20120512 Ver 1_CAMA Application_20120523

Beverly Eaves Perdue
Coverror
May 22 2012
MEMORANDUM
TO
FROM
SUBJECT
Applicant
Protect Location
Brax }on C Davis
Director
Karen Higgins
Division of Water Quality
Doug Huggett
Mayor Permits Processing Coordinator
CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Town of Emerald Isle & Pine Knoll Shores
Dee Freeman
Secretary
@ ?f�:Sr= A.
MAY23T012
Carteret County, two beachfront areas in Emerald Isle and one area in Pine
Knoll Shores
Proposed Protect Proposes excavation of up to 1,000,000 yd3 of previously dredged sand to be
transported and placed along 37,511' of Bogue Banks Beach Sand placement
will occur at three locations Western Emerald Isle, Eastern Emerald Isle, and
Pine Knoll Shores
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by
June 11 2012 If you have any questions regarding the proposed project please contact
Barry Guthrie Permit officer at [phone] When appropriate, in depth comments with supporting
data is requested
REPLY This agency has no objection to the project as proposed
This agency has no comment on the proposed project
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated See attached
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments
SIGNED DATE
400 Commerce Ave Morehead City NC 28557 NorthCarollna
Phone [phone] FAX [phone] Internet www nccoastalmanagement net //
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer Ai�tt�L alltf

North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
Emerald Isle and Pine Knoll Shores
Carteret County, North Carolina
March 2012
Proposed by:
Carteret County Shore Protection Office
Carteret County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Prepared by:
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
201 N. Front St., Suite 307
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

Shore Protection Manager
❑rte ❑mCd=
T=
rEd110 ❑ tIT 11
March 16, 2012
'*",t county
c
4orog
protection office
o rote c -It he beach. com
Mr. Barry Guthrie
N.C. Division of Coastal Management ( NCDCM)
400 Commerce Avenue Phone: [phone]
Morehead City, NC 28557 Fax: [phone]
Re: NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
Carteret County, Town of Emerald Isle and Town of Pine Knoll Shores
Dear Mr. Guthrie:
Please find enclosed the NCDCM Major Permit application for the above referenced project.
The permit package includes NCDCM Forms MP -1 and MP -2, additional information
attachments, appendices, copies of riparian notifications, and project drawings. Also included
with the application is a check for $475.00.
Your staff's earliest review for completeness would be greatly appreciated. Please call me if
you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
CARTEREET COUNTY SHORE PROTECTION OFFICE
"1 /1�1
Greg 'rudi' Rudolph
Shore Protection Manager
Enclosures
cc: Frank Rush, Town Manager, Town of Emerald Isle
Brian Kramer, Town Manager, Pine Knoll Shores
Jennifer Culbertson, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Dave Timpy, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Johnny Martin, Moffatt & Nichol
Layton Bedsole, Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Shore Protection Office • P.O. Box 4297 • Emerald Isle, North Carolina 28594
www. . protect the beach. com

March 16, 2012
Town of Emerald Isle
7500 Emerald Drive
Emerald Isle, North Carolina 28594
Town of Pine Knoll Shores
100 Municipal Circle
Pine Knoll Shores, North Carolina 28512
NC Division of Coastal Management
Morehead City Regional Office
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
RE: Post -Irene Renourishment Project
Towns of Emerald Isle and Pine Knoll Shores, Carteret County
Authorized Agent Agreement
To Whom It May Concern:
This is to inform you that Gregory `rudi' Rudolph of Carteret County has been approved by the
Towns to act as the Authorized Agent for the above - referenced project. Mr. Rudolph is
authorized to act on behalf of the applicant on matters related to the NCDCM Major Permit and
related federal permits.
Please call us if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
AA
r
Frank Rush
Town Manager, Town of Emerald Isle
, Town of Pine Knoll Shores

Project is in an:
Property Owner:
OCEAN HAZARD AEC NOTICE
Ocean Erodible Area High Hazard Flood Area Inlet Hazard Area
—CoVJAS b � S,rKi.,(-Aa k�- O' ?IV-�A..
Property Address: E7- 41c�L - © car t ®a.k5 re v'� 17I. ' �Z �s t- - f � % TO ` s�re'e
Date Lot Was Platted: 0 L&
This notice is intended to make you, the applicant, aware of the
special risks and conditions associated with development in this
area, which is subject to natural hazards such as storms, erosion
and currents. The rules of the Coastal Resources Commission
require that you receive an AEC Hazard Notice and
acknowledge that notice in writing before a permit for
development can be issued.
The Commission's rules on building standards, oceanfront
setbacks and dune alterations are designed to minimize, but not
eliminate, property loss from hazards. By granting pen-nits, the
Coastal Resources Commission does not guarantee the safety of
the development and assumes no liability for future damage to
the development. Permits issued in the Ocean Hazard Area of
Environmental Concern include the condition that structures be
relocated or dismantled if they become imminently threatened
by changes in shoreline configuration. The structure(s) must be
relocated or dismantled within two (2) years of becoming
imminently threatened, and in any case upon its collapse or
subsidence.
The best available information, as accepted by the Coastal
Resources Commission, indicates that the annual long -term
average ocean erosion rate for the area where your property is
located is feet per year.
The rate was established by careful analysis of aerial
photographs of the coastline taken over the past 50 years.
Studies also indicate that the shoreline could move as much as
feet landward in a major storm.
The flood waters in a major storm are predicted to be about
feet deep in this area.
Preferred oceanfront protection measures are beach nourishment
and relocation of threatened structures. Hard erosion control
structures such as bulkheads, seawalls, revetments, groins, jetties
and breakwaters are prohibited. Temporary sand bags may be
authorized under certain conditions.
The applicant must acknowledge this information and
requirements by signing this notice in the space below. Without
the proper signature, the application will not be complete.
4/4 31� 2-
Property Owner Signature Date
og W A. C.�rc,tc-
_. i
SPECIAL NOTE: This hazard notice is required for
development in areas subject to sudden and massive storms and
erosion. Permits issued for development in this area expire on
December 31 of the third year following the year in which the
permit was issued. Shortly before work begins on the project
site, the Local Permit Officer must be contacted to determine the
vegetation line and setback distance at your site. If the property
has seen little change since the time of permit issuance, and the
proposed development can still meet the setback requirement,
the LPO will inform you that you may begin work. Substantial
progress on the project must be made within 60 days of this
setback determination, or the setback must be remeasured. Also,
the occurrence of a major shoreline change as the result of a
storm within the 60 -day period will necessitate remeasurement
of the setback. It is important that you check with the LPO
before the permit expires for official approval to continue the
work after the permit has expired. Generally, if foundation
pilings have been placed and substantial progress is continuing,
permit renewal can be authorized, It is unlawful to continue
work after permit expiration.
For more information, contact:
Local Permit Officer
Address
Locality
Phone Number
Revised May 2010

BEFORE YOU BUILD
Setting Back for Safety: A Guide to Wise Development Along the Oceanfront
When you build along the oceanfront, you take a calculated risk.
Natural forces of water and wind collide with tons of force, even
on calm days.
Man -made structures cannot be guaranteed to survive the force
of a hurricane. Long -term erosion (or barrier island migration)
may take from two to ten feet of the beach each year, and,
sooner or later, will threaten oceanfront structures. These are the
facts of life for oceanfront property owners.
The Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) has adopted rules for
building along the oceanfront. The rules are intended to avoid an
unreasonable risk to life and property, and to limit public and
private losses from storm and long -term erosion. These rules
lessen but do not eliminate the element of risk in oceanfront
development.
As you consider building along the oceanfront, the CRC wants
you to understand the rules and the risks. With this knowledge,
you can make a more informed decision about where and how to
build in the coastal area.
The Rules
When you build along the oceanfront, coastal management rules
require that the structure be sited to fit safely into the beach
environment,
Structures along the oceanfront, less than 5,000 square feet in
size, must be behind the frontal dune, landward of the crest of
the primary dune, and set back from the first line of stable
natural vegetation a distance equal to 30 times the annual
erosion rate (a minimum of 60 feet). The setback calculation
increases as the size of the structure increases [15A NCAC
7H.0306(a)(2)]. For example: A structure between 5,000 and
10,000 square feet would require a setback from the first line of
stable, natural vegetation to a distance equal to 60 times the
annual erosion rate (a minimum of 120 feet). fhe graduated
setback continues to increase through structure sizes greater than
100,000 square feet.
r
ZEN
The Reasons
The beachfront is an ever - changing landform. The beach and
the dunes are natural "shock absorbers," taking the beating of the
wind and waves and protecting the inland areas. By
incorporating building setbacks into the regulations, you have a
good chance of enjoying the full life of the structure. At first, it
seems very inviting to build your dream house as close to the
beach as possible, but in five years you could find the dream has
become a nightmare as high tides and storm tides threaten your
investment.
The Exception
The Coastal Resources Commission recognized that these rules,
initially passed in June 1979, might prove a hardship for some
property owners. Therefore, they established an exception for
lots that cannot meet the setback requirement. The exception
allows buildings in front of the current setback, if the following
conditions apply:
1) the lot must have been platted as of June 1, 1979, and is
not capable of being enlarged by combining with
adjoining land under the same ownership;
2) development must be constructed as far back on the
property as possible and in no case less than 60 feet
landward of the vegetation line;
3) no development can take place on the frontal dune;
4) special construction standards on piling depth and
square footage must be met; and
5) all other CAMA, state and local regulations must be
met.
The exception is not available in the Inlet Hazard Area.
To determine eligibility for the exception the Local Permit
Officer will make these measurements and observations:
required setback from vegetation line
exception setback (maximum feasible)
rear property line setback
max. allowable square footage on lowest floor
PRE-PERMIT STRUCTURE; INAIDEQU01» UTBAC G
PRE-STORM REACH PROFILE
__' PUST -STORM BFACH PROFILE
After the storm, the house on the dune will be gone. The other house has a much better chance of survival.

Dom MP -1
APPLICHION for
Major Development remit
(last revised 12/27/06)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information
Business Name
Project Name (if applicable)
Town Of Emerald Isle/Town Of Pine Knoll Shores
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
Applicant 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
Frank"
A.
Rush
Applicant 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
Brian
J.
Kramer
If additional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed.
Mailing Address
PO Box
City
State
Emerald Isle /Pine
City
7500 Emerald Drive /100 Municipal Circle
Knoll Shores
NC
ZIP
Country
Phone No.
FAX No.
28594/28512
USA
252 - 354 — 3424/252- 257 -4353
(252) - 354 — 5068 252 - 247 -4355
Street Address (if different from above)
252 - 393 -
2663 ext.
ext.
City
State
ZIP
Email
frush @emeraldisle - nc.org /manager @townofpks.com
2. Agent(Contractor Information
Business Name
Carteret County
Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
Greg 'Rudi'
Rudolph
Agent/ Contractor 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
Mailing Address
PO Box
City
State
4297
Emerald Isle
NC
ZIP
Phone No. 1
Phone No. 2
28594
252 - 393 -
2663 ext.
ext.
FAX No.
Contractor #
252 393 6639
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
grudolph @carteretcountygov.org
<Form continues on back>
252 - 808 -2808 .. 1- 888- 4RCOAS . www.nccoastalmanagement.net

Form DCM MP -1 (Page 2 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
3. Project Location
Site Description
Street Address
Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
County (can be multiple)
El West - Ocean Oaks to Mangrove Drive; El East - Park Drive
State Rd. #
Carteret
to 4th Street; PKS - Coral Shores to Dogwood Circle
NC 58
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
(Emerald Isle Survey Transects 9 -16, 35 -46, and PKS
Not Applicable,
NWL (normal water level)
Survey Transect 61 -70)
(If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list)
Subdivision Name
City
State
Zip
e.
Emerald Isle and Pine Knoll
NC
28594- 28512
f.
Shores
There are no man -made structures other than previously placed nourishment material. The project area is publicly
Phone No.
Lot No. (s) (if many, attach additional page with list)
- - ext.
I I I ,
a. In which NC river basin is the project located?
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
White Oak
Atlantic Ocean
c. Is the water body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade?
d. Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site.
®Natural ❑Manmade ❑Unknown
Atlantic Ocean
e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction?
f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
®Yes ❑No
work falls within.
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
Emerald Isle and Pine Knoll Shores
4.
Site Description
a.
Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
37,510 linear ft (7.1 mi) of oceanfront shoreline
approximately 267 acres of proposed beach fill
c.
Size of individual lot(s)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
Not Applicable,
NWL (normal water level)
(If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list)
-10 to +6 feet NAVD88 —4.9 ft above MHW
®NHW or ❑NWL
e.
Vegetation on tract
None
f.
Man -made features and uses now on tract
There are no man -made structures other than previously placed nourishment material. The project area is publicly
accessible oceanfront shoreline used recreationally by visitors and residents. Commercial fishing by stop nets waterward
from the beach may seasonally occur.
g.
Identify and describe the existing land uses adjacent to the proposed project site.
Adjacent land uses include public, private, commercial and residential ownership, public access, and tourism related uses.
h.
How does local government zone the tract?
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
Public access and use adjacent to residential area zoned
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
R2.
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
j.
Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? ❑Yes ®No
k.
Hasa professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. ®Yes ❑No ❑NA
If yes, by whom? Mid - Atlantic Technology and
Environmental Research, Inc. (Sept
2011). NCSHPO "letter dated June
252 - 808 -2808 .. 1- 888- 4RCOAST .. www.nccoastaimanagement.net

