III... ................................................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 14. Map showing the locations of tracklines surveyed and bathymetric data collected in Area B during Phase II reconaissance geophysical surveys and vibracores collected during Phase III. .................................................................................................................................................. 26 Figure 15. Map showing the locations of tracklines surveyed and bathymetric data collected in Area C during Phase II reconaissance geophysical surveys and vibracores collected during Phase III. .................................................................................................................................................. 27 Figure 16. Map showing the locations of geophysical tracklines surveyed and vibracores collected during Phase II and III in preliminary investigation Area A. .......................................... 29 Figure 17 Map showing the locations of geophysical tracklines surveyed and vibracores collected during Phase II and III in preliminary investigation Area C. .......................................... 30 Figure 18. Photograph of A-frame Deployment of the 271B Alpine Pneumatic vibracore system from deck of the M/V Thunderforce. ............................................................................................ 31 Figure 19. Photograph showing vibracore field logging being conducted aboard the M/V Thunderforce by CPE-NC geologists. ............................................................................................. 32 Figure 20. Photograph showing vibracore logging, sub-sample collection and Munsell color determination being conducted. .................................................................................................. 33 iii COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina iv Figure 21. Map showing Proposed Borrow Area A. ...................................................................... 35 Figure 22. Map showing Proposed Borrow Area B. ...................................................................... 36 Figure 23. Example image of seismograph overlain with digitized reflectors and vibracores to enable siemic interpretations. ...................................................................................................... 37 Figure 24. Sonargraph, showing large, high relief sand waves ranging in length from approximately 150 meters to 275 meters in width. ..................................................................... 38 Figure 25. Sonargraph showing small, low relief sand ripples ranging from approximately 13 meter in length to 1 m meters in width........................................................................................ 38 Figure 26. Sonargraph showing potential isolated exposed mud patches with sand/gravel wave. Isolated patches averaged at 40 meters long and 22 meters wide.............................................. 39 Figure 27. Sidescan sonar mosaic for Proposed Borrow Area A. ................................................. 40 Figure 28. Sidescan sonar mosaic for Proposed Borrow Area C. .................................................. 41 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Sieve sizes used for granularmetric analysis. .................................................................. 15 Table 2. Equipment used during the Phase II and III geophyscial investigations. ....................... 18 Table 3. Vibracore color code scheme. ........................................................................................ 34 Table 4. Borrow Area characteristics ........................................................................................... 43 Table 5. Beach and proposed borrow area characteristics .......................................................... 44 Table 6. Allowable fine, granular, gravel, and carbonate limits defined by State rules .............. 46 Table 7. Geophysical and geotechnical investigations conducted in 2014 .................................. 47 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1 Scope of Services (Digital Copy Only) Appendix 2 CPE-NC Individual Beach Granularmetric Reports (Digital Copy Only) Appendix 3 CPE-NC Individual Beach Grain Size Distribution Curves/Histograms (Digital Copy Only) Appendix 4 Beach Composite Summary Tables Appendix 5 Beach Composite Granularmetric Reports (Digital Copy Only) Appendix 6 Beach Composite Grain Size Curves/Histograms (Digital Copy Only) Appendix 7 2014 CPE-NC Three Inch Clast Survey Results Appendix 8 Investigation Permits (Digital Copy Only) Appendix 9 2014 CPE-NC Seismic (Sub-bottom Data) (Digital Copy Only) Appendix 10 2014 CPE-NC Sidescan Sonar Contact Sheets (Digital Copy Only) Appendix 11 2014 CPE-NC Vibracore Logs Appendix 12 2014 CPE-NC Vibracore Photographs Appendix 13 2014 CPE-NC Individual Vibracore Granularmetric Reports (Digital Copy Only) Appendix 14 2014 CPE-NC Individual Vibracore Grain Size Distribution Curves/Histograms (Digital Copy Only) iv COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina v Appendix 15 2014 Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc. Cultural Resource Report (Digital Copy Only Appendix 16 Proposed Borrow Areas Composite Summary Tables Appendix 17 Proposed Borrow Areas Composite Granularmetric Reports (Digital Copy Only) Appendix 18 Proposed Borrow Areas Composite Grain Size Curves/Histograms (Digital Copy Only) v COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina INTRODUCTION Dare County’s beaches are a major economic engine to the tourist based economies of the local Towns, the County, and the entire northeastern North Carolina region. The Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills partnered with Dare County to design a combined beach nourishment project that would reduce storm damage and flood damage to the three communities. In an effort to realize cost efficiencies, the three Towns and Dare County hired Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. (CPE-NC) to conduct a comprehensie marine sand search investigation and design borrow areas for the combined project that would meet the State of North Carolina’s sediment criteria rule (15A NCAC 07H .0312) (See Appendix 1 for Scope of Work). The Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills are located in Dare County in northeastern North Carolina. These beach municipalities are geographically located on a spit of land in the Outer Banks of North Carolina known as Bodie Island. The northernmost municipality, the Town of Duck, is bordered to the north by an unincorporated portion of Currituck County and to the south by the Town of Southern Shores. The Town of Kitty Hawk is bordered to the north by the Town of Southern Shores and Kill Devil Hills to the south. The Town of Nags Head is located to the south of Kill Devil Hills. All three towns are bound by the Atlantic Ocean to the east and the Albemarle Sound to the west (Figure 1). INVESTIGATION SEQUENCING A systematic approach to marine sand searches has been developed over the years by our Coastal Geology and Geomatics team (e.g. Finkl, Khalil and Andrews, 1997; Finkl, Andrews and Benedet, 2003; Finkl, Benedet and Andrews, 2005; Finkl and Khalil, 2005). In a comprehensive marine sand search, investigations are typically divided into three (3) sequential phases. This phased approach can be modified to meet the scope of the investigation and accommodate the level of work previously performed. Regardless of the phases executed during a sand search, the CPE-NC investigation sequencing is preserved in order to maintain efficiency and completeness to provide confident results. 1 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 2 Figure 1. Project locations and sand search investigation areas. Phase I investigations typically consist of a comprehensive review of the recipient beach(s)/project area(s) and sediment resources offshore of the project area. This desktop study examines previously collected information within the geologic context of the investigation area in order to identify features having the highest potential of containing project-compatible sand. The geological background of the area is assessed to identify the geomorphic features that may contain material suitable for the project. Information related to previously investigated areas is compiled and related back to the geomorphic features. Geophysical and geotechnical data previously collected within these areas, as well as any reports discussing the findings, are then reviewed. Based on this analysis, deposits potentially containing project-compatible material are identified. The results of Phase I are used to define the areas that will be surveyed during Phase II investigations. Phase II investigations usually consist of reconnaissance level geophysical and geotechnical surveys. A joint geophysical investigation (typically collecting sub-bottom reflection profiles, sidescan sonar images, magnetometer and bathymetric data) is conducted at reconnaissance line spacing to assess the thickness of potential sand resources. The wide reconnaissance line spacing is designed to cover larger expanses of seafloor. Therefore, the data coverage achieved during Phase II investigations may not be sufficient to develop a detailed sand thickness 2 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 3 (isopachous) map. Geophysical data collected during this phase are used to design a vibracore investigation plan. Vibracores may be collected to determine the sediment characteristics within the areas identified through remote sensing. Typically a limited number of cores are collected to groundtruth each potential sand resource. Sand resources within the investigation area are then analyzed using Geographic Information System (GIS) procedures that integrate the sub-bottom reflection profile and vibracore data to provide an estimate of deposit thickness and sedimentary characteristics. Samples may also be collected from the project area during this phase to characterize the project area/existing beach in terms of grain size, color and composition (i.e. how well the proposed borrow area sediment matches the existing material in the project area). The Phase II results are reviewed within the context of beach/project compatibility to identify potential resource areas that will undergo design level investigations during Phase III. Phase III typically consists of design level geotechnical and geophysical investigations, a cultural resource investigation, and borrow area design. A joint sub-bottom, sidescan sonar, magnetometer and bathymetric survey is conducted within the potential sand resource area(s). The data collected are used to identify possible cultural or environmental resources for avoidance and to develop isopach (sediment thickness) maps for proposed borrow area design. These results are also used to target areas for additional vibracoring. In order to conform to standard geological and engineering practice, fulfill permitting requirements, and conduct geophysical and geotechnical surveys in an expeditious manner, vibracores are collected to provide a maximum spacing of 1000 ft. (industry standard spacing) within the potential resource area. Whenever possible, the vibracores are opened and evaluated during the investigation to provide on-the-fly guidance. This provides an opportunity for immediate visual evaluation of the sediment and real-time optimization of the vibracoring plan (the sampling program is modified on the basis of what is observed in the recovered materials). This flexibility in the field allows experienced geologists to refine the investigation plan to focus on potential sand resources. Proposed borrow area boundaries and excavation depths are developed from the data collected during the Phase I, II and III investigations. A final cultural resource investigation is required to permit borrow areas for use. During this investigation, additional geophysical data are collected within the proposed borrow area to achieve a total combined line spacing of 30 m (approximately 98 ft.). A qualified marine archaeologist who meets the standards set forth by the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior is required to be on the survey vessel at all times during the cultural resource investigation. The geophysical data are used to identify any cultural resources, submerged hazards or any other features that would affect borrow area delineation and dredging activities. Based on the results of the cultural resource investigation, the marine archaeologist compiles a report that includes recommendations for buffers around any potentially significant magnetic anomalies. The final borrow area design is then modified to take the recommended buffers into account. During this marine sand search investigation, a Phase I desktop study was conducted. This was followed by a Phase II reconnaissance geophysical survey. Finally, Phase III of this investigation 3 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 4 included geotechnical investigations, a concurrent geophysical/cultural resource survey, and borrow area design. PHASE I INVESTIGATION During the Phase I investigation, CPE-NC researchers conducted archival literature studies of the inner continental shelf area, with a focus on abundant sand resources in proximity to the project locations within the investigation areas. Past investigation areas, previously identified sand sources and developed borrow areas, and previously collected geotechnical and geophysical data was compiled. This information was brought into a GIS framework and was analyzed within the geologic context of the continental shelf area in order to identify potentially beach-compatible sand resources for further investigation. Sampling and analysis of the three recipient beaches was also conducted during this phase of the investigation. The information and data compiled during the Phase I investigation is discussed below. Geological Background Developing an understanding of the geologic setting of the project area is an important part of the Phase I investigations because it provides contextual information that sets limits to potential sand resources. A description of the regional geologic setting defines the framework bedrock seafloor surfaces and the sediments that sit on them. The nature of sedimentary deposits determines sand quality, distribution, and its potential use for beach nourishment. It is thus necessary to understand the general continental shelf environments because the distribution of beach-quality sands on the seabed is not random, but spatially organized. The northeastern portion of the North Carolina offshore coastal system is referred to as the Albemarle Embayment. The embayment is bound geologically by the Cape Lookout High to the south, the Norfolk Arch to the north, the Atlantic Ocean to the east and barrier island structure to the west that make up the Outer Banks, North Carolina (Thieler et al., 2014) (Figure 2). The inner continental shelf in the Albemarle Embayment is characterized by abundant sediment deposition reflected in large shoal structures and shoreface attached ridges as well