Form DCM MP -1 (Page 3 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
2008 ", see MP -1 Narrative.
I. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
National Register listed or eligible property?
<Form continues on next page>
m. (i) Are there wetlands on the site? ❑Yes ®No
(ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? ❑Yes ®No
(iii) If yes to either (i) or (ii) above, has a delineation been conducted? ❑Yes ❑No
(Attach documentation, if available)
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
All areas wastewater treatment is by on -site systems (septic tanks or package plants)
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
Potable water in Emerald Isle is provided by Bogue Banks Water Corporation & utilizes deep groundwater wells for water
supply
p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems.
The proposed Project would not result in new impervious areas requiring stormwater management and /or treatment
systems.
5. Activities and Impacts
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? ❑Commercial ®Public /Government
❑ Private /Com m unity
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
As a result of Hurricane Irene's erosional effects,the Project would restore sand volumes and shoreline elevations along the
Project's approximate ( —)7.1 miles of oceanfront by placing up to 1,000,000 (992,000) cubic yards (cy) of beach compatible
sand. The Project includes sand placement in three discrete locations of Carteret County's Bogue Banks shoreline: (1)
western Emerald Isle between survey transects 9 -16 (265,000 cy along 2.0 miles); (2) eastern Emerald Isle between survey
transects 35 -46 (410,000 cy along 2.6 miles); and (3) Pine Knoll Shores between survey transects 61 -70 (317,000 cy
along 2.5 miles). The western boundary of the Project is approximately two miles east of Bogue Inlet, and the eastern
boundary of the Project is approximately eight miles west of Beaufort Inlet. The Project would restore storm protection
volumes and elevations and reduce potential storm damage to the sub - aerial beach, protective berm, adjacent infrastructure,
and coastal structures within the Project footprint. Once completed, public, private, and commercial uses would continue
including sunbathing, walking, wading, shelling, fossiling, fishing, etc.
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.
The proposed project would replace a maximum of 1 M cy of sand on the 7.1 -mile target beaches between the existing toe of
the foredune out to an approximate elevation of -8 feet NAVD with varying berm restoration widths and seaward slopes of
1:20. The total beach fill area would include portions of the upper supratidal beach, intertidal beach, and adjacent subtidal
bottom. Project fill volumes would average approximately 27 cy per linear foot of beach, depending on site - specific losses.
Transitional 500 - foot -long taper sections would connect the primary fill areas with adjacent natural shorelines. The planned
taper sections are included in the total project lengths and volumes listed above. The proposed beach profiles would
average 45 feet in width seaward of the dune toe. Since only the portion of the profile above high water is controllable during
renourishment, intertidal and subtidal portions of the profile will be subject to natural adjustment by waves following
placement of the beach fill. The fill would affect approximately 267 acres of beach and nearshore area.
The proposed project would utilize a hopper dredge to excavate sand from the ODMDS. Hopper dredges are self - propelled
vessels that employ a trailing suction draghead to remove sediment from the seafloor. The draghead is equipped with
blades and /or high pressure water nozzles that dislodge thin layers ( -2 -5 feet deep) of sediment from the seafloor. A mixture
of loose sediment and water is pumped through a suction pipe into a hopper onboard the dredge. Sediment settles in the
hopper and excess water is discharged via an overflow system (i.e., scuppers). Once fully loaded, the hopper dredge would
252 - 808 -2808 .. 1- 888- 4RCOAST .. www.nccoastalmanagement.net

Form DCM MP -1 (Page 4 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
travel from the ODMDS to a nearshore pump -out station along the target beach. With the dredge travel distances ranging
from 7 to 21 miles, three to four round trips are anticipated daily. The dredge would connect to a submerged discharge
pipeline at the pump -out stations located offshore in approximately 30 feet of water and sediment from the hopper would be
pumped through the pipeline onto the recipient beach. The dredge would then return to the ODMDS and the cycle of
dredging and discharge would be repeated. The position of the nearshore pump -out station and discharge pipeline would
shift incrementally as construction progresses along the beach.
Placement and grading activities on the beach would involve the use of bulldozers to redistribute and grade the beach fill
material to the proposed beach profile. Bulldozers would access the beach via existing public beach access points.
Bulldozers operations would be restricted to areas seaward of the existing dune toe. Dunes and vegetation would be
avoided and protected during construction. Dredging and grading would occur around the clock, thus requiring nighttime
lighting on the beach and onboard the dredge. All construction activities would take place within the 16 November through
31 March hopper dredging environmental window. Based on previous renourishment projects, it is expected that the dredge
would excavate and discharge 10,000 to 15,000 cy of sediment per 24 -hour period. Sand placement and grading would
progress along the beach at a rate of 400 to 700 linear feet per 24 -hour period. Based on these estimated production rates,
the project would require approximately two to three months for completion. Construction contracts will provide for proper
storage and disposal of oils, chemicals, and hydraulic fluids (etc) necessary for operation in accordance with state and
federal regulations.
d. List all development activities you propose.
Beach Renourishment
e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both? Maintenance of Existing project
f. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? 267 ❑Sq.Ft or ®Acres
g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public accessway or other area ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
that the public has established use of?
h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state.
A sand slurry mix (approximately 75% water and 25% sand) would be pumped along the Project template in which diffusion
plates will be used moderating discharge velocity and direction therefore maximizing sand precipitation. Diverision rows of
pushed sand will direct the slurry down the beach supplementing additional sand deposition and minimizing potential swash
zone turbidity effects.
i. Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland? ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? ❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
j. Is there any mitigation proposed? ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal.
<Form continues on back>
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) — (0 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.
252 - 808 -2808 .. 1- 888- 4RCOAST .. www.nccoastalmanagement.net

Form DCM MP -1 (Page 5 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
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 Riparian Landowner information provided in MP -1 Narrative (AIA) Phone No.
Address
Name Phone No.
Address
Name Phone No.
Address
g.
A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract. Include permit numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
(CAMA Permit #124 -01) issued to Carteret County, 2001 USACE Permit #200000362 issued to Carteret County, 2001
CAMA Permit #181 -06 issued to Carteret County , 2006
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 3/9/12
Print Name Grea "Rudi" Rud
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
252 - 808 -2808 .. 1- 888- 4RCOAST .. www.nccoastalmanagement.net

Form DCM MP -1
Application for Major Development Permit
Additional Information Attachment (AIA)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LISTOF FIGURES ..................................................................................... ............................... II
LISTOF TABLES ........................................................................................ ............................... II
1.0
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. ...............................
1
1.1
Authorization .................................................................................. ..............................1
1.2
Project History .............................................................................. ...............................
3
2.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................... ...............................
7
2.1
Methods of Construction ............................................................... ...............................
7
3.0
PROPOSED CONSERVATION MEASURES .................................... .............................17
4.0
SEDIMENT COMPATIBILITY ............................................................ .............................20
5.0
COMPLIANCE WITH CARTERET COUNTY AND CAMA LAND USE PLAN .................20
6.0
COMPLIANCE WITH THE N.C. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT ... .............................22
7.0
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS ....................................................... .............................22
8.0
REFERENCES .................................................................................. .............................22
APPENDIX A Biological Opinion for the Use of Hopper Dredges (NMFS 1997)
APPENDIX B An Archaeological Remote Sensing and Target Identification Survey of Bogue
Banks Offshore Borrow Areas Q2, Y1 and ODMDS, Carteret County, North
Carolina (Hall 2011)
APPENDIX C Cultural Resource Agency Correspondence
APPENDIX D Sediment Compatibility Analysis
APPENDIX E Permit Drawings
NCDCM Major Permit Application Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Post -Irene Renourishment Project March 2012

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.
Vicinity and Location Map ........................................................... ...............................
2
Figure 2.
Bogue Banks Nourishment History ............................................. ...............................
6
Figure 3.
Map of the Three Reaches in Emerald Isle and Pine Knoll Shores ............................
8
Figure 4.
Borrow Area Site Plan ................................................................. ...............................
9
Figure 5.
Borrow Area Typical Sections ...................................................... .............................10
Figure 6.
Emerald Isle West Beach Template ............................................. .............................11
Figure 7.
Emerald Isle West Cross Section ................................................. .............................12
Figure 8.
Emerald Isle East Beach Template .............................................. .............................13
Figure 9.
Emerald Isle East Cross Section .................................................. .............................14
Figure 10.
Pine Knoll Shores Beach Template ............................................ .............................15
Figure 11.
Pine Knoll Shores Cross Section ................................................ .............................16
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Bogue Banks historic shoreline placements ................................. ............................... 4
Table 2. Total nourishment volumes by reach ............................................. ............................... 5
Table 3. Sand characterization comparisons ............................................... .............................21
NCDCM Major Permit Application Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Post -Irene Renourishment Project March 2012

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Hurricane Irene made landfall at Cape Lookout, North Carolina on August 27, 2011,
approximately nine miles east of Bogue Banks (Figure 1). One of the cyclone's major impacts
was oceanfront beach erosion within Carteret County's engineered beaches of Pine Knoll
Shores (PKS), Indian Beach /Salter Path, and Emerald Isle (EI). Incipient and primary dunes
and other subaerial and subaqueous environments sustained erosion through the -12 feet (ft)
North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) contour. The volumetric sand losses within the
engineered beaches were quantified through the Bogue Banks Beach and Nearshore Mapping
Program (BBBNMP) and confirmed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
following the federal government's declaration of Hurricane Irene as a federal disaster in
Carteret County.
Renourishment triggers established for the publicly improved beaches include: (1) sand losses
of 50% or greater of initial construction volumes placed or (2) if average sand volumes from the
top of dune to -12 ft NAVD88 fall below 225 cubic yards (cy) /ft. Criterion (1) was used by FEMA
to assess post -Irene sand volume losses. To fully utilize FEMA's settlement, the State, County,
El, and PKS are proposing to place up to one million (M) cy of the 1.34M cy eligible for FEMA
reimbursement. FEMA's participation covers a dredge plant's mobilization and demobilization
(estimated at $4,000,000) plus approximately 300,000 cy of replaced sand. In an effort to fully
maximize FEMA's participation, the State; County; and local municipalities are supplementing
volumes as local budgets allow.
The purpose of the proposed project is to restore the elevation and width of the protective berm
to approximately pre -Irene conditions improving oceanfront shoreline sand volumes in the event
of another storm. During the proposed beach nourishment project, Carteret County has several
objectives. Those objectives are summarized as follows:
• Restore locally engineered beaches to as close to pre -Irene conditions as is financially
possible;
• Continue preservation of the environmental, cultural, and aquatic resources of Carteret
County and the towns;
• Provide and protect an easily accessible recreational beach available to all citizens of
the towns, county, and state;
• Provide ocean susceptible infrastructure and property protection while maintaining tax
revenues to the towns, county; and state; and
• Maintain the economic viability of tourism, the largest industry of El, PKS, and Carteret
County.
1.1 Authorization
Beach nourishment permitting requires state and federal actions mandating review through the
Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 and the Clean Water Act Section 404. These state ( NCDCM
NCDCM Major Permit Application Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Post -Irene Renourishment Project March 2012

I ! {I v
�-J rnave.
eTDe
RR MRT �O
00
18X0@ � CAPO CAR1eRET g
AGO IWTTTP8A5
P �" 6ATVR15
R1LeT 6
PAM1100 ¢ y J
Rkl6 OCRACOR! MOa� D ,t O
Rpg[ (T1Y
CRAVPN O - "f� MD � tl
I n
O 00
ONNAW CARERRL � - Rp00R5 '
r�' 1 en -umc
sur�pid d oaRmssn �� 11 eTwuTORr �� i
BEALRORT '�'/9 NC d01 ('1tt 1MRROR V MTEI �I B
P@ID� 008T �r IOOROOT v� �NL1`i4 OMmA 4 MORe1R!AD y-^D 1
�7., E' B nttlueROa
NeW M'P8 � y R 1¢ h a.Tn �noD
Od 6T G eFN <D � , N
s� PROJECT AREA 0 Neer a wMDS lr�rcsI� csee
New o D1uDSALnRea� d LwewT
xnrcovert ` Y PROPOSED
BORROW SITE,
PROPOSED SEE SHEET 32
RENOURISHMENT,
SEE KEY MAPS ON
SHEET2
ATLANTIC OCEAN
PPwC �
35 5
SCALE Iry in',ES SC4LE IN IAI',ES
VICINITY MAP LOCATION MAP
PRaECT AJLE- CARTERET COUNTY, PREPARED FOR, CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA SHEET RRE.�
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT VICINITY AND LOCATION MAP
DATUAL' NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.' MOFFATT &NICHOL !iATE FEBRUARY2012 48
Figure 1. Vicinity and Location Map
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
E
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