as sediment poor portions of sorted bedform outcrop (Thieler et al., 2014). The underlying geologic framework of the offshore area in the Albemarle Embayment Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is a depositional basin characterized by a Quaternary sequence (Riggs et al. 1994). Morphosedimentary patterns and the geographic location of coastal barriers and inlets along the North Carolina coast are influenced by the inherited geologic framework (e.g. Macintyre and Pilkey, 1969; Riggs et al., 1995). Barrier Islands in the northeastern offshore system have evolved in response to sediments supplied by three primary sources: paleo-fluvial channels, shoal complexes, and sand-rich Holocene sedimentary deposits. A notable feature within the project area is a large paleo-fluvial valley system, Albemarle Shelf Valley, between the Town of Kitty Hawk and Oregon Inlet that influences local seafloor geomorphology as well as barrier island evolution. Seafloor sediments that are found in the project area include river gravels, shell/rock fragments, thin layers of Pleistocene sediment as 4 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 5 well as ridges composed primarily of Holocene (sediments deposited within the past 10,000 years) sand deposits (Thieler et al., 2014). Oregon Shoal, Platt Shoals, Wimble Shoals, Kinnakeet Shoals, and Diamond Shoals represent a pattern of large, sediment rich, shoal structures that make up the portion of the Albemarle Embayment extending south from the Town of Kitty Hawk to Cape Hatteras (Diamond Shoals) (Thieler et al., 2014) (Figure 2). The shoal structures located within the OCS offshore of the project areas provide high potential for quality sand resources. Figure 2. Map of the study area in northeastern North Carolina modified from Thieler et al. 2014. Bathymetry data is from the NOAA NGDC Coastal Relief Model (www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/coastal/startcrm.htm) and Thieler et al. 2014. Oregon Shoal 5 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 6 Previous Investigations The following are summaries of several marine surveys and geotechnical studies previously conducted within the vicinity of the Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills. This information was compiled during the Phase I investigation and was evaluated within the context of the geologic framework to formulate the Phase II and III investigations. The North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS) and Minerals Management Service (MMS), presently referred to as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), collected fifty-six (56) vibracores offshore of Dare County, North Carolina in 1996. Figure 3 shows the locations of these vibracores. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) completed an extensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control for Dare County Beaches (USACE, 2000), North Carolina. In the report, the USACE compiled native beach sediment characteristics as well as identified potential offshore sand resources by geophysical and geotechnical investigations. Phase I of the USACE investigation collected approximately 535 miles of high resolution seismic reflection and CHIRP sonar followed by 208 vibracores collected in 1995 and 1998 offshore of the project area(s) that represented Phase II of the investigation. The USACE vibracores were logged, sampled and analyzed for grain size characteristics in order to conduct a sand compatibility analysis. As a result of the USACE investigation, five (5) potential borrow areas were developed approximately one-half mile (0.5) to three miles (3) offshore of the project locations. Borrow Areas N1 and N2 were located between 0.5 and 2 miles directly offshore of Kitty Hawk and Kill Devil Hills (Figure 3); however, further analysis of these borrow areas suggested the mean grain size was too fine and had a relatively high percentage of silt. Based on vibracore data, the largest of these borrow areas, S1 located offshore of the Town of Nags Head, contained high quality beach sand. This area was pursued by the Town of Nags Head for their project in 2011. Three sub-areas within borrow area S1 were permitted by the Town and two (2) of them were used for the actual construction (Figure 3). CPE-NC conducted jet probe investigations of several shoal features offshore Dare County in 2013 as part of a feasibility study for the Town of Kill Devil Hills. A crew of four (4) scientists and technicians conducted the jet probe (washbore) survey offshore Dare County between Duck and Nags Head, North Carolina between September 5 and September 9, 2013. Over the four days of operations, a total of 29 washbore surveys were conducted (Figure 4). At each location, the proposed methodology was to collect a grab sample of the undisturbed seafloor surface, a second sample of the spoils that were jetted out of the washbore hole from the maximum depth penetrated, and a third sample to be taken of the spoils that were jetted out of the washbore at ½ the depth of maximum penetration. At most locations, all three samples were obtained; however, depending on the maximum penetrations depth and type of material encountered at some locations less than three (3) samples were obtained. In total, 80 grab samples were collected during the survey. 6 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 7 Figure 3. Figure showing historic areas of investigation by USACE, the Town of Nags Head, and BOEM (MMS) and preliminary investigation areas targeted by CPE-NC in this investigation. 7 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 8 Page Figure 4. Map showing the locations of jet probes (September 2013) and reconnaissance geophysical survey tracklines (June 2014) as well as resulting preliminary areas of investigation. Sand Resource Inventory The type of sand resource that is targeted during a sand search investigation largely depends on the geologic framework in the area of investigation. CPE-NC experience indicates that beach quality sands offshore of northeastern North Carolina (Outer Banks) are most likely located in shoal structures. A preliminary inventory of sand resources within the study area has been developed based on an interpretation of bathymetric Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) (Finkl et al., 2008) and is presented in Figure 3. Bathymetric data evaluated during the development of the sand resource inventory analysis were developed from historic NOS bathymetry. The grid was then converted to a color-shaded relief map so that variations in the bathymetry become obvious. Locations of bathymetric highes that indicate potential beach quality sand were identified for further investigation. Beach Characterization The suitability of a sand source for beach nourishment is directly linked to the characteristics of the recipient beach. The State of North Carolina requires that sand resources for nourishment 8 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 9 Page be “beach compatible”, that is, “similar” to sand existing in the project area. Qualities such as grain size, silt content, color, and mineralogical content are taken into account. Therefore, it is important to accurately characterize existing beach sediments during a sand search investigation. The quality of material that can be placed on North Carolina’s beaches is governed by Rule 15A NCAC 07H .0312 which states that: Placement of sediment along the oceanfront shoreline is referred to in this Rule as “beach fill.” Sediment used solely to establish or strengthen dunes or to re-establish state-maintained transportation corridors across a barrier island breach in a disaster area as declared by the Governor is not considered a beach fill project under this Rule. Beach fill projects including beach nourishment, dredged material disposal, habitat restoration, storm protection, and erosion control may be permitted under the following conditions: (3)The Division of Coastal Management shall determine sediment compatibility according to the following criteria: (a) Sediment completely confined to the permitted dredge depth of a maintained navigation channel or associated sediment deposition basins within the active nearshore, beach or inlet shoal system is considered compatible if the average percentage by weight of fine-grained (less than 0.0625 millimeters) sediment is less than 10 percent; (b) The average percentage by weight of fine-grained sediment (less than 0.0625 millimeters) in each borrow site shall not exceed the average percentage by weight of fine-grained sediment of the recipient beach characterization plus five percent; (c) The average percentage by weight of granular sediment (greater than or equal to 2 millimeters and less than 4.76 millimeters) in a borrow site shall not exceed the average percentage by weight of coarse-sand sediment of the recipient beach characterization plus five percent; (d) The average percentage by weight of gravel (greater than or equal to 4.76 millimeters and less than 76 millimeters) in a borrow site shall not exceed the average percentage by weight of gravel-sized sediment for the recipient beach characterization plus five percent; (e) The average percentage by weight of calcium carbonate in a borrow site shall not exceed the average percentage by weight of calcium carbonate of the recipient beach characterization plus 15 percent; and (f) Techniques that take incompatible sediment within a borrow site or combination of sites and make it compatible with that of the recipient beach characterization shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the Division of Coastal Management. (4)Excavation and placement of sediment shall conform to the following criteria: (a) Sediment excavation depth from a maintained navigation channel shall not exceed the permitted dredge depth of the channel; (b) Sediment excavation depths for all borrow sites shall not exceed the maximum depth of recovered core at each coring location; (c) In order to protect threatened and endangered species, and to minimize impacts to fish, shellfish and wildlife resources, no excavation or placement of sediment shall occur within the project area during times designated by the Division of Coastal Management in consultation with other State and Federal agencies; and (d) Sediment and shell material with a diameter greater than or equal to three inches (76 millimeters) is considered incompatible if it has been placed on the 9 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 10 Page beach during the beach fill project, is observed between MLW and the frontal dune toe, and is in excess of twice the background value of material of the same size along any 50,000-square-foot (4,645 square meter) section of beach. During the development of the Federally Authorized Dare County Storm Damage Reduction Project (Bodie Island Portion), the USACE collected beach samples along shore perpendicular profiles within the federal project areas. Samples were collected from the dune out to a depth of -20 ft NAVD88. The state sediment standards dictate a specific number of samples along at least five (5) profiles within each project area with no more than five thousand (5,000) foot spacing (15A NCAC 07H.0312)(1)(c)(d). In order to meet state requirements, the initial sampling plan included the collection and analysis of supplemental samples along those profiles in the Kitty Hawk and Kill Devil Hills Project Area previously sampled by the USACE. The sampling plan also included collection of 13 samples along five (5) profiles within the Town of Duck; however, at the time of initial sampling, the project limits for Duck had not yet been established. The combined data sets provide a profile of the beach with samples taken from the Dune, Toe of Dune, Mid-berm, Berm Crest, Mean High Water (MHW), Mean Tide Level (MTL), Mean Low Water (MLW), Trough, and Bar Crest. Results of mechanical sieve analysis were composited by transect as well as by elevation. These composites were used in assessing the compatibility of the proposed borrow areas with the native beach. Figure 5 shows a cross section diagram illustrating the locations along each profile in which samples were collected. Figure 5. Representative cross section showing the location of samples collected along beach profiles at Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills to characterize the existing beach. 10 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 11 Page Following the initial sampling and analysis of the beach, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NC DCM) stated that the samples collected by the USACE would not be accepted and new samples would be required. CPE-NC re-sampled those morphodynamic zones previously sampled by the USACE based on present day profile conditions. Furthermore, the NC DCM stated that those profiles sampled along the Town of Duck that were not within the final project limits could not be used to establish the existing beach characteristics. Therefore, CPE-NC collected samples along three (3) additional profiles within the project limits. The following is a chronological description of the collection of beach samples used to develop existing beach sediment characteristics: A. On October 15, 2013, CPE-NC collected beach samples and nearshore sediment samples along five (5) profiles in the Duck project area (D-03, D-08, D-13, D-18, D-24) (Figure 5). A total of 65 new samples were collected. B. On April 26, 2014, CPE-NC collected beach samples and nearshore sediment samples along five (5) profiles (KH0+00, KH50+00, KH75+00, KH110+00, KH160+00) (Figure 6). A total of 26 new samples were collected to complement existing beach samples collected by the USACE in 1993. C. On September 14 and 15, 2014, CPE-NC collected beach samples and nearshore sediment samples along five (5) profiles in Kill Devil Hills (KDH160+00, KDH210+00, KDH260+00, KDH290+00, KDH320+00) (Figure 7). A total of 28 new samples were collected to complement existing beach samples collected by the USACE in 1996 D. On August 4th and 5th, 2015, CPE-NC collected beach samples and nearshore sediment samples along three (3) profiles in the Duck project area (D-11, D-15, and D-17) (Figure 6). A total of 39 new samples were collected. E. On August 4th and 5th, 2015, CPE-NC collected beach samples and nearshore sediment samples along five (5) profiles (KH0+00, KH50+00, KH75+00, KH110+00, KH160+00) (Figure 7). A total of 39 new samples were collected. F. On August 4th and 5th, 2015, CPE-NC collected beach samples and nearshore sediment samples along five (5) profiles in Kill Devil Hills (KDH210+00, KDH235+00, KDH260+00, KDH290+00, KDH320+00) (Figure 8). A total of 41 new samples were collected. Sediment Grain Size (Mechanical) Analysis: During sieve analysis, dry and washed Munsell colors were noted. Sieve analyses were conducted on all sediment samples in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials Standard Materials Designation D422-63 for particle size analysis of soils (ASTM, 2007). This method covered the quantitative determination of the distribution of sand size particles. For sediment finer than the No. 230 sieve (4.0 phi) the ASTM Standard Test Method, Designation D1140-00 was followed (ASTM, 2006). Mechanical sieving was accomplished using calibrated sieves with a gradation of half phi intervals. Table 1 shows those sieves used in the analysis. Additional sieves representing key ASTM sediment classification boundaries were included to meet North Carolina technical standards for beach fill projects (15A NCAC 07H .0312 (d)) Weights retained on each sieve were recorded cumulatively. 11 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 12 Page Figure 6. Map showing locations of sediment samples collected by CPE-NC along the Town of Duck ocean shoreline. Grain size data were entered into the gINT® software program, which computes the mean and median grain size, sorting, and silt/clay percentages for each sample using the moment method (Folk, 1974). Granularmetric reports and grain size distribution curves were compiled for each sample. Carbonate Content Determination: Carbonate content was determined by percent weight using the acid leaching methodology described in Twenhofel and Tyler (1941). Results were entered into the gINT® software and are displayed on the granularmetric reports. 12 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 13 Page Figure 7. Map showing locations of sediment samples collected by CPE-NC along the Town of Kitty Hawk ocean shoreline. Quantifying Clasts > Three Inches: On September 14, 2013, CPE-NC conducted a survey of a ~50,000 square foot portion of the Duck project area along the the beach just south of Skimmer Way and just north of Flight Drive. The area was staked out using GPS to mark the four (4) corners of a rectangular section of the beach measuring approximately 325 ft. along the beach and 154 ft. across the beach from the toe of dune to the MLW Line. The area was staked out into 10 ft. x 10 ft. blocks to facilitate the counting of clasts > 3 inches in each block. CPE-NC conducted a survey of a ~50,000 square foot portion of the Kitty Hawk project area from a point approximately 545 ft. north to 80 ft. south of Bleriot Street, on May 12, 2015 in order to quantify the number of clasts > 3 inches. The area was staked out using GPS to mark the four (4) corners of a rectangular section of the beach measuring approximately 625 ft. along the beach and 80 ft. across the beach from the toe of dune to the MLW Line. The area was divided into 25 ft. x 20 ft. blocks to facilitate the counting of clasts > 3 inches in each block. 13 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 14 Page Figure 8. Map showing locations of sediment samples collected by CPE-NC along the Town of Kill Devil Hills ocean shoreline. On September 15, 2013, CPE-NC conducted a survey of a ~50,000 square foot portion of the Kill Devil Hills project area from a point slightly south of Sea Village Lane and slightly north of Wilkinson Street in order to quantify the number of clasts > 3 inches. The area was staked out using GPS to mark the four (4) corners of a rectangular section of the beach measuring approximately 300 ft. along the beach and 200 ft. across the beach from the toe of dune to the MLW Line. The area was divided into 10 ft. x 10 ft. blocks to facilitate the counting of clasts > 3 inches in each block. 14 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 15 Page Table 1. Sieve sizes used for grain size analysis. Classifications are based on percent retained in each sieve. Classification Sieve Size (number) Sieve Size (phi) Sieve Size (mm) 3/4" -4.25 19.00 5/8" -4 16.00 gravel 7/16" -3.5 11.20 5/16" -3 8.00 3 1/2" -2.5 5.60 4 -2.25 4.75 5 -2 4.00 granular 7 -1.5 2.80 10 -1 2.00 14 -0.5 1.40 18 0 1.00 25 0.5 0.71 35 1 0.50 45 1.5 0.36 sand 60 2 0.25 80 2.5 0.18 120 3 0.13 170 3.5 0.09 200 3.75 0.08 230 4 0.06 fine pan - - Results of Phase I Investigations Sand Resource Inventory: Data collected during the Phase I investigations was used to develop a survey plan for the Phase II investigations. Observations made during the jetprobe operations as well as data generated from processing sediment samples suggest a high probability of sufficient quantities of beach compatible sand exists within the areas investigated (CPE-NC, 2013). A review of regional bathymetry, historic vibracore logs, historic grab samples , and the jet probe data obtained by CPE-NC in 2013 resulted in the identification of four (4) primary investigation areas (Figure 4). These areas were subsequently targeted during Phase II and III investigations. Beach Characterization: Beach samples were collected to characterize the existing beach. Appendices 2 and 3 contain granularmetric reports and grain size curves/histograms. Composite grain size characteristics were developed for each profile line as well as for each position along the beach profile. Composites are presented in Appendices 4, 5 and 6. 15 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 16 Page The following characteristics represent the existing beach for each project area: A. Summary composite results (Appendix 4) indicate that sediment within the Town of Duck project area has a composite mean grain size of 0.33 mm. The composite silt content throughout the project area is 1.01%. The composite granular and gravel fraction for the project area is 0.39% and 2.00%, respectively. The composite carbonate content is 2% for the project area. The composite wet Munsell Color value ranges from 5 to 6, with a typical composite value of 5. The composite dry Munsell Color value is 6. B. Summary composite results (Appendix 4) indicate that sediment within the Kitty Hawk project area has a composite mean grain size of 0.38 mm. The composite silt content throughout the project area is 0.94%. The composite granular and gravel fraction for the project area is 6.38% and 1.64%, respectively. The composite carbonate content is 2% for the project area. The composite wet Munsell Color value ranges from 5 to 7, with a typical composite value of 5. The composite dry Munsell Color value is 7. C. Summary composite results (Appendix 4) indicate that sediment within the Kill Devil Hills project area has a composite mean grain size of 0.36 mm. The composite silt content throughout the project area is 0.90%. The composite granular and gravel fraction for the project area is 5.15% and 1.62%, respectively. The composite carbonate content is 2% for the project area. The composite wet Munsell Color value ranges from 5 to 7, with a typical composite value of 5. The composite dry Munsell Color value is 7. Quantifying Clasts > Three Inches The total number of clasts > 3 inches in diameter identified during the survey of the representative project area in the Town of Duck was 25. The total number of clasts > 3 inches in diameter identified during the survey of the representative project area in the Town of Kitty Hawk was 403. The total number of clasts > 3 inches in diameter identified during the survey of the representative project area in the Town of Kill Devil Hills was 51. Appendix 7 includes a table or clast distribution throughout each of the three (3) areas surveyed. PHASE II INVESTIGATION Investigation Details During Phase II investigations, CPE-NC conducted reconnaissance level geophysical surveys (sub-bottom profile, sidescan, magnetometer, and bathymetric) within the areas identified for additional investigation during Phase I. For areas located in Federal waters, prior to conducting the geophysical surveys, CPE-NC was required to apply for authorization from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to conduct Geophysical Prospecting for Mineral Resources on the Outer Continental Shelf Related to Minerals Other than Oil, Gas, and Sulphur. The BOEM granted the Authorization (E13-002) on March 26, 2014. 16 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 17 Page The geophysical survey was conducted between June 9 and June 15, 2014. The M/V Thunderforce was used as the platform for conducting the survey. A total of 69.1 nautical line miles of geophysical data were collected. These data were used to delineate areas for further investigation. Areas targeted were those believed to contain accumulations of beach quality sand. Figure 4 shows the location of the geophysical tracklines associated with Phase II. The geophysical data were groundtruthed using data from the jet probes as well as historic vibracore and sediment samples. Data obtained from Phase II investigations, were used to determine areas to be investigated in Phase III investigations via vibracoring and detailed design level geophysical surveys and cultural resource surveys. Equipment and Methods Due to the scope and precision required by modern sand search protocols, a wide range of geophysical and geotechnical survey methods are required. The Phase II investigations included bathymetric, sidescan sonar, sub-bottom reflection profiling and magnetometer surveys. The geophysical and geotechnical data was collected under the responsible charge of a professional geologist registered in the State of North Carolina. The navigation and hydrographic surveys were conducted under the direction of a Certified Hydrographic Surveyor. The bathymetric, sidescan sonar, sub-bottom reflection profiling and magnetometer surveys were conducted concurrently using the setup illustrated in Figure 9. The collection and processing of this data is described below. The geophysical equipment used in Phase II as well as Phase III are listed in Table 2. Figure 9. Schematic diagram showing the deployment of a joint sub-bottom reflection profile, bathymetric, magnetometer and sidescan sonar survey. Navigation Systems: The navigation and positioning system deployed for this survey was a Trimble real-time kinematic (RTK) global positioning system (GPS) with dual frequency receivers. RTK GPS relies on a base station and transmitter placed on a survey point with a Fathometer Magnetometer CHIRP Seismic Fish Survey Vessel Sidescan Sonar Fish 17 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 18 Page known elevation and horizontal position. The base station for the survey was set at two locations, the CPE-NC SEA RANCH in Kill Devil Hills and 1370K TIDAL located on the USACE Duck Field Research Facility Pier depending on which proposed borrow area was being surveyed. These locations provide the clear horizon needed to minimize phase-measurement effects caused by multi-pathing. The base station position for the RTK GPS system was surveyed and established prior to survey operations. Horizontal and vertical positioning checks were conducted before and after the survey, within the project area to confirm network and survey accuracy. The base station transmits carrier phase and Doppler shift corrections via radio link to a receiver onboard the survey vessel. The receiver on the survey vessel can then apply the carrier phase and Doppler shift corrections to the position of the vessel as measured by GPS satellites. Table 2. Equipment used during the Phase II and III geophysical investigations. All navigation and survey control for the geophysical surveys and positioning for vibracores was conducted under the direction of a ACSM Certified Hydrographic Surveyor. The vertical accuracy of control data meets the requirements set forth in the United States Army Corps of Engineers manual EM 1110-2-1003. GPS data was collected at 1 Hz or faster to minimize position interpolation when assigning the position to the various geophysical data. Hypack Inc.’s Hypack 2013®: Data Collection and Processing Program: Navigational, magnetometer, and depth sounder systems were interfaced with an onboard computer, and the data was integrated in real time using Hypack Inc.’s Hypack 2013® software. Hypack 2013® is a state-of-the-art navigation and hydrographic surveying system. The location of each of the fish tow-point on the vessel and the length of cable deployed between the tow-point and each towfish in relation to the RTK GPS was measured, recorded and entered into the Hypack 2013® survey program. Hypack 2013® then takes these values and monitors the actual position of each towfish in real time. Online screen graphic displays include the pre-plotted survey lines, the updated boat track across the survey area, adjustable left/right indicator, as well as other positioning information such as boat speed, quality of fix measured by Position Dilution of Precision (PDOP), and line bearing. The digital data is merged with positioning data (RTK GPS), Equipment Type Description Navigation Trimble 5700 Real Time Kinematic (RTK) Global Positioning System (GPS) interfaced with Hypack Inc.’s Hypack 2013® software Sounder (Bathymetry) Odom Hydrographic Systems, Inc. “Hydrotrac” Hydrographic Echo Sounder Sub-bottom Profiler (Seismic Reflection) EdgeTech X-STAR SB-512i Sub-bottom Profiler Sidescan Sonar EdgeTech 4200-HFL and EdgeTech 4125 Magnetometer Geometrics G-882 Digital Cesium Marine Magnetometer interfaced with Hypack Inc.’s Hypack 2013® software 18 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 19 Page video displayed and recorded to the acquisition computers hard disk for post processing and/or replay. Bathymetric Survey: The Odom Hydrographic Systems, Inc.’s Hydrotrac, a single frequency portable hydrographic echo sounder, was used to perform the bathymetric survey. The Hydrotrac can operate with tranducers at frequencies of 24, 33, 40, 200, 210, or 340 kHz and is a digital, survey-grade sounder. A 210 kHz transducer was used for the bathymetric survey. Prior to the start of the survey, a reconnaissance survey of the second order monuments was conducted to confirm that the survey control was in place and undisturbed. RTK GPS was used to locate and confirm the survey control for this project. To achieve the required accuracy, the hydrographic survey was controlled using second order monuments. Horizontal and vertical RTK GPS positioning checks and sounder calibration were performed periodically throughout the survey (typically at the beginning and end of each survey day). The sounder was calibrated via bar-checks and a sound velocity probe. The DIGIBAR PRO sound velocity meter is used to find the average sound velocity needed to calibrate the Hydrotrac sounder prior to performing the bar-check. Bar checks were performed from a depth of 10 ft. to 30 ft. Analog data showing the results of the bar check calibration is displayed on the sounder charts at 5 ft. increments during descent of the bar. Real-time navigation software (Hypack), was used to provide navigation to the helm in order to minimize deviation from the online azimuth. This software provides horizontal position to the sounding data allowing real-time review of the data in plan view or cross section format. A Trimble RTK GPS and a TSS Motion Compensator were used onboard the survey vessel to provide instantaneous tide corrections as well as heave, pitch and roll corrections. Soundings were collected at intervals sufficient to provide an accurate depiction of the seafloor. Cross lines (tie lines) were collected to verify survey accuracies. A secondary tide data record was obtained from the USACE Duck Field Research Facility, tide station (ID: 8651370). Water level was recorded every six minutes and was downloaded from the USACE DUCK Field Research Facility website daily. These data were used as a check to verify the accuracy of the