Major) and federal permitting actions, include the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
(BOEM) issuance of a negotiated non - competitive lease for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
resource use (sand) and the USACE's Section 404 authorization. Existing information for the
proposed project area is contained within the previously issued NCDCM Major Permit #124 -01
and USACE Permit #200000362 and outlined in the original formulation and data sources for
the Bogue Banks Beach Restoration Project (BBBRP) (Phases I, II, and III, completed between
December 2002 and April 2005).
For this project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) and the BOEM are acting as
cooperating agencies in the analyses required by the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). OCS resources (beyond 3 miles) fall under the BOEM's jurisdiction as found in the
OCS Land Act and are supplemented by the USACE mandate's regarding navigation. While
meeting the BOEM project criteria for accessing OCS sand resources through local government
sponsorship, local funding, and public accessibility; the negotiated non - competitive lease
agreement would allow reclamation, transport, and placement of beach compatible sand along
the recipient project shorelines from the OCS sand resource location the Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site (ODMDS). These federal permitting actions, including the BOEM
issuance of a negotiated non - competitive lease for OCS sand use, trigger the development of
Biological and Essential Fish Habitat Assessments. These supplemental documents will be
used by the BOEM and the USACE for consultation purposes with the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
1.2 Project History
The proposed beaches have received supplemental sand under three previous renourishment
projects as well as previous post- hurricane events. The target reaches were first renourished in
2002 - 2005 during Phases I, II, and III of the BBBRP, which placed approximately 4.3 million
(M) cy of sand on an approximate 16.7 -mile section of El and PKS. Sand sources for the
BBBRP included two nearshore ocean borrow sites off El and Indian Beach and material
beneficially used from the realignment of Bogue Inlet. The project area beaches received
additional sand in 2004 during the Post - Isabel Sand Replacement Project, which placed
156,000 cy of sand from the ODMDS within an Emerald Isle reach. Project area beaches were
last renourished in 2007 during the Post- Ophelia Sand Replacement Project, which placed
approximately 1M cy sand from the ODMDS on approximately 10.4 miles of beach. Two
Section 933 projects were also completed (2004 & 2007) along the recipient beaches and the
adjacent reach of Indian Beach /Salter Path with total nourishment volumes approaching 0.7 M
cy and 0.5 M cy, respectively. The Carteret County Shore Protection Office (SPO) is currently
developing a Master Beach Nourishment Plan that will provide for long -term maintenance of the
entire Bogue Banks oceanfront beach (26 miles); however, interim action is needed to maintain
adequate storm protection along the Post -Irene project's shoreline. Tables 1 and 2 and Figure
2 depict the multiple projects resulting in supplemental shoreline sand placements along Bogue
Banks for the last 30 years.
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
,C]
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

Table 1. Bogue Banks historic shoreline placements.
Project Name
Date
Sand
Volumes (cy)
Author'
Documentation
USACE Disposal — Fort Macon
2011
547,196
USACE
EA
USACE Disposal — Atlantic Beach
2011
799,504
USACE
EA
AIWW - Tangent B, Sec. 1
2008
148,393
USACE
NA
Section 933 - Phase II
2007
507,939
USACE
EA, FONSI
FEMA Post- Ophelia Sand
Replenishment
2007
1,229,836
CSE
EA
Inner Harbor Maintenance
2007
184,828
USACE
DMMP
Bogue Banks Restoration - Phase III
2005
690,868
CPE
EIS
Brandt Island Pump -Out
2005
2,390,000
(dredge)
USACE
DMMP
Inner Harbor Maintenance
2005
530,729
(dredge)
USACE
DMMP
Section 933 - Phase 1
2004
699,282
USACE
EA
Isabel Sand Replenishment - 1
2004
156,000
CSE
EA
Bogue Banks Restoration - Phase 11
2003
1,867,726
CSE
EA
Bogue Banks Restoration - Phase 1
2002
1,733,580
CSE
EIS
Inner Harbor Maintenance
2002
209,348
USACE
DMMP
Brandt Island Pump -Out
1993 -1994
2,472,132
USACE
EA, FONSI
Inner Harbor Maintenance
1993 -1994
2,192,268
USACE
EA, FONSI
Brandt Island Pump -Out
1986
3,918,484
USACE
EA
Inner Harbor Maintenance
1986
250,116
USACE
EA
Inner Harbor Maintenance
1978
1,179,600
USACE
EA
Authors include USACE, Coastal Science and Engineering (CSE), and Coastal Planning & Engineering (CPE).
2 Documentation includes EA/FONSI, EISs, and Dredged Material Management Plans (DMMP).
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
El
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

Table 2. Total nourishment volumes by reach.
Reach
Nourishment Volume (cy)*
Bogue Inlet —Ocean
59,272
Emerald Isle —West
935,633
Emerald Isle — East & Central
2,348,172
Indian Beach /Salter Path
1,358,842
Pine Knoll Shores
2,163,348
Atlantic Beach
3,720,233
Fort Macon
1,267,544
Total
11, 853, 044
*Nourishment volumes calculated from initiation of BBBNMP (1999).
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
5
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
y 1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
F�iulil - ------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -�� - - - -- - - -- - r-- T - - - -
I
Pine Knoll
I Emerald Isle I Indian Beach/ I
Salter Path I Atlantic
I Shores I Beach I I
I'1�iTI �f 'M_ »-» _ »ar>B_ »p.1;.3uYtlyn ��»b�a11i63,N =d ;Od Naomi -�M�a eoal
xfe "4z - u,i6 s-
. Fort
m $ aa w % Macon I
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 110000 120000 130000
Distance Alongshore (from Bogue Inlet) (ft)
Bogue Banks Beach Nourishment Projects
1978 -2011
Figure 2. Bogue Banks Nourishment History
Bogue Inlet AIW W Crossing Disposal
Bogue Banks Restoration -Phase III
111111f� AIWW Tangent B Disposal
a Section 933- Phase I
MCH Inner Harbor Maintenance Dredge Disposal
■ to Section 933 -Phase II
Brandt Island Pump -Out
FEMA Post - Isabel Restoration
Bogue Banks Restoration - Phase I
FEMA Post - Ophelia Restoration
Bogue Banks Restoration - Phase II
Post -Irene Project Extents
�1''t-
•.•
"'��iiiiii
:: ! 1
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiii���iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii��i��i����iiiiiii��ww���ll
■��ii
mom
f i t
----
Vk 'iiiii
►is�Ii
111
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil�����lfiiii
=Mmmi.
111
111
iiiiiiiiiiiil
iiiiiiii
.111
ii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil�!"41
iiiiiiiiiiiiill!
�'ZZT!!1■
iifi'«_LiI
11! ii
rrr�•�a:w:t.r:ae•
iiiiiiW.l�1�n1�Irr,
,- -•����
�
699,282
W���I�iiiiiiiiiiiirl�lri
iii
_ii.�l!17!�R��IJ*1!�!!!�
Illtig�3r.
:n•.•.•.
�gt1jJ'IL'�1/
i�iiil��a
=lam:`
1 t °
1 cy
�ii��ww��rTUr!�oi
iiMM:7
f , f
iiiiiiiriEnTLTi
iiiiiiiiil
illi� W
n�
�d i
. _ .
iii
iii
iiiiiiimmmmmmYiYiiiiiiiiiYiiiiiiiiiAiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiME
iiiii.
-_,
IA
iiiiiiiiiil
iiiiiii►_���'miiiiiiiiiimi.
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 110000 120000 130000
Distance Alongshore (from Bogue Inlet) (ft)
Bogue Banks Beach Nourishment Projects
1978 -2011
Figure 2. Bogue Banks Nourishment History
Bogue Inlet AIW W Crossing Disposal
Bogue Banks Restoration -Phase III
111111f� AIWW Tangent B Disposal
a Section 933- Phase I
MCH Inner Harbor Maintenance Dredge Disposal
■ to Section 933 -Phase II
Brandt Island Pump -Out
FEMA Post - Isabel Restoration
Bogue Banks Restoration - Phase I
FEMA Post - Ophelia Restoration
Bogue Banks Restoration - Phase II
Post -Irene Project Extents
NCDCM Major Permit Application Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Post -Irene Renourishment Project March 2012
A

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Carteret County SPO has put forth a proposal to renourish an approximate 7.1 -mile section
of oceanfront beach within the Towns El and PKS, NC significantly affected by Hurricane Irene
(Figure 3). As determined through the BBBNMP, 1.34M cy of sand were eroded from the top of
the dune out to -12 ft NAVD and were considered eligible for FEMA reimbursement as the
engineered beach volume loss. The volume of sand estimated for this Project totals
approximately 1,000,000 cy (992,000 cy); including a base volume approved by FEMA for
reimbursement in addition to supplemental sand desired by El, PKS, and the County. The total
proposed volume is based on federal, state, and local economic viability while facilitating FEMA
participation. The recipient beaches and the ODMDS have been included in previous post
storm renourishment events without significant natural or anthropogenic effects. The fill material
would consist of beach - quality sand dredged from the Morehead City ODMDS (Figures 4 and
5).
The Project includes sand placement of an approximate 1M cy along 7.1 miles in three discrete
locations of Carteret County's Bogue Banks shoreline: (1) western Emerald Isle between survey
transects 9 -16 [approximately ()265,000 cy along 2.0 miles]; (2) eastern Emerald Isle between
survey transects 35 -46 (410,000 cy along 2.6 miles); and (3) Pine Knoll Shores between
survey transects 61 -70 (317,000 cy along 2.5 miles) (Figure 3, 6 - 11). The western boundary
of the Project is approximately two miles east of Bogue Inlet, and the eastern boundary of the
Project is approximately eight miles west of Beaufort Inlet.
2.1 Methods of Construction
The proposed project would utilize a hopper dredge to excavate sand from the ODMDS.
Hopper dredges are self - propelled vessels that employ a trailing suction draghead to remove
sediment from the seafloor. The draghead is equipped with blades and /or high pressure water
nozzles that dislodge thin layers (-two - five feet deep) of sediment from the seafloor. A mixture
of loose sediment and water is pumped through a suction pipe into a hopper onboard the
dredge. Sediment settles in the hopper and excess water is discharged via an overflow system
(i.e., scuppers). Once fully loaded, the hopper dredge would travel from the ODMDS to a
nearshore pump -out station along the target beach. With dredge travel distances ranging from
7 to 21 miles, three to four round trips are anticipated daily. The dredge would connect to a
submerged discharge pipeline at pump -out stations located offshore in approximately 30 feet of
water, and sediment from the hopper would be pumped through the pipeline onto the recipient
beach. The dredge would then return to the ODMDS and the cycle of dredging and discharge
would be repeated. The position of the nearshore pump -out station and discharge pipeline
would shift incrementally as construction progresses along the beach.
Placement and grading activities on the beach would involve the use of bulldozers to
redistribute and grade the beach fill material to the proposed beach profile. Bulldozers would
access the beach via existing public beach access points. Bulldozers operations would be
restricted to areas seaward of the existing dune toe. Dunes and vegetation would be avoided
and protected during construction. Dredging and grading would occur around the clock, thus
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
7
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

PRO CT 77116, CARTERET COUNTY, PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA SR££T ARE. -
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT KEY MAPS 2
DATUA(.' NAVE) 88 (17)
PREPARED BY.' MOFFATT &NICHOL !iATE FEBRUARY2012 48
Figure 3. Map of the Three Reaches in Emerald Isle and Pine Knoll Shores
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
w
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012
I
�
NC lW -ENE
� $ Bm"E'Sf.AN°
1
DRIVE
�
i$�
v
�
ge 1 REED 01114E
� g\
� �
1j� 5p p
� � ¢ 6 � �
LO _
ODINOOER
CWRi
°•
S E �
�OfEAN
`y� I(II�
;
OCEANDR4E MEW DRNE
1
S
14
5 6 7 8 9
i
I �
P
N PROPOSED EMERALD ISLE WEST BEACH RENOURISHMENT LIMITS
ATLANTIC OCRAN
00 1/�8 1/1/4
EMERALD ISLE WEST KEY MAP
xA�1NN1LEs
BOOUESOUND
exmuLD� z
Oss
S p A
s - - —
BOOUE MIAMI
ON4E
a..1YB PAIBI
BvH1.4NBG®
11
12
70
OCFAN DRIYF
NC N
N
r
PROPOSED EMERALD ISLE EAST BEACH RENOU.I5H1MEN I LIMITS
~
•• 1/e 1/a
EMERALD ISLE EAST KEY MAP
SCALE IN W- -ES
BOOUE SOUND
NC fib
t11LlERPAIN ROM
AR WTAE ORIOE
22
CORAL SHORES
21::::::Z�24
-.ACE —_
126 27 28 29
_ --cm
30 31
PBO: ENOLL SHORES
e1
�� PROPOSED PINE KNOLLSHORES BEACH RENOURISHMENTUMI78 W
ATLANTICOCFAN
o
o va
PINE KNOLL SHORES KEY MAP
Kc LE Ira Ni_L.,
PRO CT 77116, CARTERET COUNTY, PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA SR££T ARE. -
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT KEY MAPS 2
DATUA(.' NAVE) 88 (17)
PREPARED BY.' MOFFATT &NICHOL !iATE FEBRUARY2012 48
Figure 3. Map of the Three Reaches in Emerald Isle and Pine Knoll Shores
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
w
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