RTK data collected in real time. Upon completion of the field work, data was edited and reduced with CPE’s internal software programs and Hypack 2013®. The RTK tide data was compared to the USACE DUCK Field Research Facility tide station data for verification purposes. The offshore raw digital data was viewed and edited in Hypack 2013®. Digitized data was scanned for noise and compared to the analog record. False soundings were removed and a comma delimited ASCII file was created and exported. Magnetometer Survey: High-resolution magnetic remote sensing is needed to identify any metallic objects that could represent a potential cultural resource or hazard to construction. A Geometrics G-882 Digital Cesium Marine Magnetometer, capable of a plus or minus 0.1 gamma 19 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 20 Page resolution, was used to perform a reconnaissance investigation for magnetic anomalies within the investigation areas (Figure 10). The purpose of the magnetometer survey was to establish the presence, and subsequent exclusion zones around any potential underwater wrecks, submerged hazards, or any other features that would affect Phase III geotechnical investigations as required by the BOEM Authorizations E13-002 and E13-003 (Appendix 8). The magnetometer data collected in Phase II were combined with those data collected during Phase III to identify any potential underwater wrecks, submerged hazards, or any other features that would affect borrow area delineation and dredging activities. Figure 10. Photograph of the Geometrics G-882 Digital Cesium Marine Magnetometer used to investigate magnetic anomalies within the potential sediment source. To produce a magnetic record of sufficient resolution, the sensor was deployed and maintained in the water column no more than 6 m off the seafloor (approximately 19.7 ft). A digital recorder provided a continuous permanent record of the magnetic background and target signatures. Positioning data generated by the navigation system was tied to magnetometer records by regular annotations to facilitate target location and anomaly analysis. Annotations include line number, date and time of start and end of each line, and target identification. Upon completion of the reconnaissance magnetometer survey, the data were examined by a marine archaeologist, who provided a position along the survey line of the magnetic anomalies and avoidance buffer for each of the subsequent geotechnical (vibracore) investigations. Sub-bottom Reflection Profile Surveys: “Chirp” sub-bottom-reflection data is used to show sedimentary stratigraphy and identify potential project-compatible sediment resources. The use of chirp sub-bottom data allows common stratigraphic layers to be mapped throughout the study area while determining the thickness and extent of potential project compatible sediment. An EdgeTech X-STAR SB-512i was used to conduct the seismic sub-bottom reflection profile surveys (Figure 11).The X-STAR Full Spectrum Sonar is a versatile wideband FM sub-bottom 20 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 21 Page profiler that collects digital normal incidence reflection data over many frequency ranges. This instrumentation generates cross-sectional images of the seabed (to a depth of up to 50 ft. in this survey). The X-STAR SB-512i transmits an FM pulse that is linearly swept over a full spectrum frequency range (“chirp pulse”). The tapered waveform spectrum results in images that have virtually constant resolution with depth. The Chirp systems have an advantage over 3.5 kHz and “boomer” systems in sediment delineation because the reflectors are more discrete and less susceptible to ringing from both vessel and ambient noise. The full-wave rectified reflection horizons are cleaner and more distinct than the half-wave rectified reflections produced by older analog systems. Figure 11. Photographs of the EdgeTech X-STAR SB-512i sub-bottom profiling system. (left) shows the sub-bottom profiling system prior to deployment. (righ) shows the system being deployed. The X-STAR SB-512i, the newest model in the EdgeTech suite of Chirp Full Spectrum Sub-bottom towfish, differs from the older X-STAR SB-512 (which had four (4) 6” diameter transducers) by having a single 13” diameter low frequency transducer and a single 6.5” diameter high frequency transducer. The new low frequency transducer provides more low frequency energy at all pulse settings, which allows deeper penetration of seafloor sediments while at the same time maintaining the high resolution of the original configuration. In order to minimize noise related to the survey vessel and sea conditions, the sub-bottom towfish (which operates as both the source and receiver for the sub-bottom system) was deployed and towed behind the research vessel. The sub-bottom system was interfaced with RTK via Hypack 2013® navigational software. The sub-bottom system was operated by the Discover-SB® software program. At the start of the sub-bottom profiling survey, the sweep frequencies of the outgoing pulse together with the different gain settings available within Discover-SB® were adjusted to obtain the best possible resolution for the survey. The data was continuously bottom-tracked to allow for the application of real-time gain functions in order to have an optimal in-the-field view of the data. Automatic gain control (AGC) was used to normalize the data by strengthening quiet regions/soft returns while simultaneously A 21 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 22 Page reducing/eliminating overly strong returns by obtaining a local average at a given point. A time- varying gain (TVG) was used to increase the returning signal over time in order to reduce the effects of signal attenuation. All sub-bottom data was recorded on the acquisition computer’s hard disk and transferred to a USB memory stick and/or portable hard drive at the end of each survey day to back-up raw survey data. Notes regarding line name, time, event, and direction of collection were recorded for the beginning and end of each survey trackline. Post collection processing of the sub- bottom data was completed using Chesapeake Technology, Inc.’s SonarWiz.MAP +SBP® software. This software allows the user to apply specific gains and settings in order to produce enhanced sub-bottom imagery that can then be interpreted and digitized for specific stratigraphic facies relevant to the project goals. The first data processing step is to calculate the approximate depth of the reflector below the sound source by converting the two-way travel time (the time in milliseconds that it takes for the “chirp pulse” to leave the source, hit the reflector and return to the source) to feet by utilizing an approximate value for the speed of sound through both the water and underlying geology. For this survey, a detailed hydrographic and geologic sound velocity structure was not available, so CPE geophysicists used an estimated sound velocity of 1.6 meters per millisecond (m/ms) in order to convert two-way travel time to feet. This estimate is based on typical speed of sound in sands and limestone typical of the study area. CPE geophysicists then processed the imagery to reduce noise effects (commonly due to the vessel, sea state, or other natural and anthropogenic phenomenon) and enhance stratigraphy. This was done using the processing features available in SonarWiz.MAP +SBP®; AGC, swell filter, and a user-defined gain control (UGC). The SonarWiz.MAP +SBP® AGC is similar to the Discover- SB® AGC feature, where the data are normalized in order to remove the extreme high and low returns, while enhancing the contrast of the middle returns. In order to appropriately apply the swell filter and UGC functions, the sub-bottom data was bottom-tracked to produce an accurate baseline representation of the seafloor. Once this was done through a process of automatic bottom tracking (based on the high-amplitude signal associated with the seafloor) and manual digitization, the swell filter and UGC were applied to the data. The swell filter is based on a ping averaging function that removes vertical changes in the data due to towfish movement caused by the sea state. The swell filter was increased or decreased depending on the period and frequency of the sea surface wave conditions, however, special care was taken during this phase to not remove, or smooth over geologic features that are masked by the sea state noise. The final step was to apply the UGC. The SonarWiz.MAP +SBP® UGC feature allows the user to define amplitude gains based on either the depth below the source, or the depth below the seafloor. For this survey, the UGC was adjusted so that the gain would increase with depth below the imaged seafloor (and not the source), mimicking a time-varying gain. The user was able to remove the noise within the water column, increase the contrast within the stratigraphy, and increase the amplitude of the stratigraphy with depth, accounting for some of the signal attenuation normally associated with sound penetration over time. 22 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 23 Page After data processing, sub-surface data interpretation was performed using SonarWiz.MAP +SBP® software. Using the SonarWiz.MAP +SBP® platform, processed sub-bottom profile lines were opened to digitally display the recorded sub-surface stratigraphy. Using the software’s Sonar File Manager, color coded historic jet probe and vibracore descriptions were added directly to the sub-bottom profiles. In general, green was used to represent layers with high to very high potential, yellow was used to represent layers with moderate potential, and red was used to represent layers of low potential. Shelly or gravelly layers were coded blue and layers primarily composed of clay were coded dark gray. Using the vibracore descriptions as a guide, the sub-bottom stratigraphy was interpreted and the depth of the top of marginal to poor quality material was determined. The stratigraphic reflector that best correlated with this layer was digitized (Appendix 9). Sidescan Sonar Survey: Sidescan data is required to verify the location and extent of unconsolidated sediment and to map ocean bottom features such as benthic habitats, exposed pipelines, cables, underwater wrecks, potential cultural resources, etc. The sidescan survey was conducted to identify features that may affect Phase III geotechnical investigations as required by the BOEM Authourizations E13-002 and E13-003 (Appendix 8). The sidescan data collected in Phase II were combined with those data collected during Phase III to identify any potential underwater wrecks, submerged hazards, or any other features that would affect borrow area delineation, introduce hazards to dredging, or adversely impact the environment. During Phase II investigation, the EdgeTech 4200-HFL and EdgeTech 4125 sidescan sonar systems were used (Figure 12). The switch to the 4125 was made after the 4200-HFL was damaged during the survey. Both systems use full-spectrum chirp technology to deliver wide- band, high-energy pulses coupled with high resolution and good signal to noise ratio echo data. The sonar packages included a portable configuration with a laptop computer running EdgeTech’s Discover® acquisition software. The EdgeTech 4200-HFL towfish is a 300/600 kHz dual frequency towfish, which was run in high definition mode to collect sonar data at both frequencies. The EdgeTech 4125 towfish is a 400/900 kHz dual frequency towfish, which was run in high definition mode to collect sonar data at both frequencies. Dual frequency provides a more complete sidescan return that aids interpolation at the outer portions of the swath, which in turn provides a more complete data set. During the Phase II investigations, the sidescan was towed from the survey vessel at a position and depth that limited exposure to sources of interference and provided the best possible record quality. The digital sidescan data was merged with positioning data (RTK GPS via Hypack 2013®). Position data appeared in the video display and was logged to disk for post processing and/or replay. The acoustic data was recorded digitally. Post collection processing of the sidescan data was completed using Chesapeake Technology, Inc’s SonarWiz.MAP software. This software allows the user to apply specific gains and settings in order to produce enhanced sidescan imagery that can be interpreted and digitized for specific benthic habitat features and debris throughout the survey area. The first step in processing was to import the data into the software and bottom track the data. 23 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 24 Page Figure 12. Photographs of the EdgeTech 4200-HFL (left) and EdgeTech 4125 (right) sidescan sonar systems. Bottom tracking is achieved using an automated bottom tracking routine and in some cases manual bottom tracking. This step provides the data with an accurate baseline representation of the seafloor and eliminates the water column from the data. After bottom tracking, the data was processed to reduce noise effects (commonly due to the vessel, sea state, or other anthropogenic phenomenon) and enhance the seafloor definition. In most cases automatic time-varying gain (TVG) is sufficient to provide the best imagery. Time- varying gain divides the data into parallel swaths and equalizes backscatter of each swath to create a normalized image highlighting contrast change throughout the image, which creates a better mosaic and allows the processer to pick out areas with similar acoustic properties. In areas with high levels of noise in the data it was necessary to apply automatic gain control (AGC) which normalizes the data by strengthening quiet regions/soft returns while simultaneously reducing/eliminating overly strong returns by obtaining a local average at a given point. Typically, bottom features such as hardbottom outcrops, artificial reefs, coral reefs, etc are digitized on a line-by-line basis to allow for comparison of features along adjacent lines. In this case, no such features were identified in the survey areas. Isolated contacts were identified, and are included in the contact report included in Appendix 10. Results and Discussion of Phase II: During the reconnaissance investigation geophysical data (bathymetric, sub-bottom profiler, sidescan sonar, and magnetometer) were collected along 60.0 nautical miles within Areas A, B, 24 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 25 Page C, and S1 (Figure 4). The goal of the reconnaissance investigation was to 1) Define the extent of sediment layers identified during Phase I evaluation of jet probe data and historic vibracore and surface sediment data; 2) Develop a vibracore plan to be implemented during Phase III investigations; and 3) Identify potential environmental or cultural resources for avoidance during Phase III vibracore investigations as required by BOEM Authorization E13-002 and E13- 003. Post processed bathymetric data collected during the Phase II investigations were used to create color shaded relief imagery that were imported into GIS for further evaluation. Figures 13, 14, and 15 show the resulting bathymetric surfaces developed based on the reconnaissance survey data in Areas A, B, and C, respectively. Figure 13. Map showing the locations of tracklines surveyed and bathymetric data collected in Area A during Phase II reconaissance geophysical survey and vibracores collected during Phase III. 25 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 26 Page Figure 14. Map showing the locations of tracklines surveyed and bathymetric data collected in Area B during Phase II reconaissance geophysical survey and vibracores collected during Phase III. As previously mentioned, ground truthing of the sub-bottom profile data was accomplished using historic jet probe and vibracore descriptions. Interpretations of the sub-bottom profile seismographs using these historic data suggested the thicker parts of the shoals identified in the bathymetric data had the highest likelihood of containing sufficient volumes of beach compatible sand. Sidescan sonar data collected during Phase II were used to identify any potential underwater wrecks, submerged hazards, or any other features that would affect borrow area delineation, introduce hazards to dredging, or adversely impact the environment. The spacing of the survey tracklines for the Phase II survey did not provide 100% coverage of the survey area, therefore, these data were used to conduct a preliminary assessment of the presence/absence of hazards to dredging or environmentally sensitive areas within potential borrow areas. 