I
I
(
PROPOSED BORROW AREA
COORDINATE TABLE
POINT
NORTHING
EASTING
A
332550.96
2689868.87
B
332630.61
2693337.87
C
331756.97
2694861.09
D
330745.34
2694856.17
E
330752.97
2689659.35
LEGEND
�A PROPOSED BORROW AREA CONTROL POINT
2011 VIBRACORE LOCATION
°o•. (SEE ATTACHMENT 1 FOR DATA SUMMARY)
NOTES
1. BATHYMETRICAL CONTOURS SHOWN BASED ON
MULTIBEAM SURVEYS PERFORMED BY
GEODYNAMICS IN 2011 FOR ODMDS AND 2009
FOR BEAUFORT INLET.
2. BORROW AREA COORDINATES ARE NC STATE
PLANE, NAD 1983 (FEET).
PRO CT RTLE- CARTERET COUNTY, PREPAR£DFOR, CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA SR££T RRE.�
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES32
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT BORROW AREA SITE PLAN
DATUAL' NAVD 88 (FT) 0 Iowl 20W
PREPARED BY.' MOFFATT &NICHOL !iATE FEBRUARY2012 1.1000• 4B
Figure 4. Borrow Area Site Plan
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
9
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

t
= O �
0p.20 ._. .. .. .....1...
Q a >< OIRiTNG GRADE
2
W I: ___ - -»
-00
0 1000 2000 3000
SECTION A -A
MHW, EL +1.1 NTL EL -0.7 ., _ MLW, g.2S .
0
t -
� Z m
-.. .... -.. .. ....... .... ... .20 2-,
Q Q
R 2
- -_____ W W
430
4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
DISTANCE WEST TO EAST (FEET)
NOTE
TYPICAL EXCAVATION DEPTH VIA HOPPER DREDGE
WILL BE 3 FEET PER PASS (INCOMPLETE CUTS).
PRQECT 777LE.- CARTERET COUNTY, PREPARED FOR CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA SHEET 7T7LE. SHEET
EMERALD ISLE 6 PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST-IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT BORROW AREA TYPICAL SECTIONS 33
DAIUM' NAW)BB (M a
PREPARED BY: MOFFATTA NICHOL DATE FEBRUARY 2012 45
Figure 5. Borrow Area Typical Sections
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
10
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012
SECTION B -B
0
.............. -ap
MHWEL 31.131.1 ., M7L, EL -0.7 ,,,MLW.EL.23....
0
a^p
It
C
m
m
ZQ
--
i
of
2
F p .20
-- ------------------- - - - -
--
------------
- - - - -- .................... .. ....
........ _ ..: ...............................
20 0 o
=
Z
EXIS INGGRDE
apap
j
W W
_-__
r .
� -_
W W
�-_
_-
�
i
_._.60
0
1000
2000
30M 40100 5000 6000
7000 8000 9000
10000
DISTANCE WEST TO EAST (FEET)
SECTION C -C
p
.... .. ....... .. .....
.... ............-
..... .... ... ... ..... ........ .-
p MHW. EL s1.1 C7 L,g -0.7 r,
e_.. -.... .. -.... _ e_ -
_
- 0
m
t
t
m
2m
'
7
2 °0
O O .20
....
....
•2
O
as
as
w
EXISTINGGRADE
W
F
.. .. ..
.. ..
.. ..... .....
T
$.. ..
- - - - - - _
.40
-
W w
0
1000
2000
3000 4000 5000 6000
7000 8000 9000
10000
DISTANCE WEST TO EAST (FEET)
NOTE
TYPICAL EXCAVATION DEPTH VIA HOPPER DREDGE
WILL BE 3 FEET PER PASS (INCOMPLETE CUTS).
PRQECT 777LE.- CARTERET COUNTY, PREPARED FOR CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA SHEET 7T7LE. SHEET
EMERALD ISLE 6 PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST-IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT BORROW AREA TYPICAL SECTIONS 33
DAIUM' NAW)BB (M a
PREPARED BY: MOFFATTA NICHOL DATE FEBRUARY 2012 45
Figure 5. Borrow Area Typical Sections
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
10
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

RENOU RISHMENT
— — — — — — — EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1 I SLOPE LIMB
— — — — — — — PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1
_ PROPOSED EL-0.7 - —
I— — — — — — — M — EXISTING MLW. EL 35
I— PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5 -- — — — "- SEE
SHEET 34
PRL6,ECT ARE• CARTERET COUNTY, PREPARED FOR, CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA .SHEET 777LE SHEET
EMERALD ISLE 6 PINE KNOLL SHORES EMERALD ISLE WEST RENOURISHMENT PLAN 4
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT 2 OF 8
of-
OA 7UM: NAVD Be (M
PREPAREDBY.- MOFFATT&NICHOL DA7E' FEBRUARY2012 ' =1uo' 48
Figure 6. Emerald Isle West Beach Renourishment Plan, Typ
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
11
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012
I
I
II 1
I II
11
I
q I
gl
lu
I�
11I 1
Iy
$ I NAPES,
1 BMIK 6
I >•
IPELLEY, HEPBERi SIEGEL.
7J-
�54*I
<� IjI
HANBMA . (I
L-� °- r MORIEC B— ( JAMES UAL
yT�
I NEW YORK
1 TRUSTEE
PEIERSH
1 ETN.
' i 1 THpAPSEN
5114ESTER,
ETAi -TRMSL �CpL yLlll _I— LARRY T �� �I RICH BROWNING, 1 HENENAN
(I �I�}I ETAL I �µqy -E r- EW %f1RC--- FERL'US�
FORE$I— .I�{. IBACg CE' IIBWAR� 1IETS5,
—GANp J , 7 WRNAM PAIRICIA A _AN1NQVY J
1 BA 1
Jil j(gRO.D-0 tit =�
• wl — I3�---
I 1
LI'_ -L
-- 11 iLIBBY
..JJ ll! 1 1 --- L---
LLL
L— ETi --tl R12 —� 1R�'S1EE
_
7'
- - -- --
I+'— -- --
- -- ---
- - -- —
-------
—--- -y
- - - - -- -------------------------
—o—
SER11. EL+L0
_. F-
.—--
W
UJI
— — — —
1 — — —
— — — — — — —
—
— — — — — — —
_
_ _ _
-
—
_ _
�
W
— —
- - -
- — _- -- �--
-- -- _— - - — -
_ -- - — — « —_- -- ---
-
-_ —
—
- --
--
— — ` - — -
--`—
-- -- -- -
— _`�
=
�
_
- ?
-
_—
_ -
- - - -
_ _
SR,.IAPE _._._
_._._.
- - - - - - - - - -
-- -
- --
- --- ----- -- - -------- - -T ---
- ---- --- --- ----
--
RENOU RISHMENT
— — — — — — — EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1 I SLOPE LIMB
— — — — — — — PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1
_ PROPOSED EL-0.7 - —
I— — — — — — — M — EXISTING MLW. EL 35
I— PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5 -- — — — "- SEE
SHEET 34
PRL6,ECT ARE• CARTERET COUNTY, PREPARED FOR, CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA .SHEET 777LE SHEET
EMERALD ISLE 6 PINE KNOLL SHORES EMERALD ISLE WEST RENOURISHMENT PLAN 4
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT 2 OF 8
of-
OA 7UM: NAVD Be (M
PREPAREDBY.- MOFFATT&NICHOL DA7E' FEBRUARY2012 ' =1uo' 48
Figure 6. Emerald Isle West Beach Renourishment Plan, Typ
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
11
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

9
Q
v
2
F
J
W
TRANSECT 10 TRANSECT 11
20
- BERM EL +6.0
BERM WIDTH - BB'
— EXISTING GRADE BASE FILL ® -48.6 CY7FT
O
\ Z
\ F
\ W
\ W
.W..
` 2
\\ m MHW.EL +1.1 - O
MTL E -0.7 0 Q
- MLW,EL -2.6 W
\ _ J
•10
20
0 100 200 300 400 600 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
20--
... ... .. ..... .. ... .... .. ...... .. ..
20
- BERM EL +6.6 -
BERM WIDTH - 71'
— EXISTING GRADE BASE FILL ® - 33.7 CY /FT
in
Q10
\.... ....:. .. .:... ... ...... .. ...... .. .........
1p Q
Z
W
\\
\
Z
W
=O
- \�
m-- MHW E +1.1
O
Q p
\ ' _.,.. c-,,, MTL,EL -0,7
0 a
W
\ MLW,EL -2.6
W
J
W
\ =
\ �
J
W
20
0 100 200 300 400 600 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
PROJECr nrte CARTERET COUNTY, PREPARED F-00?. CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA SHEET nrcE SHEET
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES EMERALD ISLE WEST RENOURISHIMENT CROSS SECTIONS 34
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT TRANSECTS 10 AND 11 OF
DA 7i/M: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPAREDBY. MOFFATT &NICHOL DATE' FEBRUARY2012 48
Figure 7. Emerald Isle West Fill Template, Typ
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
12
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

PRaECT ARE:• CARTERET COUNTY, PREPAREDFOR.• CARTERET COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA SHEET 77nE.- SHEET
EMERALD ISLE 6 PINE KNOLL SHORES EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHMENT PLAN 3
POST-IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT 3 OF 11
DARM' NAVD BS(FI) _ loo• z10• of-
PREPARED BY.' MOFFATTA NICHOL DAR- FEBRUARY 2012 1 -_IOD• 48
Figure 8. Emerald Isle East Beach Renourishment Plan, Typ
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
13
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012
-
I I
OCEAN DRIVE - --
- --
--
i
1
- -�
�
I ICI I
�rF
1 1 CAMP. PDTCi. GARONFR• dA T1151
W9KRINE OIARLES F NWNEiH M LLC
1 1-- ' --' - --
- - -- - - - --
r — — r — — I I
I MAYER, BRICE, CUNNINGS, 1 MIDDIETgl. 1
JDMN N ETAL BRICE J E E1C WNITE MWPM R CXRSTA B I 1 _
I
IPLMCST Iyl I
HEAVEN BRANCH,
DAVID W JR
_ ID— �
I1L—
CLAIRE ENX RK 11ER1X bARIAN
�L D E
{I`
WhER J EDWARD_ MARY _C — RN:XNiD F ETU% -LIZ '_If �tlDNfIL. DAVIDE
— —
�ICNAEL N— — — — ADAM L _ — NICHOLAS B — — TAL
- - - --I — —
— 1 -- - --
1
— - -- -------- ETAL
1 1 l
—
�
_ L_ LN U1CY1 -
— — T-- _--- -
BERM, EL +BA1--- J - - - - --
-- -_—
-- �- -
-� - --
�L-'--- L-'- -_"1 --
--.—
WI_
__
_ — - -- --
- - --
- - - - - -- —� --
- - -
- -- ----
- - - --�
-- - - - - - -- W
W
- - -- - --
- -
_
-- - - - - --
---
_
—_—
- - - - --
_
__
_
__
_-
(D—
LLJ
z-- _ - -�
�---�
- -- - -
- -- --
- - -- - --
_ -
,- --
- - - --
cI
c
--- - - -
- -- -------
-. - - -- - - -- --
----- - - - - --
------ - - - - -I
r%�
I
RENOURISHMENT
SLOPE LIMIT
I`
\
— EXISRNO IMIW, lL N.f
I
� PROPOSED MNM, 6 +1.1 � — � — —
-
------ - - - - -�
Ij
EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
-- - - - - -I
I
PROPOSED MTL, EL .0.7
�-- - - - - --
- - -_. ._ -- -- EKISRNG MLW, EL .2.5
37
- - -_ !!!
PROPOBW MLW, EL -2.5
SEE — -
BNlR7!
-- -®— — — - --
— _ — — — — —
SHEET39
- -
PRaECT ARE:• CARTERET COUNTY, PREPAREDFOR.• CARTERET COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA SHEET 77nE.- SHEET
EMERALD ISLE 6 PINE KNOLL SHORES EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHMENT PLAN 3
POST-IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT 3 OF 11
DARM' NAVD BS(FI) _ loo• z10• of-
PREPARED BY.' MOFFATTA NICHOL DAR- FEBRUARY 2012 1 -_IOD• 48
Figure 8. Emerald Isle East Beach Renourishment Plan, Typ
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
13
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

TRANSECT35 TRANSECT36
20-- ... ........... .. ..... .. ... .. ...... .. ..... ........................... 20 20-- .. ...... .. .. ...... .. ...... .. .. ... .. ...... ...... .. ........ 20
�\ EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
BERM EL +6:0 _ BERM EL +6.0 _
\ BERM WIDTH -95' — f/� BERMWIDTH -39'
Q \ BASE FILL @ — 30.7 CV7FT _ \. BASE FILL ® — 35.9 CY /FT:
,p . .... 10 Q � . . ..
Z Z Q
Z
W \
W W W
C �\ zo t 7 MHW. EL +1.1 O O \\ MHWEL11.1 O
Q0-- .. .,, .., \ ...7, MTL E4 -0:7 0 Q Q 0-- \. .,,, r-, ML. EL -0.7. 0 Q
MLW,EL -2.5 W \ _ MLW,EL -2.6 T..
@0 I i i i I i i i I M i i I i I i i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 -20
0 100 200 300 900 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
20
0 100 200 300 900 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
PROXCr 777LE CARTERET COUNTY, PREPARED FOR. CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA SHEET 717LB SHEET
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHIMENT CROSS SECTIONS
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT 38
TRANSECTS 35 AND 36
DA7UM: NAVD 88 (FT)
of-
PREPARED BY., MOFFATT&NICHOL DATE' FEBRUARY2012 48
Figure 9. Emerald Isle East Fill Template, Typ
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
14
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

- - - - - - --
- - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
10 1--- _.----- -1- - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - --
---- -------
-54DWiiT, -- I - - - - - �MDWGERJNC-0/W - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'Pral -= - E - �-_-_-T t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - --- - -IC4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- = -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -- - - -- - —- ir
UJ - — — — — — — — — — =- =-
Ld
X- - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - -
(f) - - - - - - - - - - - -- — -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
— - - - - - - --- - = - - - -- --
L'LI - - - - - -- - =
V)
- - - - - - - - --- - - - - - -
Z- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _______ - - - - - --- - - - --- - - - - - - - __ -T - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - ------- - - - -1Q
EMOTING MHW, EL +1.1 SLAM W PROPOSED MHW, EL .1.1 - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EXISTING WrL, EL -0.T
PROPOSED MTL, EL-D.7
EXISTING IVILW, EL .2.5
PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
BHEETM
PRaECr 777LLr.• CARTERET COUNTY, AREPAREDACR.• CARTERET COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA swrr 7771-,. sHErr
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES PINE KNOLL SHORES RENOURISHMENT PLAN
POST4RENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT 24
30FIO OF
DA7EI,V.- NAVD GO (Fr) iw
PREPARED BY.- MOFFArr& NICHOL DWE: FEBRUARY 2012 48
Figure 10. Pine Knoll Shores Beach Renourishment Plan, Typ
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
15
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

TRANSECT63 TRANSECT64
OpT ....., 70 30 --r- .............:...............:............... . .............. .: ............... :............. T 30
20--
... .... ..... ...... .. ...... ....
20
\
\ EXISTING GRADE BERM EL +G.O : -
BERM WIDTH -'.06
BASE FILL ® - 21.4 CYIFT
z
\
\
z
z
-
z
O
- m p MHW.EL +11
�...'
O
0--
Q
.,,. :...... ... ...... .n....... V M7L.GL -07 , .,...,
0 Q
7 MLW,EL.2.0
W
\
\
W
20
a 100 200 300 400 000 Goo
DISTANCE (FEET)
20-- ...... .. .... ... .... .. ... .. ......: ...... ... ... ...... ...... ......... p
EXBTND GRADE BERM EL +0.0
\ BERM WIDTH - 41' -
Q ........ BABE FILL ® - 22.1 CY /FT
w \
LL LL
p MHW,E�L +1.1
O 2
Q ......... .. .. .. UTL:EL0.7 0
� - 2.5
17
d0
0 100 200 300 400 500 am
DISTANCE (FEET)
PMA-CT ARE.• CARTERET COUNTY, PREPAREDEDR.• CARTERET COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA SHEET 7771£ SHEET
EMERALD ISLE 6 PI NE KNOLL SHORES PINE KNOLL SHORES RENOURISHMENT CROSS SECTIONS 45
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT NA
VD 1/p GG (FT) TRANSECTS 63 AND 64
of-
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT &NICHOL DAM- FEBRUARY 2012 48
Figure 11. Pine Knoll Shores Fill Template, Typ
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
16
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

requiring nighttime lighting on the beach and onboard the dredge. All construction activities
would take place within the 16 November through 31 March hopper dredging environmental
window. Based on previous renourishment projects, it is expected that the dredge would
excavate and discharge 10,000 to 15,000 cy of sediment per 24 -hour period. Sand placement
and grading would progress along the beach at a rate of 400 to 700 linear feet per 24 -hour
period. Based on these estimated production rates, the project would require approximately two
to three months for completion.
Consistent with previous permits for hopper dredge nourishment projects ( NCDCM Permits #
124 -01, #181 -06 and USACE Permit # 200000362), construction will take place within the
routinely approved environmental window (November 16 through March 31).
3.0 PROPOSED CONSERVATION MEASURES
The timing of construction activities was specifically scheduled to occur outside of the sea turtle
nesting season, the West Indian manatee summer occurrence in North Carolina, the piping
plover (and other shorebirds) migratory and breeding seasons, and for the most part the
seabeach amaranth flowering period. Also, sand placement and dredge operation conducted
outside of primary invertebrate production and recruitment periods (spring and fall) limit effects
to amphipods, polychaetes, crabs and clams. In addition, specific hopper dredging conditions
and conservation measures as described in the NMFS 1997 Biological Opinion have been
incorporated into this proposed project (Appendix A).
Proposed conservation measures resulting in avoidance and minimization of potential effects
from dredge fleet activities are bulleted below.
• Seasonal environmental dredging /nourishment window (16 November through 31
March) would be a contract stipulation ensuring potential terrestrial, estuarine, and
marine biological process effects are minimized.
• Reclamation from only 197 acres of the 6,900 -acre ODMDS would be used minimizing
potential ODMDS benthos effects and maximizing sand source management.
• Survey /dive efforts assessing potential hardbottoms within the Project area have been
evaluated and the sand source location and transport routes are absent of hardbottom
resources (Appendix B — ODMDS Cultural Resources Report).
• Offshore reclamation areas would be documented by Global Positioning Systems (GPS)
units and Silent Inspector ensuring sand resource removals are within previously
surveyed and authorized ODMDS reclamation areas.
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
17
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

• Marine mammal and sea turtle observers would be a contract stipulation requiring
trained and experienced personnel knowledgeable in industrial marine mammal and sea
turtle observation and reporting standards.
• Associated dredging vessel speed restrictions <11.5 miles per hour would be employed
reducing potential collision effects with managed or associated species (Northern Right
Whale).
• Hopper dredge operations would require sea turtle deflecting dragheads and inflow
screening during all sand reclamation efforts.
• Contracts would require ODMDS dredging patterns ensuring undisturbed furrows
expediting benthic fauna recovery within the ODMDS.
• Directional, shielding, and intensity managed lighting would be employed minimizing
potential nocturnal marine species' effects, while meeting Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) vessel work standards.
• Contract language would require routine inspection of dredging equipment and transport
piping minimizing potential leaks at the dredge plant and along transport corridors.
• Contract language would require spill response capabilities and waste management
plans for all dredging fleet equipment.
Proposed conservation measures resulting in avoidance and minimization of potential effects
from recipient beach activities are bulleted below:
• All beach equipment (bulldozers, frontend loaders, pickups, etc) would access current
public access areas, no new access cuts would be allowed.
• Existing vegetated dune fields would not be disturbed and equipment/personnel would
not be allowed within these dune line buffers.
• Contract language would require equipment refueling locations within designated
equipment staging areas away from the active work zone if practicable.
• Contract language would require designated contract spill response capabilities.
• If available, staging areas for construction equipment would be located off the beach.
• Construction equipment, not in nighttime use, would be stored off the beach, if
practicable, minimizing potential effects on nocturnally active species.
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
18
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

• Diffusion plates would be a contract stipulation reducing effluent discharge velocities
with directional sand -slurry placement.
• Temporary slurry diversion training walls would be pushed up from existing and received
material extending and directing the sandy effluent's horizontal flow maximizing
sediment retention and minimizing potential swash zone turbidity effects.
• Visual monitoring would be required during all sand slurry discharging operations with
"shut down" and agency notification authorization in the event unsuitable material is
encountered.
• Directional, shielding, and intensity managed lighting will be employed minimizing
potential nocturnal species' effects, while meeting OSHA work standards.
• Contract language would require routine inspection of slurry transport piping minimizing
potential pressurized leaks along the beachfront.
• Heavy equipment would be removed from refurbished shorelines as soon as practicable
restoring unrestricted public access.
The proposed project would use a previously impacted borrow area ( ODMDS) that is
designated for use as an ocean disposal area for dredging Beaufort Inlet and the federal
navigation channels serving the Port of Morehead City (Figure 3). There are no anticipated
effects to the ODMDS area due to the frequent disturbances by the USACE's placement of
maintenance dredged material from Beaufort Inlet and the Morehead City Harbor.
Summary of Potential Effects
As shown in Appendix C, the NC State Historic Preservation Office has been consulted with
regards to cultural resources within the borrow source and the beach placement area. Due to
best management construction practices, there are no proposed effects to cultural resources
within the borrow source or placement area. In the USFWS's response to an information
request dated 4 June 2010, stated, "With regard to the Bogue Banks Master Beach
Nourishment Plan, the two most important issues for species conservation will be the quality of
the beach fill material and the construction schedule during the year." The proposed Project
would adhere to the USFWS's two most important conservation measures, sand quality and
construction scheduling. Sand compatibility, seasonal dredging /renourishment windows, good
engineering /best management practices, and conservation measures would offset potential
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on protected species potentially found within the
proposed Post -Irene Renourishment Project. There is no submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV),
shell, or hardbottom habitat located within the proposed sand source location, recipient beach
locations, or potential transport corridors. The closest PNAs, as designated by the NCDMF, are
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
19
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

three to four miles from Beaufort and Bogue Inlets and the closest SAVs are approximately 0.5
miles away from the inlet mouths ( NCDMF 2011). Potential changes in general current
patterns, tidal flow, and salinity regimes are not anticipated as a result of the proposed Project.
Protected and managed species are not anticipated to experience long term adverse effects
resulting from the proposed Project.
4.0 SEDIMENT COMPATIBILITY
Native beach sediments were sampled by CSE between 1999 and 2001 to establish native
grain size distribution for purposes of compatibility analyses. Details are described in the
Environmental Assessment for Phases 1 and 2 (CSE- Stroud 2001) and in NCDCM Permit #
124 -01. Mean grain size of pre- nourished samples (composites) was 0.302 millimeter (mm),
standard deviation (sorting parameter) was 0.585 mm, and samples were coarse - skewed as a
result of moderately high percentages of coarse material. The primary coarse fraction consists
of shell fragments, most of which would be termed "shell hash" because grain sizes of the shell
material are typically <2 mm mean diameter. Native samples from 1999 to 2001 averaged
approximately 15 -20 percent shell and were classified as medium sand (MS), moderately well -
sorted (MWS), and coarse - skewed (C -S). This native size distribution is adopted for the
proposed project.
Vibracores were recently obtained in the ODMDS by Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey Inc. in
December 2011 in support of sand source investigations for the MBNP. A portion of these
vibracores were collected at the State - mandated 1,000 ft spacing and this area is being denoted
as the borrow site for the proposed Post -Irene project (Figure 4). Shallow excavations (2 -5 ft
deep, typical) would be made by hopper dredge and pumped via submerged pipe to the beach.
Utilizing the area which has vibracore data at the State - mandated 1000' spacing and assuming
a cut depth down to elevation -52 ft NAVD, an area of -197 acres of the total ODMDS area of
6,900 acres will be enough to meet the renourishment requirement of 1,000,000 cy (Appendix
D). Appendix E (Permit Drawings) includes all engineering workplan drawings of the entire
project area as well as the borrow source.
Detailed information regarding recent vibracore investigations and characteristics of the
sediment in the proposed borrow within the ODMDS is provided in Appendix D. M &N identified
27 samples from 10 ODMDS vibracores representative of the proposed borrow area and
material to be placed on the beach.
Sediment data summarizing the sand source and native beach characterizations are provided
below in Table 3. Sand placed on the beach will meet NCDCM's sediment compatibility
standards as detailed in Sediment Criteria Rule, contained in the Technical Standards for Beach
Fill Projects (15A NCAC 07H .0312).
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
20
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