26 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 27 Page Figure 15. Map showing the locations of tracklines surveyed and bathymetric data collected in Area C during Phase II reconaissance geophysical survey and vibracores collected during Phase III. Following the collection and analysis of the geophysical data (sub-bottom reflection, bathymetry, sidescan sonar, magnetometer), a detailed plan to collect vibracores to target the most promising sand resources within Areas A, B, and C was developed. Proposed vibracore locations were developed throughout all three areas at spacings that would satisfy the North Carolina Sediment Criteria. Priority locations were identified based on the interpretation of the seismic data, which would be the first vibracores collected during the Phase III investigations. As a condition of the BOEM Authorization to collect G&G surveys for the project, data collected during the reconnaissance geophysical survey was used to identify potential environmental or cultural resources for avoidance during Phase III vibracore investigations. An analysis of the sidescan sonar data indicated no presence of hardbottom habitats or consolidated rock exposures outcropping in the vicinity of the proposed vibracore locations. An analysis of both sidescan sonar and magnetometer data was conducted by a marine archeologist to determine presence/absence of anomalies with a potential for association with submerged cultural resources. No such anomalies were identified in areas proposed for coring in Areas A or B. Two 27 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 28 Page avoidance areas were identified in Area C based on magnetic and acoustic signatures confirming a high potential for association with submerged cultural resources (Figure 15). PHASE III INVESTIGATION Phase III of the sand search included design level geotechnical and geophysical investigations, a cultural resource investigation, and borrow area design. Between July 22 and August 4, 2014, 100 vibracores were collected to meet the one (1) core per 23 acres guidelines set forth in 15A NCAC 07H .0312 (e). Figures 13, 14, and 15 show the locations of the vibracores collected during Phase III. Between October 18 and October 29, 2014, a concurrent sub-bottom profiling, sidescan sonar, magnetometer, and bathymetric survey was conducted in a portion of Areas A and C. This survey, when combined with the geophysical survey conducted during Phase II, provided both design level geophysical information as well as satisfied permitting requirements to conduct a cultural resource investigation. When combined with data collected during the Phase II geophysical survey, data collected during Phase III achieved a line spacing of approximately 30 m (approximately 98 ft.). Figures 16 and 17 show the locations of the geophysical tracklines surveyed during Phase III. With regards to assessing beach compatible sand availability, these geophysical data were used to map the extent of targeted sand resources and the upper elevation of marginal to poor quality sediment (i.e. silt, clay, rock). The data were also used to identify potential cultural resources such as artifacts, underwater wrecks, submerged hazards, significant relict landforms or any other features including modern debris that would affect borrow area delineation and dredging activities. A qualified marine archaeologist was onboard at all times during the Phase III geophysical investigation. Equipment and Methods Geophysical Survey: The equipment and methods used for the Phase III geophysical investigation were generally the same as described above in Phase II. However, the following minor modifications were made to the methods described for Phase II. The survey was conducted in such a manner to achieve total bottom coverage within the survey area using the sidescan sonar. The line spacing of approximately 30 meters allowed for 100% overlap to be obtained (i.e. all areas of the seafloor were covered twice). Once the sidescan sonar data was sufficiently processed a mosaic was produced in the form of a geotiff. With regards to the sub- bottom profile data, using the vibracore descriptions as a guide, the sub-bottom stratigraphy was interpreted and the depth of the top of marginal to poor quality material was determined. The stratigraphic reflector that best correlated with this layer was digitized (Appendix 9). 28 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 29 Page Figure 16. Map showing the locations of geophysical tracklines surveyed and vibracores collected during Phase II and III in preliminary investigation Area A. Vibracore Survey: Vibracores were collected to obtain continuous physical samples of the material within the potential sand resources. Data obtained from the analysis of these samples are used to characterize the physical properties of the material and groundtruth the sub- bottom data. For areas located in Federal waters, prior to conducting the vibracore survey, CPE-NC was required to apply for authorization from BOEM to conduct Geological Prospecting for Mineral Resources on the Outer Continental Shelf Related to Minerals Other than Oil, Gas, and Sulphur. BOEM granted the Authorization (E13-003) on July 11, 2014 (Appendix 8). 29 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 30 Page Figure 17. Figure showing the locations of geophysical tracklines surveyed and vibracores collected during Phase II and III in preliminary investigation Area C. A condition of the Authorization granted by BOEM for the geophysical survey conducted during Phase II (E13-002) required that the data must be reviewed by a qualified marine archaeologist to verify that no cultural resources would be impacted. Likewise, the data was reviewed by geophysisits, geologists, and environmental scientist to verify that no environmental resources would be impacted. Vibracores were collected within 50 ft. of the as-run survey lines and avoided areas identified by the marine archeologist as potentially significant. The vibracores were collected using the 271B Alpine Pneumatic vibracore, configured to collect undisturbed sediment cores up to 20 ft. in length (Figure 18). This self-contained, freestanding pneumatic vibracore unit contains an air-driven vibratory hammer assembly, an aluminum H- beam which acts as the vertical beam upright on the seafloor, 20-ft. long steel tubes measuring 4” in diameter (with a plastic core liner), and a drilling bit with a cutting edge. An air hose array provides compressed air from the compressor on deck to drive the vibracore. The vibracore unit was A-frame deployed from the M/V Thunderforce. The navigation and positioning system deployed for this survey was a Trimble Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) interfaced to Hypack Inc.’s Hypack 2013®. A Pro Beacon receiver provided differential GPS correction from the U.S. Coast Guard Navigational Beacon 30 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 31 Page located at New Bern. The DGPS initially receives the civilian signal from the global positioning system (GPS) NAVSTAR satellites. The locator automatically acquires and simultaneously tracks the NAVSTAR satellites, while receiving precisely measured code phase and Doppler phase shifts, which enables the receiver to compute the position and velocity of the vessel. The receiver then determines the time, latitude, longitude, height, and velocity once per second. Most of the time, the GPS accuracy with differential correction, provides for a position accuracy of one (1) to four (4) ft. This is within the accuracy needed for geotechnical investigations. Top of hole elevations were obtained from the bathymetric data collected during the Phase II geophysical survey. Figure 18. Photograph of A-frame Deployment of the 271B Alpine Pneumatic vibracore system from deck of the M/V Thunderforce. If recovery was less than 80% of the expected penetration, the pipe was removed, a new pipe inserted, and a jet pump hose was attached just below the vibracore head. The rig was, again, lowered to the bottom and jetted into the sediment just above refusal depth. The jet was then turned off and the vibrator resumed collecting the lower part of the core. Ex. Core DCVC-14-01 had 50% recovery. In order to achieve the required 80% recovery, a jet was collected and labeled DCVC-14-01A. Using the jetted section, a total recovered length of 16 ft was achieved with a penetration of 20ft (80% recovery). Core DCVC-14-27 had 60% recovery. However, 12.3 ft of material recovered, only the uppermost 10.0 ft was potentially beach compatible making the recovery acceptable. The lower 3.3 ft. was predominantly clay. Due to the nature of this material, and the fact that this material would not meet state standards, additional recovery would not result in the identification of additional sand resources. 31 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 32 Page Upon removal of the vibracores, they were measured, marked and cut into 5 ft sections, each vibracore was split onboard the vessel and field logged (Figure 19). This process of field logging the cores allowed CPE-NC geologists to characterize the material obtained in each vibracore in real time. The real time interpretation of these data allowed the CPE-NC team to tailor the subsequent vibracore investigation to maximize the identification of compatable material and minimize the number of vibracores taken in areas that contained in-compatable material. After being field logged, the cores were wrapped, labeled, and transported to CPE-NC’s office in Wilmington, North Carolina. There, the vibracores were logged by describing sedimentary properties by layer in terms of layer thickness, color, texture (grain size), composition and presence of clay, silt, gravel, or shell and any other identifying features (Figure ). Wet Munsell color was determined in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials Standard Materials Designation D2488-00 for description and identification of soils (visual-manual procedure) (ASTM, 2009). The vibracores were digitally photographed against an 18% gray background; this is the standard reference value against which all camera light meters are calibrated. Sediment samples were obtained from irregular intervals based on distinct layers in the sediment sequence. Sediment samples underwent sieve analysis and carbonate analysis as described above under Phase I methods. The unsampled half of each core was then archived. Figure 19. Photograph showing vibracore field logging being conducted aboard the M/V Thunderforce by CPE-NC geologists. 32 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 33 Page Figure 20. Photograph showing vibracore logging, sub-sample collection and Munsell color determination being conducted. Results and Discussion During this investigation, design level geotechnical and geophysical investigations were conducted. The results of these investigations are discussed below. The geotechnical investigation (vibracores) was conducted in such a way as to combine reconnaissance and design into one mobilization. By field logging vibracores as they were obtained, CPE-NC geologists tailored subsequent vibracore collection to maximize the identification of compatable material and minimize the number of vibracores taken in areas that contained in- compatable material. Vibracores: Between July 22 and August 4, 2014, one-hundred (100) vibracores were collected within the three investigation areas. Appendices 11 and 12 contain vibracore logs and photographs. The granularmetric reports and grain size curves/histograms for the samples collected from these vibracores are presented in Appendices 13 and 14, respectively. Vibracores collected generally contained three (3) different types of sediments. The first type of sediment consisted of fine to medium grained sand with trace silt, trace shell hash, and trace shell fragments. Typical mean grain size of this sediment type range from 0.35 mm to 0.50 mm. The second type consisted of fine sand with trace silt, trace shell hash, and trace shell fragments with mean grain sizes ranging from 0.20 mm to 0.35 mm. The third general type of sediment observed in the vibracores was sandy clays and silts. These three sediment types are represented by the colors green, yellow, and red, respectively in the interpretations of the sub- bottom data (Table 3). Other less frequently observed layers in the vibracores include shelly sand with some shell fragments (coded blue), and layers that were primarily clay, with trace to little sand (coded dark gray). 