Table 3. Sand characterization comparisons.
Sources: CSE, USACE, Alpine and NCDCM 15A NCAC 07H .0312 Technical Standards for Beach Fill
Projects (3) (a through h).
The typical sediment type in the ODMDS borrow site is medium sand (average mean sediment
size = 0.31 mm), moderately to poorly sorted (average standard deviation = 1.09 phi), and
strongly coarse - skewed (coefficient of skewness < - 0.3). Less than 1% of the material is >2
mm in diameter. The native beach (composite 1999 - 2001) was also characterized as medium
sand (mean size = -0.30 mm), moderately well sorted, and coarse - skewed. A comparison,
depicted in Table 3, shows the proposed borrow area sediments to be similar to native (1999 -
2001 composite). Using the James 1975 overfill factor (RA), the borrow sediment has an RA =
1.14.
These results for this borrow area within the ODMDS compare more positively to the native
beach than the previous source used for the Post- Ophelia Renourishment. Visual observations
of the present borings indicate mud content is very low with only trace amounts seen in nearly
every core. Only one sample tested to contain greater than 5% fine grained sediment
(vibracore 024 sample 1; 5.1% passing 200 sieve); all other samples were comprised of less
than 1 % fine grained material. Samples consisted of 9% to 21 % calcium carbonate. The typical
colors of ODMDS sediments are light to medium to dark gray to brown as described in the
geological logs in Appendix D. The photos within Appendix D also show the sands to be gray to
brown in color which is very similar to the colors reported for the borrow source used in the
Post- Ophelia project.
5.0 COMPLIANCE WITH CARTERET COUNTY AND CAMA LAND USE PLAN
The proposed Post -Irene Renourishment Project is consistent with the approved CAMA Land
Use Plans for Carteret County and the Towns of El and PKS. The project property is within the
planning jurisdiction of Carteret County and the Towns of El and PKS and is classified
"Developed" by the CAMA Land Use Plan.
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
21
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012
ODMDS
Native
NCDCM
Sand Characterization
Beach
Borrow
Standards
Compliance
Site
Silt Percentage
1%
0.5%
+ 5% of Native
Within Standards
Sand Percentage
94%
98%
+ 5% of Native
Within Standards
Gravel Fraction
5%
1.5%
+ 5% of Native
Within Standards
Calcium Carbonate Fraction
15 -20%
9 -21%
+15% of Native
Within Standards
Sources: CSE, USACE, Alpine and NCDCM 15A NCAC 07H .0312 Technical Standards for Beach Fill
Projects (3) (a through h).
The typical sediment type in the ODMDS borrow site is medium sand (average mean sediment
size = 0.31 mm), moderately to poorly sorted (average standard deviation = 1.09 phi), and
strongly coarse - skewed (coefficient of skewness < - 0.3). Less than 1% of the material is >2
mm in diameter. The native beach (composite 1999 - 2001) was also characterized as medium
sand (mean size = -0.30 mm), moderately well sorted, and coarse - skewed. A comparison,
depicted in Table 3, shows the proposed borrow area sediments to be similar to native (1999 -
2001 composite). Using the James 1975 overfill factor (RA), the borrow sediment has an RA =
1.14.
These results for this borrow area within the ODMDS compare more positively to the native
beach than the previous source used for the Post- Ophelia Renourishment. Visual observations
of the present borings indicate mud content is very low with only trace amounts seen in nearly
every core. Only one sample tested to contain greater than 5% fine grained sediment
(vibracore 024 sample 1; 5.1% passing 200 sieve); all other samples were comprised of less
than 1 % fine grained material. Samples consisted of 9% to 21 % calcium carbonate. The typical
colors of ODMDS sediments are light to medium to dark gray to brown as described in the
geological logs in Appendix D. The photos within Appendix D also show the sands to be gray to
brown in color which is very similar to the colors reported for the borrow source used in the
Post- Ophelia project.
5.0 COMPLIANCE WITH CARTERET COUNTY AND CAMA LAND USE PLAN
The proposed Post -Irene Renourishment Project is consistent with the approved CAMA Land
Use Plans for Carteret County and the Towns of El and PKS. The project property is within the
planning jurisdiction of Carteret County and the Towns of El and PKS and is classified
"Developed" by the CAMA Land Use Plan.
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
21
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

6.0 COMPLIANCE WITH THE N.C. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
The NCDCM has determined that review of this project under SEPA is not required.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality in Wilmington will be provided a full copy of the
NCDCM permit application describing the scope of the project and requesting a 401 Water
Quality Certification.
7.0 CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS
Perpetual beach nourishment easements are in place for the oceanfront in El and PKS. The
easements were acquired in 2001 and 2002 as part of the financed beach nourishment projects
that were completed in the spring of 2002 for the towns. The perpetual easements are for any
part of private property that visibly appears to be a part of the ocean beach strand and is
covered with little or no vegetation, is seaward of the last line of stable vegetation, is within the
frontal sand dune, or is seaward of the erosion escarpment. The easement allows all work
necessary to nourish the beach. However, the towns cannot damage permanent improvements
in the easement area but must work with property owners to remove and replace permanent
improvements in the easement area that obstruct nourishment.
As required in the Major Permit (MP -1) Form riparian landowner information is provided in
Appendix F.
8.0 REFERENCES
Coastal Science Associates Inc. (CSA). March 2002. Bogue Banks beach nourishment: June
2001. First pre- dredge environmental monitoring study for Carteret County, Town of
Pine Knoll Shores, Town of Indian Beach, and Town of Emerald Isle, North Carolina.
Coastal Science Associates Inc (CSA), Columbia, SC, 37 pp + appendices.
CSA. 2004. November 2004. Bogue Banks beach nourishment: June 2004. Fifth post- dredge
environmental monitoring study for Carteret County, Town of Pine Knoll Shores, Town of
Indian Beach, and Town of Emerald Isle, North Carolina. CSA, Columbia, Sc 44 pp plus
appendices.
CSA. 2005. November 2005. Bogue Banks beach nourishment: June 2004. Seventh post -
dredge environmental monitoring study for Carteret County, Town of Pine Knoll Shores,
Town of Indian Beach, and Town of Emerald Isle, North Carolina. CSA, Columbia, Sc 48
pp plus appendices.
Coastal Science and Engineering (CSE). 2000. Survey report 2000, Bogue Banks, North
Carolina. Survey Report for Carteret County, Beaufort, NC; CSE, Columbia, SC, 32 pp
+ Appendices I -IV.
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
22
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

CSE. 2003a. Bogue Banks beach nourishment project, Carteret County, North Carolina: 2001
Phase 1 — Towns of Pine Knoll Shores and Indian Beach. Final Report for Town of Pine
Knoll Shores and Town of Indian Beach, North Carolina; CSE, Morehead City, NC,
Volumes 1 -11.
CSE. 2003b. Bogue Banks beach nourishment project, Carteret County, North Carolina: 2002
Phase 2 — Town of Emerald Isle. Final Report for Town of Emerald Isle, North Carolina;
CSE, Morehead City, NC, Volumes 1 -III.
CSE- Stroud. 2001 Environmental Impact Statement, Bogue Banks beach restoration plan. EIS
for NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal
Management; submitted by Carteret County, NC; prepared by CSE and Stroud, Section
1 -6 and Appendices A -G.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1997. Regional biological opinion concerning the
use of hopper dredges in channels and borrow areas along the southeast U.S. Atlantic
coast. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, 16 pp.
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries ( NCDMF). 2011. Primary Nursery Areas Maps.
Accessed January 2012. Available online at March 2011,
http: / /www.ncfisheries .net/maps /FNA_maps /map2l.pdf. dated March 2011; and
http:// www. ncfisheries .net/maps /FNA_maps /map17.pdf dated March 2011.
VERSAR. 2003. Effects of dredged material beach disposal on surf zone and nearshore fish
and benthic resources on Bald Head Island, Caswell Beach, Oak Island, and Holden
Beach, North Carolina: interim study findings. Prepared for USACE, Wilmington District,
NC; - prepared by Versar Inc, Columbia, MD, Vol I, 54 pp.
www.protecthebeach.com/monitoring
NCDCM Major Permit Application
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
23
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

Riparian Landowner Information for Post -Irene Renourishment Project
Emerald Isle —West
1. Name: John Hallow
a. Owner's Address: 2106 Bloomsbury Rd., Greenville, NC 27858
b. Property Address: 9701 Dolphin Ridge Rd., Emerald Isle, NC 28594
c. Phone No.: None listed
2. Name: Raymond E. Riggs
a. Owner's Address: PO Box 4774, Emerald Isle, NC 28594
b. Property Address: 0000000 Emerald Isle, NC 28594
c. Phone No.: None
Emerald Isle — East
3. Name: Jarrick Inc.
a. Owner's Address: 8521 Ocean View Dr., Emerald Isle, NC 28594
b. Property Address: 2805 Pier Pointe Dr., Emerald Isle, NC 28594
c. Phone No.: None
4. Name: Robert Arthur Maxwell
a. Owner's Address: 717 Compton Rd., Raleigh, NC 27609
b. Property Address: 215 Ocean Dr., Emerald Isle, NC 28594
c. Phone No.: None
Pine Knoll Shores
5. Name: Susan J Legen
a. Owner's Address: 12720 Lindley Dr., Raleigh, NC 27614
b. Property Address: 581 Forest Dunes Dr., Pine Knoll Shores, NC 28512
c. Phone No.: None listed
6. Name: James C. Whitehurst Jr.
a. Owner's Address: 302 John Wesley Rd., Greenville, NC 27858
b. Property Address: 123 Dogwood Circle, Pine Knoll Shores, NC 28512
c. Phone No.: None listed

Shore Protection Manager
Greg L. Rudolph
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
rudi @carteretcountygov. org
14 March 2012
Mr. John Hallow
2106 Bloomsbury Rd.
Greenville, NC 27858
S teret co�ty
4cUOP19 r
protection office
proteotthebeach com
Re: Carteret County's Post -Irene Renourishment Project
North Caroline Division of Coastal Management (DCM)
Major Permit Application Notification
Mr. Hallow,
As an authorized agent of Carteret County, I would like to inform you of the Post -Irene
Renourishment Project proposed to be constructed between 16 November 2012 and 31 March
2013. Your property located at 9701 Dolphin Ridge Rd., Emerald Isle, NC 28594 is adjacent to
the proposed renourishment project. Detailed descriptions of the project as well as site maps
are included in the attached permit application package. Please review this information; and if
you have project comments or concerns, please notify the DCM in writing within 30 days of
receipt of this notice. Contact information for DCM offices is available at
www. nccoastalmanagement.net/contact dcm.htm or by calling 1- 888- 4RCOAST. Having been
notified by Certified Mail, a silent response is considered the same as no objection.
Thank you,
'�74 11711'21
Greg "Rudi" Rudolph
Carteret County Shore Protection Office
Shore Protection Office • P.O. Box 4297 • Emerald Isle, North Carolina 28594
www. . protect the beach. com

Shore Protection Manager
Greg L. Rudolph
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
rudi @carteretcountygov. org
14 March 2012
Mr. Raymond E. Riggs
PO Box 4774
Emerald Isle, NC 28594
S teret co�ty
4cUOP19 r
protection office
proteotthebeach com
Re: Carteret County's Post -Irene Renourishment Project
North Caroline Division of Coastal Management (DCM)
Major Permit Application Notification
Mr. Riggs,
As an authorized agent of Carteret County, I would like to inform you of the Post -Irene
Renourishment Project proposed to be constructed between 16 November 2012 and 31 March
2013. Your property located in Emerald Isle, NC 28594 is adjacent to the proposed
renourishment project. Detailed descriptions of the project as well as site maps are included in
the attached permit application package. Please review this information; and if you have project
comments or concerns, please notify the DCM in writing within 30 days of receipt of this notice.
Contact information for DCM offices is available at
www. nccoastalmanagement.net/contact dcm.htm or by calling 1- 888- 4RCOAST. Having been
notified by Certified Mail, a silent response is considered the same as no objection.
Thank you,
c, "/ /C_
Greg "Rudi" Rudolph
Carteret County Shore Protection Office
Shore Protection Office • P.O. Box 4297 • Emerald Isle, North Carolina 28594
www. . protect the beach. com

Shore Protection Manager
Greg L. Rudolph
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
rudi @carteretcountygov. org
14 March 2012
Jarrick Inc.
8521 Ocean View Dr.
Emerald Isle, NC 28594
S teret co�ty
4cUOP19 r
protection office
proteotthebeach com
Re: Carteret County's Post -Irene Renourishment Project
North Caroline Division of Coastal Management (DCM)
Major Permit Application Notification
To Whom This May Concern,
As an authorized agent of Carteret County, I would like to inform you of the Post -Irene
Renourishment Project proposed to be constructed between 16 November 2012 and 31 March
2013. Your property located at 2805 Pier Pointe Dr., Emerald Isle, NC 28594 is adjacent to the
proposed renourishment project. Detailed descriptions of the project as well as site maps are
included in the attached permit application package. Please review this information; and if you
have project comments or concerns, please notify the DCM in writing within 30 days of receipt
of this notice. Contact information for DCM offices is available at
www. nccoastalmanagement.net/contact dcm.htm or by calling 1- 888- 4RCOAST. Having been
notified by Certified Mail, a silent response is considered the same as no objection.
Thank you,
� 111121 - � -
Greg "Rudi" Rudolph
Carteret County Shore Protection Office
Shore Protection Office • P.O. Box 4297 • Emerald Isle, North Carolina 28594
www. . protect the beach. com

Shore Protection Manager
Greg L. Rudolph
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
rudi @carteretcountygov. org
14 March 2012
Mr. Robert Arthur Maxwell
717 Compton Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27608
S teret co�ty
4cUOP19 r
protection office
proteotthebeach com
Re: Carteret County's Post -Irene Renourishment Project
North Caroline Division of Coastal Management (DCM)
Major Permit Application Notification
Mr. Maxwell,
As an authorized agent of Carteret County, I would like to inform you of the Post -Irene
Renourishment Project proposed to be constructed between 16 November 2012 and 31 March
2013. Your property located at 215 Ocean Dr., Emerald Isle, NC 28594 is adjacent to the
proposed renourishment project. Detailed descriptions of the project as well as site maps are
included in the attached permit application package. Please review this information; and if you
have project comments or concerns, please notify the DCM in writing within 30 days of receipt
of this notice. Contact information for DCM offices is available at
www. nccoastalmanagement.net/contact dcm.htm or by calling 1- 888- 4RCOAST. Having been
notified by Certified Mail, a silent response is considered the same as no objection.
Thank you,
' °/ /[_
Greg "Rudi" Rudolph
Carteret County Shore Protection Office
Shore Protection Office • P.O. Box 4297 • Emerald Isle, North Carolina 28594
www. . protect the beach. com

Shore Protection Manager
Greg L. Rudolph
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
rudi @carteretcountygov. org
14 March 2012
Ms. Susan J. Legen
12720 Lindley Dr.
Raleigh, NC 27614
S teret co�ty
4cUOP19 r
protection office
proteotthebeach com
Re: Carteret County's Post -Irene Renourishment Project
North Caroline Division of Coastal Management (DCM)
Major Permit Application Notification
Ms. Legen,
As an authorized agent of Carteret County, I would like to inform you of the Post -Irene
Renourishment Project proposed to be constructed between 16 November 2012 and 31 March
2013. Your property located at 581 Forest Dunes Dr., Pine Knoll Shores, NC 28512 is adjacent
to the proposed renourishment project. Detailed descriptions of the project as well as site maps
are included in the attached permit application package. Please review this information; and if
you have project comments or concerns, please notify the DCM in writing within 30 days of
receipt of this notice. Contact information for DCM offices is available at
www. nccoastalmanagement.net/contact dcm.htm or by calling 1- 888- 4RCOAST. Having been
notified by Certified Mail, a silent response is considered the same as no objection.
Thank you,
Greg "Rudi" Rudolph
Carteret County Shore Protection Office
Shore Protection Office • P.O. Box 4297 • Emerald Isle, North Carolina 28594
www. . protect the beach. com

Shore Protection Manager
Greg L. Rudolph
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
rudi @carteretcountygov. org
14 March 2012
Mr. James Whitehurst Jr.
302 John Wesley Rd.
Greenville, NC 27858
S teret co�ty
4cUOP19 r
protection office
proteotthebeach com
Re: Carteret County's Post -Irene Renourishment Project
North Caroline Division of Coastal Management (DCM)
Major Permit Application Notification
Mr. Whitehurst,
As an authorized agent of Carteret County, I would like to inform you of the Post -Irene
Renourishment Project proposed to be constructed between 16 November 2012 and 31 March
2013. Your property located at 123 Dogwood Circle, Pine Knoll Shores, NC 28512 is adjacent
to the proposed renourishment project. Detailed descriptions of the project as well as site maps
are included in the attached permit application package. Please review this information; and if
you have project comments or concerns, please notify the DCM in writing within 30 days of
receipt of this notice. Contact information for DCM offices is available at
www. nccoastalmanagement.net/contact dcm.htm or by calling 1- 888- 4RCOAST. Having been
notified by Certified Mail, a silent response is considered the same as no objection.
Thank you,
''/ , 1�--
Greg "Rudi" Rudolph
Carteret County Shore Protection Office
Shore Protection Office • P.O. Box 4297 • Emerald Isle, North Carolina 28594
www. . protect the beach. com

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.
1.
Access
❑This section not applicable
a.
Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL in
b.
Other
Channel
Canal
Boat Basin
Boat Ramp
Rock Groin
Rock
(excluding
C.
(NLW or
d.
High - ground excavation in cubic yards.
(CW) submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
Breakwater
shoreline
NWL)
number of square feet affected.
stabilization)
Length
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
37,511'
Width
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
NA. Excavation will not take place in any of the areas described
320'
Avg. Existing
in c(1). Excavation of sand will take place in the Ocean
NA
NA
-2.0' NAVD
Depth
Continental Shelf (OCS) approximately three miles south of
Beaufort Inlet.
Final Project
DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL
El This section not applicable
a.
NA
NA
+6' NAVD &
Depth
Ocean Shoreline -Towns of Emerald Isle and Pine Knoll
37,511' Long x 320' wide- Avg. Berm Width= 45' (30'- 90')'
Shores
Below
1.
EXCAVATION
❑This section not applicable
a.
Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL in
b.
Type of material to be excavated.
cubic yards.
medium sand
Up to 1,000,000 cubic yards [Additional Information Attached (AIA)]
C.
(i) Does the area to be excavated include coastal wetlands /marsh
d.
High - ground excavation in cubic yards.
(CW) submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
none
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
OWL ®None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
NA. Excavation will not take place in any of the areas described
in c(1). Excavation of sand will take place in the Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) located on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) approximately three miles south of
Beaufort Inlet.
2.
DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL
El This section not applicable
a.
Location of disposal area.
b.
Dimensions of disposal area.
Ocean Shoreline -Towns of Emerald Isle and Pine Knoll
37,511' Long x 320' wide- Avg. Berm Width= 45' (30'- 90')'
Shores
C.
(i) Do you claim title to disposal area?
d.
(i) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance?
❑Yes ENo ❑NA
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner.
(ii) If yes, where?
Approx. 26 miles of Bogue Banks oceanfront shoreline
as needed for maintenance and replacement.
e.
(i) Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands /marsh
f.
(i) Does the disposal include any area in the water?
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
(ii) If yes, how much water area is affected?
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
189 acres below MHW; 147 acres below MLW. Indirectly,
OWL ENone
during the equilibration process a percentage of the sand slurry
pumped will indirectly equilibrate below MHW to -12 NAVD. A
252 - 808 -2808 :: 1- 888- 4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanapement.net revised: 12/26/06

Form DCM MP -2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 2 of 3)
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas: sand slurry mix would be pumped along the Project template in
which diffusion plates will be used moderating discharge
velocity and direction therefore maximizing sand precipitation.
Diverision rows of pushed sand will direct the slurry down the
beach supplementing additional sand deposition and
minimizing potential swash zone turbidity effects.
a. Type of shoreline stabilization: b. Length: 37,511 linear feet (7.1 miles)
❑Bulkhead ❑ Riprap ❑Breakwater /Sill ®Other: beach Width: 320'
renourishment (AIA)
C. Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL: proposed MHW 50' d. Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL: 275'
e. Type of stabilization material: f. (i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
medium sand months?
®Yes No ❑NA
g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level.
Bulkhead backfill Riprap
Breakwater /Sill Other 6.40MIL below MLW
8.20MIL Below MHW
i. Source of fill material.
The ODMDS, 4.35 sq. miles, is approximately 3.5 to 5.3 mi
offshore of Beaufort Inlet. The survey bounds encompassing
the ODMDS site off of Morehead City are approximately
34 °38'49.71 "N, 076 °44'20.04 "W (northwest corner), and
34 °36'49.86 "N, 076 °40'45.18 "W (southeast corner). See maps.
(ii) If yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount
information.
1,344,123 cy volume loss above EL -12' NAVD during
Hurricane Irene. See AIA for further discussion.
h. Type of fill material.
medium sand
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES ®This section not applicable
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. (i) Will fill material be brought to the site? ❑Yes ❑No ❑NA b.
(i) Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands /marsh (CW),
If yes,
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or
other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
(ii) Amount of material to be placed in the water
number of square feet affected.
(iii) Dimensions of fill area
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
(iv) Purpose of fill
OWL ❑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 b.
What type of construction equipment will be used (e.g., dragline,
controlled?
backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
Additional Information Attached (AIA)
Trailing Section Hopper dredge, pumpout station, distribution
piping, frontend loaders. (AIA)
C. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project? d.
(i) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project
❑Yes ®No ❑ NA
site? ❑Yes ®No ❑ NA
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
(ii) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
252 - 808 -2808 :: 1- 888- 4RCOAST :: wvvw.nccoastaimanapement.net
revised: 12/26/06

Form DCM MP -2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 3 of 3)
3/9/12
Date
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
Project Name
Gregory "rudi" Rudolph, Shore Protection Office, Carteret County
Applicant Name
Ap icant Signature
252 - 808 -2808 :: 1- 888- 4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanapement.net revised: 12/26/06

Form DCM MP -2
Excavation and Fill
Additional Information Attachment (AIA)

1(a). Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL in cubic yards.
Carteret County, North Carolina (NC), as represented by the county's Shore Protection Office
(SPO), proposes entering into a negotiated non - competitive lease agreement with the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The authorization would include the excavation of up to
approximately (-) 1,000,000 cubic yards (cy) of previously dredged sand to be transported and
placed along 37,511 feet (approximately 7.1 miles) of Bogue Banks. The Project includes sand
placement in three discrete locations: (1) western Emerald Isle between survey transects 9 -16
(265,000 cy along 2.0 miles); (2) eastern Emerald Isle between survey transects 35 -46
(410,000 cy along 2.6 miles); and (3) Pine Knoll Shores between survey transects 61 -70
(317,000 cy along 2.5 miles). The western boundary of the Project is approximately two miles
east of Bogue Inlet and the eastern boundary of the Project is approximately eight miles west of
Beaufort Inlet (Figure 1). The sand source is the Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
( ODMDS), approximately -31 to -56.5 feet in depth, located on the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) approximately three miles south of Beaufort Inlet. The ODMDS is a functioning element
of NC's federal deep -draft navigation project at the Port of Morehead City. The sand would be
reclaimed from 197 acres of the 6,900 acres approved as an ODMDS (Figure 2).
3(a). Type of shoreline stabilization.
Existing information for the proposed project's reaches are contained within the NCDCM Major
Permit #124 -01 and USACE Permit #200000362 which outline the original formulation and data
sources for the Bogue Banks Beach Renourishment Project ( BBBRP). Engineered sand
volumes are based upon the post - project profile volume at completion of the initial 2002 - 2005
locally funded, BBBRP Phase I, II and III nourishment projects. If the profile volume falls below
50 percent of the baseline volume placed during these projects, the towns have agreed to
initiate a nourishment action. The second criterion is based upon a measurement of the sand
volume between the top of the dune and the outer bar [located at -12 ft North American Vertical
Datum (NAVD) 88]. If this "protective volume" falls below 225 cy per linear foot of beach over a
designated reach, the area is considered vulnerable to storm damage and the beach must be
prioritized for renourishment. The Project shorelines have experienced high erosion rates
resulting in substantial volumetric losses of sand. A recent 2010 beach survey indicated that
the profile volume above -12 feet NAVD along portions of the target beaches had fallen to 48
percent of the baseline volume (Moffatt and Nichol 2010). The post -Irene survey has shown
that some of these reaches are now down to 35 percent. Based on the declining profile
volumes, there is an immediate need for storm protection through beach renourishment.
3(f)(ii). Amount of erosion and source of erosion during preceding 12 months.
Following Hurricane Irene, the FEMA evaluated and confirmed sand losses as documented by
Carteret County's monitoring and maintenance plan for their locally engineered beaches. The
eligible sand volumes determined through the Bogue Banks Beach and Nearshore Mapping
Program (BBBNMP) totaled 1,344,123 cy. The volume of sand estimated for this Project totals
DCM MP -2 Form -AIA
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
1
Dial Cordy and Associates, Inc.
March 2012

approximately 1,000,000 cy (992,000 cy); including a base volume approved by the FEMA for
reimbursement in addition to supplemental sand desired by El, PKS, and Carteret County. The
total proposed volume is based on federal, state, and local economic viability while facilitating
FEMA participation. The recipient beaches and the ODMDS have been included in previous
post storm renourishment events without significant natural or anthropogenic effects.
5(a). How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion controlled.
The proposed fill would be placed by ocean - going, trailing suction hopper dredge(s) between
the seaward crest of the existing dry beach and the outer bar. Only the profile above high water
is controllable in beach nourishment construction. Intertidal and underwater portions of the
profile will be subject to natural adjustment by waves. The fill would be placed no higher than +6
ft NAVD (the natural berm elevation).
Work would progress in sections within the borrow area and along the beach. Fill placement
along the beach would typically progress at a rate of 400 -700 feet per day. Construction
activities would involve movement of heavy equipment and pipe along one mile reaches over a
period of one to two weeks. Diffusion plates would be a contract stipulation reducing effluent
discharge velocities with directional sand - slurry placement. Temporary slurry diversion training
walls would be pushed up from existing and received material. These sand walls would extend
and direct the sandy effluent's horizontal flow maximizing sediment retention and minimizing
potential swash zone turbidity effects. Once a section is complete, piping and heavy equipment
would be shifted to a new section and the process repeated. As soon as practicable, sections
would be graded and dressed to final slopes. Only at temporary equipment staging areas,
would residents and visitors along the project area experience disruption to recreational
activities due to construction. Existing public access to the beaches would remain open at all
times during construction.
Land -based equipment would be brought to the site over public roads and would enter the
beach at existing permanent beach accesses. Existing dunes and vegetation on the beach
would be avoided and preserved; however, if any alteration of dune vegetation /topography is
necessary for equipment access, disturbances would be repaired to pre - project conditions.
Daily equipment staging would be on the constructed beach seaward of the dune line.
Construction contracts would provide for proper storage and disposal of oils, chemicals, and
hydraulic fluids (etc) necessary for operation in accordance with state and federal regulations.
DCM MP -2 Form —AIA
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
2
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