33 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 34 Page Table 3. Vibracore color code scheme showing the range of sediment differentiation. Note vibracores represented on the sub-bottom records provided in Appendix 9 are color coded based on these discriptions. Color Description Green Medium sand with trace silt (SP) (SW) (SW-SM) (SP-SM) Yellow Fine sand with trace silt (SP) (SW) (SW-SM) (SP-SM) Red Fine sand with little to some silt (SM) (ML) Blue Shelly sand with some shell fragments (SW) (SW-SM) Dark Gray Primarily Clay, with trace to little sand (CL) Analysis of the vibracore data resulted in the following characterizations of each of the three investigation areas : Area A: Sediments recovered from vibracores in Area A display high potential for quality sand resources. Sediments were generally fine to medium with trace silt and trace shell fragments. Area B: Sediments recovered from vibracores in Area B displayed low potential for quality sand resources. Sediments were generally fine with trace to little silt and trace shell fragments. Deposits of usable sand tended to be relatively thin (less than 3 ft). Likewise, the relatively thin sand deposits were underlain by predominantly clay and silt deposits not conducive to beach fill in the project area. Due to the poor quality of sediment recovered in Area B, further development of the area will not proceed at this time. Area C: Sediments recovered from vibracores in Area C displayed moderate to high potential for quality sand resources. Sediments were generally fine to medium with trace silt and trace shell fragments. Following the collection and analysis of the vibracore data, investigation Areas A and C were further delineated into proposed borrow areas (Figures 21 and 22). Due to relatively fine mean grain size and high silt concentration in much of the material obtained in vibracores from Area B, no borrow areas were proposed in that area. The proposed borrow areas A and B were the areas surveyed during the Phase III geophysical survey. This survey, when combined with the geophysical survey conducted during Phase II, provided both design level geophysical 34 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 35 Page information as well as satisfied permitting requirements to conduct a cultural resource investigation. Figure 21. Map showing Proposed Borrow Area A. Proposed Design Area = 1,173 Acres, Proposed Design Volume = 17,350,000 cy. 35 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 36 Page Figure 22. Map showing Proposed Borrow Area C. Proposed Design Area = 354 Acres, Proposed Design Volume = 2,049,000 cy. Sub-Bottom Data: All vibracores collected during Phase III investigations were collected along reconnaissance geophysical lines surveyed during Phase II as a condition of the BOEM Authorizations. Following the analysis of the vibracore data, color-coded vibracore logs were plotted directly onto the sub-bottom data using the SonarWiz.MAP +SBP software program. Each vibracore was plotted on the line along which it was collected. The sub-bottom data was then interpreted and digitized based on the correlated vibracore data. Figure 23 shows an example of a seismograph with color coded vibracore logs superimposed upon it as well as digitized seafloor and sub-bottom reflectors. Following the post processing of the Phase III sub-bottom data and after those lines along which vibracores were collected had been interpreted, geophysists interpreted and digitized correlative reflectors along adjacent lines along which no vibracores had been collected. Once all of the sub-bottom data had been interpreted and reflectors digitized, the data was exported as a “Web” based project of HTML/JPEG files viewable in any standard web browser software package (Appendix 9). In addition, an ASCII file was exported out of the SonarWiz.MAP + SBP 36 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 37 Page program that when merged with bathymetry, creates sediment thickness isopachs used in borrow area design. Figure 23. Example image of seismograph overlain with digitized reflectors and vibracores to enable seismic interpretations. Sidescan Sonar Data: The sidescan sonar data collected was reviewed and used to identify potential natural resources and potentially significant cultural resources. CPE-NC staff reviewed the data specifically to locate potential bottom features and/or debris that should be avoided. Based on the sidescan imagery, the locations of low relief sand ripples, large scale sand waves, and potential mud patches were observed. Figures 24, 25, and 26 show examples of each of these types of bottom features, respectively. Figures 27 and 28 show the extent of the sidescan sonar coverage of Areas A and C, respectively. These sidescan sonar mosaics were developed using the 600 kHz frequency data. During interpretation of the sonar data, sonar contacts specifically identified as potential bottom features of interest or marine debris were called out and contact sheets were generated for each. The sidescan sonar contact sheets are included as Appendix 10. Figures 27 and 28 show the locations of these sonar contacts. Though some of the contacts are within the limits of the proposed borrow areas, the individual features do not appear to be of a nature that would affect borrow area design. A separate evaluation of the data was conducted by Tidewater Atlantic Research (TAR) to identify potential cultural resourcse (Appendix 15). TAR identified ten (10) sonar anomalies in the vicinity of Area A and eight (8) sonar anomalies in the vicinity of Area C, which are shown on Figures 27 and 28, respectively. Based on signatures of known substrate, the bottom material across the survey area is predominately unconsolidated fine to medium grained sand overlaying unconsolidated and semi-consolidated silty sand and sandy silty clays. Holocene sand deposits in the region form large, high relief sand shoals. Superimposed upon these sand shoals are smaller scale sand waves from 150 m to 275 m wide (Figure 24). These large scale sand waves, in general, trend 37 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 38 Page northeast. Furthermore, small scale sand ripples are superimposed upon these sand waves in some locations (Figure 25). Clustered mud patches can be seen on the western end of Area C (Figure 26). These mud patches may be areas in which Holocene sediments have been eroded away exposing pleistocene sediments. Figure 24. Sonargraph showing large, high relief sand waves ranging in length from approximately 150 meters to 275 meters in width. Figure 25. Sonargraph showing small, low relief sand ripples ranging from approximately 13 meter in length to 1 meters in width. Small scale sand ripples Large scale sand waves 38 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 39 Page Figure 26. Sonargraph showing potential isolated exposed mud patches with sand/gravel wave. Isolated patches averaged at 40 meters long and 22 meters wide. Exposed mud patches 39 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 40 Page Figure 27. Sidescan sonar mosaic for Proposed Borrow Area A. The sidescan contact sheet ID’s correspond to the sidescan sonar contact sheets found in Appendix 10. 40 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 41 Page Figure 28. Sidescan sonar mosaic for Proposed Borrow Area C. The sidescan contact sheet ID’s correspond to the sidescan sonar contact sheets found in Appendix 10. Cultural Resources: To determine the projects effects on potentially significant submerged cultural resources, TAR carried out a background literature review and supervised a cultural resource investigation of the proposed borrow area. The cultural resource report compiled by TAR is provided in Appendix 15. Following the literature review, TAR supervised a magnetometer, sidescan sonar and sub- bottom profile survey in the vicinity of the proposed borrow areas which was conducted by CPE-NC in 2014. Analysis of remote sensing data collected during this investigation, identified a total of nine (9) magnetic anomalies, four (4) of which were considered potentially significant within the Preliminary Investigation Area A and a total of eight (8) magnetic anomalies, four (4) of which were considered potentially significant within Proposed Borrow Area A. Analysis of remote sensing data collected during this investigation, identified sixty-five (65) magnetic anomalies, twenty-five (25) of which were considered potentially significant within Preliminary Investigation Area C and a total of twenty-five (25) magnetic anomalies, seven (7) of which were considered potentially significant within Proposed Borrow Area C. Avoidance buffers have been applied to all potentially significant magnetic anomalies within Proposed Borrow Areas A and C (Figure 27 and Figure 28). 41 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 42 Page PROPOSED BORROW AREA DESIGN Proposed borrow areas were designed that contained beach compatible material that meets the State Sediment Criteria. Proposed Borrow Areas A and C were designed in investigation Areas A and C, respectively. No proposed borrow area was developed within Area B or S1-4. The proposed borrow area designs are shown in Figures 21 and 22. Design Considerations Design considerations for the proposed borrow areas included: • Construction of the project using a Hopper Dredge • Location of sufficient sand to construct the three proposed beach nourishment projects for the Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills • Beach compatible sand with similar mean grain size and sorting of the project beaches • Avoidance of environmentally sensitive areas such as hardbottom, seagrass beds, etc. • Avoidance of potentially significant cultural resources • Avoidance of nearshore impacts due to wave refraction over borrow areas Proposed Borrow Area A is located on the Outer Continental Shelf between 5.0 and 6.5 miles offshore of the Towns of Kill Devil Hills and Nags Head in water depths between 50 and 60 ft. (NAVD88). The proposed borrow area covers 1,173 acres and contains approximately 17,350,000 cy of sand. The proposed borrow area is broken up into six (6) different cuts with cut depths ranging from -58.5 to -68.0 ft. NAVD88. Additionally, three (3) dredge avoidance buffers have been added to the proposed borrow area design that represents potentially significant cultural resources (Figure 21). Proposed Borrow Area C is located on the Outer Continental Shelf between 4.1 and 5.2 miles offshore of the Town of Duck in water depths between 55 and 65 ft. (NAVD88). The proposed borrow area covers 354 acres and contains approximately 2,049,000 cy of sand. The proposed borrow area is broken up into five (5) different cuts with cut depths ranging from -61.0 to -65.0 ft. NAVD88. A no dredge zone is shown in the middle of proposed Borrow Area C where potentially unsuitable material exists. Additionally, six (6) dredge avoidance buffers have been added to the proposed borrow area design that represent potentially significant cultural resources, and a no-dredge area identified due to the quality of the material in that particular section (Figure 22). Composite mean grain size, percent silt content and sorting were computed for each vibracore within Proposed Borrow Areas A and C by calculating the weighted average (sample weighted by representative lengths of the sampled layer within the core) and are included in Appendices 16, 17 and 18. The composite statistics for the entire proposed borrow area were compiled by averaging the weighted results for all cores within the lateral and vertical limits of the proposed borrow area. The grain sizes of the fill materials are based on the geotechnical investigations 42 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 43 Page for the proposed borrow areas. The proposed borrow area composite statistics are shown in Table 4. Table 4. Borrow Area characteristics. Location Mean Grain Size1 Sorting1 Silt2 (mm) (phi) (phi) (%) Proposed Borrow Area A 0.36 1.47 0.90 0.83 Proposed Borrow Area C 0.28 1.83 1.09 1.36 1 Sieve analyses were conducted on all sediment samples in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials Standard Materials Designation D422-63 for particle size analysis of soils. Grain size data were entered into the gINT® software program, which computes the mean and median grain size, sorting, and silt/clay percentages for each sample using the moment method (Folk, 1974). 2 Silt content is defined as the percentage of material finer than 0.0625 mm. Data Quality Data collection utilized industry standard survey systems and methodologies to collect high resolution and high quality geophysical and geotechnical data. Geophysical surveys (sidescan sonar, sub-bottom profile, magnetometer, and bathymetric) were conducted at 30 meter line spacing and tie lines throughout the proposed borrow area. Vibracores were collected at approximately 1000 ft. spacing throughout the areas. Despite the resolution of the geophysical and geotechnical data, it is possible that interpolations between lines and vibracores may result in unexpected material (rock, silty sand, clay, etc.) in the borrow area. Dredge and fill operations should be monitored in real time to ensure the quality of the material placed on the beach and if unsuitable material is encountered, dredge practices should be modified to avoid such isolated areas of unsuitable material. The borrow areas tend to contain coarser grained sediment grading into finer grained sediments with depth. Percent fines increase with depth as well. Borrow Area composite sediment data included herein represents all material contained within the horizontal and vertical limits. Given the distance between the proposed borrow areas and the project areas hopper dredges will most likely be used for the construction of the projects. However, the project is being permitted to allow both hopper dredges and cutterhead suction dredges. Excavation of the borrow area using a hopper dredge, which typically excavates shallow layers of sand from the upper portion of a defined sand deposit, may result in the placement of sand with a mean grain size coarser than composites listed herein. Conversely, the use of a cutterhead suction dredge, which typically dredges deeper deposits of sand throughout the defined sand deposit, would result in the placement of sand with a mean grain size comparable to the composite listed herein. 43 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 44 Page Compatibility Analysis The compatibility of the proposed borrow areas designed by CPE-NC as a result of this investigation (Proposed Borrow Areas A and C) were evaluated with regards to beach sediments along the Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina. The analysis considered color, silt content, granular content, gravel content, and carbonate content. Composite mean grain size, percent silt, percent granular, percent gravel, percent carbonate, and sorting were computed for each vibracore by calculating the weighted average (sample weighted by representative lengths of the sampled layer within the core). The summary composite tables for the proposed borrow areas are provided in Appendix 16. Composite granularmetric and grain size distribution curves/histograms for each core are provided in Appendices 17 and 18. The composite statistics for the proposed borrow areas were compiled by averaging the weighted results for all cores within the lateral and vertical limits of the borrow area (Appendix 16). The existing beach composites for Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills are based on samples collected by CPE-NC in 2013 and 2014, supplemented with samples collected by the USACE. Composite mean grain size, percent silt, percent granular, percent gravel, percent carbonate content and sorting for the existing beach are provided in Appendix 4. Composite granularmetric and grain size distribution curves/histograms for the existing beach at Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills are provided in Appendices 5 and 6. The summary results are shown in Table 5. Table 5. Beach and proposed borrow area characteristics. Borrow Area/Beach Average Shell Hash1 Carbonate Content2 Mean Grain Size3 Sorting3 Silt4 Average Wet Munsell (%) (%) (mm) (phi) (phi) (%) Color Value5 Proposed Borrow Area A 1 0.36 1.47 0.90 .83 5 Proposed Borrow Area C 8 0.28 1.83 1.09 1.36 5 Duck 2 0.33 1.58 1.32 1.01 5 Kitty Hawk 2 0.38 1.38 1.41 0.94 5 Kill Devil Hills 2 0.36 1.47 1.37 0.90 5 1 During sieve analysis, the visually estimated percentage of shell on the #5 and #7 sieves was noted. 2 Carbonate content was determined by percent weight on thirty-one (31) samples using the acid leaching methodology described in Twenhofel and Tyler (1941). 3 Sieve analyses were conducted on all sediment samples in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials Standard Materials Designation D422-63 for particle size analysis of soils. Grain size data were entered into the gINT® software program, which computes the mean and median grain size, sorting, and silt/clay percentages for each sample using the moment method (Folk, 1974). 44 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 45 Page 4 Silt content is defined as the percentage of material finer than 0.0625 mm (F.A.C. 62 B-41.007). 5 Wet sand colors were evaluated using the Munsell color system. The Munsell notation for color consists of separate notations for Hue (combination of red, yellow, green, blue, and purple colors), Value (lightness of the sand color) and Chroma. Color: Wet sand colors are evaluated using the Munsell color system. The Munsell notation for color consists of separate notations for Hue, Value and Chroma, which are combined in that order to form the color designation. Hue indicates the combination of red, yellow, green, blue, and purple colors. Value indicates the lightness of the sand color. A higher number indicates a lighter sand sample. Chroma indicates the intensity of the color. A higher number indicates a more intense color. Of these parameters, the most important for beach nourishment is Value. Based on existing data, the existing beach sand is light gray and exhibits a typical wet Munsell color value of 5 for the Towns of Kitty Hawk, Kill Devil Hills and forthe Town of Duck. The fill material is light gray, with an average wet color value of 5. The Hue of the existing beach and the Proposed Borrow Areas are a mix of 2.5Y and 5Y. The Chroma of the existing beach and fill material range between 1 and 2 for both. This indicates that the existing beach color is very similar to the fill. The Munsell value of the fill material is similar to the existing beach. Carbonate Content: The average carbonate content of the existing beach at Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills ranges from 2%, 2%, and 2%, respectively. The average carbonate content of Proposed Borrow Areas A and C are 1% and 8%, respectively. The carbonate content of the borrow area is within tolerance of the State limit defined in Rule 15A NCAC 07H .0312, which states that the borrow source shall not exceed the average percentage by weight of calcium carbonate of the recipient beach characterization plus 15%. In this case, the limit is 17% for Duck and Kitty Hawk and Kill Devil Hills. Fines: In this analysis, percent fine is defined as the percentage of material finer than 0.0625 mm as defined by Rule 15A NCAC 07H .0312. The average percent fines in Proposed Borrow Area A is 0.83% and 1.36% in Proposed Borrow Area C, which is well below the State limit of 5% defined for beach fill projects. The beach samples exhibit silt content of 1.01% in the Town of Duck, 0.94% in the Town of Kitty Hawk, and 0.90% in The Town of Kill Devil Hills. The silt content of the fill material falls within this range and is acceptable as beach quality material. Granular: In this analysis, granular content is defined as the percentage of material greater than or equal to 2.0 mm and less than 4.76 mm as defined by Rule 15A NCAC 07H .0312. The composite granular content of the proposed Borrow Areas A and C are 1.48% and 2.21%, respectively. The composite granular content of the beach at Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills are 3.89%, 6.38%, and 5.15%, respectively (Table 6). The granular content of the proposed borrow areas is above the State limit which states that the granular content shall not exceed the average percentage by weight of granular-sized sediment of the recipient beach characterization plus 5%. In this case the limit is 8.89% for Duck, 11.83% for Kitty Hawk, and 10.15% for Kill Devil Hills. 45 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 46 Page Gravel: In this analysis, gravel content is defined as the percentage of material greater than or equal to 4.76 mm and less than 76 mm as defined by Rule 15A NCAC 07H .0312. The composite gravel content of the proposed Borrow Areas A and C are 0.52% and 1.09%, respectively. The composite gravel content of the beach at Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills are 2.00%, 1.64%, and 1.62%, respectively (Table 6). The gravel content of the proposed borrow areas is above the State limit which states that the gravel content shall not exceed the average percentage by weight of gravel-sized sediment of the recipient beach characterization plus 5%. In this case the limit is 7.00% for Duck, 6.64% for Kitty Hawk, and 6.62% for Kill Devil Hills. Table 6. Allowable fine, granular, gravel, and carbonate limits defined by State rules. Borrow Area Fines Granular Gravel Carbonate (%) (%) (%) (%) Allowable limits defined by Rule 15A NCAC 07H.0312 (Town of Duck) 6.01 8.89 7.00 17 Allowable limits defined by Rule 15A NCAC 07H.0312 (Town of Kitty Hawk) 5.94 11.83 6.64 17 Allowable limits defined by Rule 15A NCAC 07H.0312 (Town of Kill Devil Hills) 5.90 10.15 6.62 17 Proposed Borrow Area A 0.83 1.48 0.52 1 Proposed Borrow Area C 1.36 2.21 1.09 8 Grain Size: Grain size compatibility is quantified using the overfill factor, which indicates the proportion of sand required to compensate for differences between the grain size distributions of the proposed borrow area sediment and the existing beach. An overfill factor of 1.0 indicates that no extra sand is required. An overfill factor of 1.28 indicates that the sand volume must be increased 28% to achieve the same performance as material identical to the existing beach, etc. In general, the overfill factor decreases as the mean grain size of the borrow source increases towards the grain size of the existing beach. 46 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 47 Page CONCLUSIONS The marine sand search investigation conducted by CPE-NC in 2014 on the outer continental shelf of Dare County, North Carolina resulted in the design of two proposed borrow areas. Table 7 summarizes the geophysical and geotechncical data collected in support of this investigation. Proposed Borrow Area A is located on the Outer Continental Shelf between 5.0 and 6.5 miles offshore of the Towns of Kill Devil Hills and Nags Head in water depths between 50 and 60 ft. (NAVD88). The proposed borrow area covers 1,173 acres and contains approximately 17,350,000 cy of sand. The mean grain size of the sand is 0.36 mm with a sorting value of 0.90. Sand is characterized as fine to medium grained quartz sand with trace silt, shell hash, and shell fragments. The average wet Munsell color value is 5 and dry color value is 6. The borrow area is broken up into 6 different cuts with cut depths ranging from -58.5 to -68.0 ft. NAVD88. Table 7. Geophysical and geotechnical investigations conducted in 2014. Proposed Borrow Area C is located on the Outer Continental Shelf between 4.1 and 5.2 miles offshore of the Town of Duck in water depths between 55 and 65 ft. (NAVD88). The proposed borrow area covers 354 acres and contains approximately 2,049,000 cy of sand. The mean grain size of the sand is 0.28 mm with a sorting value of 1.09. Sand is characterized as fine grained quartz sand with trace silt, shell hash, and shell fragments. The average wet Munsell color value is 5 and dry color value is 6. The proposed borrow area is broken up into 5 different cuts with cut depths ranging from -61.0 to -65.0 ft. NAVD88. The compatibility of the proposed borrow areas with the existing beaches was evaluated according to wet Munsell color, percent fine-size sediment, percent granular-size sediment, percent gravel-size sediment, carbonate content and grain size. For the proposed borrow areas all values meet the allowable limits defined by Rule 15A NCAC 07H .0312. Reconnaissance level total nautical miles surveyed (bathymetric and magnetometer) 60.0 Number of CPE-NC vibracores collected 100 Design level total nautical miles surveyed (bathymetric, magnetometer, sub-bottom and sidescan sonar) 170.2 Number of proposed borrow areas identified 2 47 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 48 Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Geophysical data was collected by Jeff Helgerson, Franky Stankiewicz, Ben Alcocer, Alex Valente, Natasha Flores, Scott Tillman, Chris Dougherty, Tim Moss, Adam Priest, and Stephanie Bush. Vibracores were collected by Adam Priest, Brant Priest, Ken Willson, and Tim Moss. Vibracores were logged and compiled by Kristina McCoy, Leah Colombo, Brant Priest, Tim Moss, and Stephanie Bush. The project manager was Ken Willson. The project geologist was Kristina McCoy. LITERATURE CITED ASTM, 2009. Standard practice for description and identification of soils (visual-manual procedure), designation D2488-09a. 2009 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, volume 04.08: Soil and Rock; Building Stones; Geotextiles. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing Materials. ASTM, 2007. Standard method for particle-size analysis of soils, designation D422-63. 2007 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.08: Soil and Rock; Building Stones; Geotextiles. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing Materials. ASTM, 2006. Standard methods for amount of material in soils finer than No. 200 (75 um) sieve, designation D1140-00. 2006 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.08: Soil and Rock; Building Stones; Geotextiles. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing Materials. Bodge, K.R., 2004. Alternative Computation of Dean’s Overfill Ratio, 17th Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Orlando, FL. CPE-NC, 2013. Final Report and Submission of Geological Data (BOEM Authorization for Geological Prospecting for Mineral Resources or Scientific Research on the Outer Continental Shelf Related to Minerals Other than Oil, Gas, and Sulphur: Authorization Number E13-001). Prepared for the Town of Kill Devil Hills, NC. Submitted to BOEM: December 23, 2013. Finkl, C.W., Khalil, S.M. and Andrews, J.L., 1997. Offshore Sand Sources for Beach Replenishment: Potential Borrows on the Continental Shelf of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Georesources and Geotechnology, 15, p155-173. Finkl, C.W.; Andrews, J., and Benedet, L., 2003. Shelf sand searches for beach renourishment along Florida Gulf and Atlantic coasts based on geological, geomorphological, and geotechnical principles and practices. Proceedings of Coastal Sediments ’03 (March 2003, Clearwater, Florida). Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers, CD-ROM. 48 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Comprehensive Marine Sand Search and Borrow Area Design Report: Towns of Duck, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina 49 Page Finkl, C.W.; Benedet, L., and Andrews, J.L., 2005. Interpretation of seabed geomorphology based on spatial analysis of high-density airborne laser bathymetry (ALB). Journal of Coastal Research, 21(3), p501-514. Finkl, C.W. and Khalil, S.M., 2005. Offshore exploration for sand sources: General guidelines and procedural strategies along deltaic coasts. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 44, 198- 228. Folk, R.L., 1974. The Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Austin, Texas: Hemphill, 182p. Riggs, S. R., Cleary, W. J., & Snyder, S. W., 1995. Influence of inherited geologic framework on barrier shoreface morphology and dynamics. Marine Geology, 126(1), 213-234. Thieler, E. R., Foster, D. S., Himmelstoss, E. A., & Mallinson, D. J., 2014. Geologic framework of the northern North Carolina, USA inner continental shelf and its influence on coastal evolution. Marine Geology, 348, 113-130. Twenhofel, W.H. and Tyler, S.A., 1941. Methods of Study of Sediments. New York: McGraw-Hill, 183p. USACE, 1986. Overfill and Renourishment Factors, Coastal Engineering Technical Note CETN-II- 15, http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/library/publications/chetn/pdf/cetn-ii-15.pdf, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg. USACE, 2000. FINAL feasibility report and environmental impact statement on hurricaneprotection and beach erosion control, dare county beaches (Bodie Island Portion), DareCounty, North Carolina, September 2000. 49 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Application for Major Development Permit Town of Kitty Hawk Shore Protection Project C OASTAL P ROTECTION E NGINEERING OF N ORTH C AROLINA, I NC. Appendix D: Survey Report Town of Duck, NC 2013 Hydrographic and Topographic Survey Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. Town of Duck, NC 2013 Hydrographic and Topographic Beach Survey Report Prepared for: Town of Duck Prepared by: Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc., No. C-2331 4038 Masonboro Loop Road Wilmington, NC 28409 November 2013 Town of Duck, NC 2013 Hydrographic and Topographic Survey Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract Survey Methodologies Map Preparation Ground Digital Photography Survey Maps Survey Report Notes and Certification LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix No. 1 Monument Information Report 2 Profile XYZ data 3 Profile Plots 4 Ground Digital Photography 5 Field Book Pages Town of Duck, NC 2013 Hydrographic and Topographic Survey Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. ABSTRACT Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. (CPE-NC) was contracted by the Town of Duck to provide a hydrographic and topographic survey for the support of a beach nourishment project consisting of thirty-eight (38) profile stations ranging from Salt House Road in the community of Pine Island to 9th Avenue in the Town of Southern Shores. CPE-NC surveyors conducted the beach and hydrographic survey September 10, 2013 through September 16, 2013. The physical monitoring of Duck included Hydrographic and Topographic surveys of the beach and offshore areas. The monitoring data is necessary to observe and assess beach conditions to aid in the design of the beach nourishment project. Once a project is constructed, monitoring surveys are necessary to continually observe the performance of the nourishment project as well as assess effects of said project on adjacent shorelines. The scientific monitoring processes provide information necessary to plan, design, and optimize initial beach nourishment projects and future renourishment projects. The information gathered may potentially reduce the need for, and cost of, unnecessary work as well as potentially reducing any environmental impact that may have occurred or been expected. Town of Duck, NC 2013 Hydrographic and Topographic Survey Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. SURVEY METHODOLOGIES The beach profile surveys were conducted in accordance with the Minimum Performance Standards for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Engineering and Design Hydrographic Surveying Manual (EM 1110-2-1003). This survey is in accordance with Chapter 56.1606 of the North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) specifications established by The North Carolina Engineering and Land Surveying Act (GS89C). All work was conducted under the direct supervision and responsible charge of a Professional Land Surveyor (PLS ) who is registered in the State of North Carolina. In addition, all hydrographic surveying was conducted under the direct supervision of an American Congress of Surveying and Mapping (ACSM) Certified Hydrographer (CH). A signed and sealed certification is provided at the end of this Hydrographic and Topographic Survey Report. Eight (8) maps are presented, one (1) project location map and seven (7) plan view maps. The plan view maps show reduced true position elevation data collected during the survey. The location of all published control, as well as control found and used for survey purposes, is presented in the Monument Information Report provided in Appendix 1. Vertical data was collected in the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). All Horizontal data is provided in the North Carolina State Plane Coordinate System, North American Datum of 1983/2011 (NAD 83/2011). Profile data is presented in xyz format relative to NAVD88 in Appendix 2. Profile plots are provided in Appendix 3. Ground digital photography obtained during the survey is provided in Appendix 4. Copies of all field book pages are provided in Appendix 5. The field survey and data collection activities encompassed four (4) phases. Brief descriptions of each survey phase, including methodologies and quality control/quality assurance procedures, are described below. Phase One: Control Reconnaissance/Establishment/Verification Prior to the start of the survey, reconnaissance of the monuments was conducted to confirm that survey control was in place and undisturbed. Real Time Kinematic Global Positioning System (RTK GPS) was used to locate and confirm survey control for this project. The horizontal and vertical accuracy of control data meets the accuracy requirements as set forth in the Engineering and Design Hydrographic Surveying Manual (EM 1110-2-1003). In order to achieve required accuracy, the Hydrographic and Topographic surveys were controlled using 1st order monuments, specifically Caffey and Y254 from the National Geodetic Survey (NGS). Horizontal and vertical positioning checks were conducted at the beginning and end of each day using at least two 1st order monuments in the project area. The RTK GPS utilizes statistical methods to ensure accuracy of RTK GPS data remains within the 95% confidence interval. The control check shots were acquired using a minimum of five (5) epochs which results in a high accuracy location. Results from 1st order control checks are displayed showing northing, easting, monument elevation, inverses, horizontal and vertical root mean square error, location description and photographs as indicated in the Monument Information Report (Appendix 1). Town of Duck, NC 2013 Hydrographic and Topographic Survey Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. Phase Two: Beach Profiles Upon completion of the control reconnaissance survey, beach/upland and nearshore operations were initiated. Cross-sections of the beach in the project area were surveyed using extended rod RTK GPS rovers, standard RTK GPS rovers, and differential leveling techniques. Extended rod RTK GPS rovers were used to augment RTK GPS survey capability into the nearshore. The current systems allow surveyors from CPE-NC to collect the entire beach profile with RTK GPS technology. Incorporation of RTK GPS into monitoring surveys greatly reduces the potential for human error during data collection and reduction. Furthermore, RTK GPS provides accuracies of eight (8) millimeters + one (1) part per million with true horizontal positioning to the survey data point regardless of sea state. Profiles commenced from the onshore control point and extend seaward overlapping the offshore data. Nearshore portions of the profiles were surveyed by two (2) surveyors with an Extended Rod Trimble R8 RTK GPS rover who entered the water wearing Personal Floatation Devices (PFD). Trimble TSC3 data collectors are equipped with Bluetooth technology allowing wireless communication with the GPS receiver. The rover system allows surveyors from CPE- NC to reach a maximum water depth of eleven (11) feet. The nearshore survey extended seaward to a point overlapping the offshore portion of the profiles by at least fifty (50) feet. The upland portion of the survey commenced at the waterline and extended 150 feet landward of the vegetation line or until an obstacle was encountered. The upland portions of the profiles were surveyed using an RTK GPS. Elevations were taken at approximately twenty-five (25) foot intervals along each profile line and at all grade breaks. To maintain online accuracy surveyors utilized the RTK GPS feature stakeout point. Stakeout point allows surveyors to maintain the profile azimuth without relying on survey lathe or conventional compass bearings allowing surveyors to maintain a three (3) foot profile line variance. Phase Three: Nearshore/Offshore Profiles The Nearshore/Offshore profiles were conducted at each required profile station. The profiles were obtained from the surf zone seaward to an elevation no less than negative twenty- five (-25) feet NAVD88. The landward limits of the nearshore profiles were based on a minimum overlap of fifty (50) feet beyond the seaward extent of beach profiles. Soundings were collected at a maximum of twenty-five (25) foot intervals with an Odom Hydrotrac, sufficient to provide an accurate depiction of the seafloor. Nearshore/offshore profiles were collected using an Odom Hydrotrac single frequency sounder with digitizer on CPE-NC’s twenty-eight (28) foot Parker survey vessel with a centrally located hull-mounted transducer. Data was digitally stored using HYPACK Software. A Trimble R8 RTK GPS was used onboard the survey vessel to provide instantaneous tide and heave corrections. Manual tide readings were taken while conducting the onshore portion of the profile to verify onboard tide readings. In order to maintain the vessel navigation along the profile lines, HYPACK navigation software was used. This software provided horizontal position to the Town of Duck, NC 2013 Hydrographic and Topographic Survey Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. sounding data allowing real-time review of the data in plan view or cross-section format. HYPACK also provided navigation to the helm to minimize deviation from the online azimuth. Horizontal and vertical positioning checks were conducted at the beginning and end of each as described in phase one (1) of the survey. The sounder was calibrated via bar-checks and a sound velocity probe at the beginning and end of the day. The DIGIBAR PRO sound velocity meter offers a fast additional calibration for sound velocity as compared to the traditional bar - check. Bar-checks were performed from a depth of five (5) feet to a depth of at least twenty-five (25) feet. Analog data showing the results of the bar-check calibration was displayed on the sounder charts at five (5) foot increments during descent of the bar. Prior to start of each survey day the last profile line of the previous day was rerun to verify accuracy of the hydrographic data. Offshore data was collected within one (1) week of onshore data collection for each line. Nearshore and offshore data from profile stations D-20 through D23 were omitted due to the request from the Army Corps of Engineers Field Research Facility located in Duck, NC. Phase Four: Data Reduction/Submittals Upon completion of the field work, data was edited and reduced with HYPACK, Trimble Business Center, and CPE-NC’s internal software programs. The offshore raw digital data was viewed in HYPACK and a comma delimited file was created and exported to ArcGIS 10.1 for the availability to produce plan view plots. The offshore RTK GPS tide data that was collected was compared to the manually collected RTK GPS nearshore tide data, as well as observed and predicted tides for data verification purposes. The onshore and offshore data were merged and a representative cross-section was derived for each profile line. The cross-sections were developed using internal CPE-NC plotting programs. The final plots were reviewed with comparisons to previous years. The 2011 data used for comparison originated from 2009 upland data (landward of dune crest) obtained through LiDAR, 2011 upland data (dune crest to Mean High Water) obtained through LiDAR provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Field Research Facility (USACE FRF), and 2011 nearshore and offshore data (seaward of Mean High Water) obtained through bathymetric survey methods conducted by the USACE FRF. The September 2013 nearshore and offshore data used for comparison along profiles D-19 through D-23 (as shown in black on profile plots in Appendix 3) originated from a bathymetric survey conducted by the USACE FRF. The final approved cross-section data was prepared in the required formats for submittal (Appendix 2). Digital data is provided in the State required vertical datum NAVD88. Town of Duck, NC 2013 Hydrographic and Topographic Survey Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. MAP PREPARATION: Upon completion of the surveys and data reduction, the survey maps were prepared in ArcGIS 10.1. In order to avoid congestion, the survey maps do not show all of collected elevations but enough to give an accurate depiction of the cross sections. The survey maps display profile data and control monument locations plotted against National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) 2012 aerial photographs. GROUND DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY: Surveyors from CPE-NC collected three (3) digital photos at a mid-beach location at each profile location. The three (3) photos included one (1) in each shore-parallel direction and one (1) landward toward the dune or upland area. Town of Duck, NC 2013 Hydrographic and Topographic Survey Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. SURVEY REPORT NOTES AND CERTIFICATION Survey Title: Town of Duck, NC 2013 Hydrographic and Topographic Survey Prepared Date: November 2013 Prepared For: Town of Duck Prepared By: Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. Dates of Survey: September 10, 2013 through September 16, 2013 Survey Location: Town of Duck (PI-17 through SS-02) Notes: 1. The survey is neither valid nor complete without both the survey report and described survey maps. Digital data files encompassing the following have also been provided in the following formats listed.  Monument Information Report (Appendix 1)  ASCII file (profile xyz data). Digital only (Appendix 2)  Profile Plots (Appendix 3)  Ground Digital Photography (Appendix 4)  Project field book pages. Digital only (Appendix 5) 2. Survey map and report or the copies thereof are not valid without the original signature and seal of a Professional Licensed Surveyor. 3. The information on this map represents the results of the survey on the dates indicated and can only be considered as indicating the general conditions existing at the time. 4. Additions or deletions to survey maps or report by other than signing party or parties is prohibited without written consent of the signing party or parties. 5. The coordinates shown are in US survey feet based on the vertical and horizontal data that was collected and presented relative to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) and the North Carolina State Plane Coordinate System, North American Datum of 1983/2011 (NAD83/2011). Town of Duck, NC 2013 Hydrographic and Topographic Survey Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. 6. Vertical measurements are based on first order monuments Caffey, 865 1370 C Tidal, 865 1370 D Tidal, 865 1370 K Tidal, C255, and Y254 per published NGS coordinates. 7. Bearings are based on a bearing of South 22°10’37” East between NGS monuments Caffey and Y254 per published NGS coordinates. 8. Underground and subaqueous improvements and/or utilities were not located as part of this survey and should be field verified prior to any dredging or construction activities. 9. Refer to CPE-NC field book No. 481 for the onshore portion and CPE-NC Navbook No. 41 for the offshore survey. 10. Aids to navigation were not located during this survey. 11. Soundings were collected using an Odom Hydrotrac, Single Frequency, survey grade sounder. The sounder was calibrated prior to the start of the survey following manufacturers recommended procedures. 12. This survey was conducted for the Town of Duck for use as a Hydrographic and Topographic survey. Certification: I, Jim Sullivan, certify that this project was completed under my direct and responsible charge from an actual survey made under my supervision; that this Hydrographic and Topographic survey was performed at the 95 percent confidence level (2 sigma) to meet Federal Geographic Data Committee Standards; that the horizontal accuracy is 0.010, that the vertical accuracy is 0.042 and that the original data was obtained on September 10, 2013; that the survey was completed on September 16, 2013; all coordinates are based on NAD83/2011; and all elevations are based on NAVD88. _____________________________________________ ________________________ Jim Sullivan Date North Carolina Professional Land Surveyor No. L-5064 Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc., No. C-2331 2481 Northwest Boca Raton Blvd., Boca Raton, FL 33431 Town of Duck, NC 2013 Hydrographic and Topographic Survey Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. APPENDIX OVERVIEW 1) Monument Information Report Data collected during the surveys is entered in a spreadsheet format and compared to data provided by NGS. This comparison shows differences in northings, eastings and elevation of NGS published control, what was collected in the field, and what was used during profile reduction. 2) Profile XYZ data (digital only) Offshore survey data was converted into CPE-NC files. Onshore data was reduced by standard means of reduction and also entered into CPE-NC format and merged with the offshore data. CPE-NC format is used for in-house plotting, volume computations and other engineering analyses. The CPE-NC formatted data was converted into xyz format. The xyz data is provided in the datum collected NAVD88 as per state standards. 3) Profile Plots Profile plots of this survey data compared with historical profile data. 4) Ground Digital Photography CPE-NC surveyors collected three (3) digital photos at a mid-beach location at each profile location. The three (3) photos included one (1) in each shore-parallel direction and one (1) landward toward the monument. In addition, wherever possible a digital photo was taken of the control identification or stamping on the monument. 5) Field Book Pages (digital only) This appendix includes copies of the field book pages used for the survey. Refer to CPE-NC field book No. 433 for the onshore portion. Navigation field book No. 41 for the offshore survey.