5(b). What type of construction equipment will be used?
In addition to the equipment discussed in 5(a) above, hopper dredges would dredge material
from the designated ocean borrow area (ODMDS). The proposed project would utilize a hopper
dredge to excavate sand from the ODMDS. Hopper dredges are self - propelled vessels that
employ a trailing suction draghead to remove sediment from the seafloor. The draghead is
equipped with blades and /or high pressure water nozzles that dislodge thin layers (two - five
feet deep) of sediment from the seafloor. A mixture of loose sediment and water is pumped
through a suction pipe into a hopper onboard the dredge. Sediment settles in the hopper and
excess water is discharged via an overflow system (i.e., scuppers). Once fully loaded, the
hopper dredge would travel from the ODMDS to a nearshore pump -out station along the target
beach. With the dredge travel distances ranging from 7 to 21 miles, three to four round trips are
anticipated daily. The dredge would connect to a submerged discharge pipeline at the pump -
out stations located offshore in approximately 30 feet of water and sediment from the hopper
would be pumped through the pipeline onto the recipient beach. The dredge would then return
to the ODMDS and the cycle of dredging and discharge would be repeated. The position of the
nearshore pump -out station and discharge pipeline would shift incrementally as construction
progresses along the beach.
Placement and grading activities on the beach would involve the use of bulldozers to
redistribute and grade the beach fill material to the proposed beach profile. Bulldozers would
access the beach via existing public beach access points. Bulldozers operations would be
restricted to areas seaward of the existing dune toe. Dunes and vegetation would be avoided
and protected during construction. Dredging and grading would occur around the clock, thus
requiring nighttime lighting on the beach and onboard the dredge. All construction activities
would take place within the 16 November through 31 March hopper dredging environmental
window. Based on previous renourishment projects, it is expected that the dredge would
excavate and discharge 10,000 to 15,000 cy of sediment per 24 -hour period. Sand placement
and grading would progress along the beach at a rate of 400 to 700 linear feet per 24 -hour
period. Based on these estimated production rates, the project would require approximately two
to three months for completion
DCM MP -2 Form —AIA
Post -Irene Renourishment Project
3
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

PER BYBP
NORT O
�� M1D CAI£
� BAIlTAA3
BAwITFAA3
PAHNCO a! JJ)JJ). L
Ig3P5 �OCBACORP
all2t
Y
CMy�I 0
ON81AW D
cAa�Rr v
4
BPAUPURT Y,
BAPT 'V1
P@1D®t QB.QT IAOWDLT 1
Y 1'
Esw D {9� PROJECT AREA pG
B.wov� G
P
AIv
CA.
PeAR o m 20
m
5
IN MILfS
VICINITY MAP
LILY D
J
BUGEIE SUU ND ATLANEEC � G�
T. /L - �6B S� AN Bb ACV AD'pppLLAPBDO@ V Qll°P L yK1 1
B�P1Pl5t,0 �� d NORNNAD Aµ
M CnYMRBOR
0 nnyl¢ynoN
LPL!( p CHANNH.
�'Pe ms r¢•TS I — � cnee
ULSLVSALARPA� LODkdrt
PROPOSED
PROPOSED BORROW SITE,
SEE SHEET 32
RENOURISHMENT,
SEE KEY MAPS ON
SHEET2
A T L A N T I C O C E A N
o 2 4
m
3 5
SCALE IN MILES
LOCATION MAP
PROXCT ARE.• CARTERET COUNTY, PREPAREDACR.• CARTERET COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA SHEET 777LE.- SHEET
EMERALD ISLE 6 PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST4RENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT VICINITY AND LOCATION MAP
OA1UM.' NAVD BB (f'f)
OF
PREPARED BY: MOFFATtA NICHOL DATE..- FEBRUARY 2012 48
Figure 1. Vicinity /Location Map Depicting Excavation and Placement Area
DCM MP -2 Form —AIA
Post -Irene FEMA Renourishment Project
0
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

1\I
' r
I
1 � �
1 �
\ 1
11 \ 1
I `
PROPOSED BORROW AREA
COORDINATE TABLE
POINT
NORTHING
EASTING
A
332550.96
2689868.87
B
332630.61
2893337.87
C
331756.97
2694861.09
0
330745.34
2694856.17
E
330752.97
2689859.35
1,11 J,
.jA PROPOSED BORROW AREA CONTROL POINT
2011 VIBRACORE LOCATION
(SEE ATTACHMENT 1 FOR DATA SUMMARY)
NOTES
1. BATHYMETRICAL CONTOURS SHOWN BASED ON
MULTIBEAM SURVEYS PERFORMED BY
GEODYNAMICS IN 2011 FOR ODMDS AND 2009
FOR BEAUFORT INLET.
2. BORROW AREA COORDINATES ARE NC STATE
PLANE, NAD 1983 (FEET).
PR"Cr PRE. CARTERET COUNTY, PREPARED FOR CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA SY£Er ARE.• SHEET
EMERALD ISLE 6 PINE KNOLL SHORES 32
POST4RENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT BORROW AREA SITE PLAN
DATUM.' NAVD SO (Fn 0 1000' z000' OF
PREPAREDBY: MOFFATTANICHOL DATE' FEBRUARY 2012 ('=1000'
Figure 2. ODMDS Sand Reclamation Area
DCM MP -2 Form —AIA
Post -Irene FEMA Renourishment Project
5
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
March 2012

Appendix A
Biological Opinion for the use of Hopper Dredges
(NMFS 1997)

Y \YyYya Cp 4
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OR COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmaephar:a Adminl.tratlon
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Silver Spring, Maryland 20914
R. L. VanAntwerg
SEP 2 5 1997
Brigadier General, U.S. Army
Division Engineer
South Atlantic Division, Corps of Engineers
Room 313, 77 Forshyth St., S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30355 -6801
Dear Brigadier General VanAntwerp;
Enclosed is the regional biological opinion concerning the use of
hopper dredges in channels and borrow areas along the Southeast
U.S. Atlantic coast. This biological opinion amends the regional
opinion conducted in 1995, and supersedes the interim biological
opinion issued on April 9, 1997. The opinion recognizes the
efforts of the Corps of Engineer's (COE) South Atlantic Division
(SAD) to minimize sea turtle takes through application of new
technology such as draghead deflectors, seasonal dredging
windows, termination of projects in which high rates of turtle
takes are observed, and elevated staff effort to identify and
resolve site - specific problems. Despite these major efforts and
continuing plans by the COE to improve the effectiveness of the
rigid draghead deflector and to resolve dredging schedules to
reduce the likelihood of sea turtle interactions, NMFS believes
that further sea turtle takes are likely in future years.
However, we believe that these takes are not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any species. An annual incidental
take, by injury or mortality of 35 loggerheads 7 Kemp's ridleys,
7 green turtles, 2 hawksbills, and 5 shortnose sturgeon is listed
in the incidental take statement appended -to the enclosed
opinion. This annual take level can be monitored over fiscal
years to be consistent with project contracts.
I appreciate your continued commitment to reduce sea turtle takes
associated with dredging in your Division. COE Division and
District staff have facilitated the excellent working
relationship that exists between our offices within the SAD. We
look forward to- continuing these cooperative efforts in sea
turtle conservation.
Sincerely,
i a Diaz -MS oltero
Office Director
Office of Protected Resources
f,,—
IP
A -1

Endangered Species A ion 7 [ nsultation
Biological Opinion
enc
Activity:
Consultation Conducted Bv:
Date Issued:
Background
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South
Atlantic Division
The continued hopper dredging of
channels and borrow areas in the
southeastern United States
National Marine Fisheries Service,-
Southeast Regional Office
C-
Hopper dredging in channels and borrow areas along the
southeastern coast of the United States during the spring of 1997
resulted in an unanticipated high rate of loggerhead turtle take.
The number of takes quickly approached the incidental take level
established in the regional biological opinion (BO) issued to the
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) on August 25, 1995. A formal
consultation considering the take rates as well as the dredging
locations and conditions was conducted and an interim biological
opinion (IBO) was issued on April 9, 1997 and is incorporated
herein by reference. The ISO concluded that continued hopper
dredging during the 1997 fiscal year was likely to take
additional sea turtles but was not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any species. The incidental take, by
injury or mortality, of seven (7) documented Kemp's ridleys,
seven (7) green turtles, two (2) hawksbills, sixteen (16)
loggerhead turtles, and five (5) shortnose sturgeon, was set
pursuant in the IBO. This modification added 15 loggerheads to
the annual incidental take level, bringing the 1997 fiscal year
total incidental take level to 35 loggerheads.
The history'of Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7
consultations on the deployment of hopper dredges to maintain the
depths of southeastern channels is discussed in the August 25,
1995 BO and is incorporated herein by reference. Although no
endangered sea turtles have been taken in any channel dredging
projects during the 1997 fiscal year, 28 loggerheads have been
taken, including 9 loggerheads taken subsequent to the issuance
of the IBO (Table 1).
M

During 1997, the COE responded to high rates of sea turtle takes
by assessing each dredging project, modifying draghead deflectors
when apparently necessary, conducting relative abundance surveys
and relocation trawling, and ultimately ending a number of
projects prior to completion (Kings Bay, Brunswick Harbor,
Savannah Harbor, Morehead City),
1991 Biological Opinion
Two hundred twenty -five sea turtle takes, including 22 live
turtles, were documented between 1980 and 1990 in the Southeast
channels despite limited observer coverage in most channels
throughout most of that decade (Table 2a.). Seventy -one of these
turtles were taken in four months of dredging in the Canaveral
ship channel in 1980, the first year in which observers were
required. Twenty -one were observed in over two years of dredging
in the Kings Bay Channel in 1987 -1989, after observers were first
deployed on dredges in that channel. Observers were required on
most hopper dredges after 1989. Documented takes of turtles on
dredges in Brunswick and other Southeast U.S. channels indicated
that sea turtles were vulnerable to hopper dredges in all
southeastern channels during warmer months. These observations
resulted in the Section 7 consultation that concluded with a BO
issued on November 25, 1991.
The November 1991 BO was the first cumulative area consultation
between NMFS and COE's South Atlantic Division (SAD) regarding
hopper dredging. The BO considered hopper dredging in channels
from the Canaveral in Florida through Oregon inlet, North
Carolina. The 1991 BO concluded that continued unrestricted
hopper dredging in Southeast U.S. channels could jeopardize the
continued existence of listed sea turtles. The Opinion
established a reasonable and prudent alternative to unrestricted
hopper dredging which prohibited the use of a hopper dredge in
the Canaveral ship channel, and from April 1 through November 30
in other southeastern channels north of Canaveral. An incidental
take level was established based on assumptions that takes would
be significantly reduced due to limited dredging windows, but
that water temperatures in some years would result in turtle
presence in channels during December and March. Observers were
re.qui.red.on dredges equipped with outflow and /or inflow screening
in March and December. The presence or absence of turtles in
December would determine the further need for observer coverage
into January. The documented incidental take of a total of five
(5) Kemp's ridley, green, hawksbill or leatherback turtle
mortalities in any combination of which no more than two (2) are
Kemp's ridley, or fifty (50) loggerhead turtle mortalities was
set. The Opinion anticipated that seasonal restrictions on
hopper dredging would be adjusted on a channel -by- channel basis
as better information on turtle occurrence was collected.
A -3

Additionally, the development and testing of a draghead deflector
was promoted.
1995 Biological Opinion
Between 1992 and 1995, only 16 sea turtle takes were documented
(Table 2b.) , including three that were alive when collected
during dredging operations in the SAD under the dredging windows
established in the November 1991 BO (see above) . During that
period COE developed a rigid draghead deflector that appeared to
be effective during videotaped dredging trials using mock
turtles, as well as during experimental dredging associated with
trawling in the Canaveral Channel. COE also completed a study, of
six Southeast channels to determine seasonal abundance and
spatial distribution of these turtles. A discussion of the
findings can be found in the COE report entitled "Assessment of
Sea Turtle .Abundance in Six South Atlantic U.S. Channels"
(Dickerson et al. 1994), summarized in the 1995 BO. Based on the
new information, COE requested expanded dredging windows and
observer requirements. NMFS considered their request and
developed alternative dredging windows and observer requirements
and added requirements for the use of hopper dredges in borrow
areas along the east coast.
After 1995, COE districts within the SAD generally required
observers in some channels, such as Kings Bay, throughout the
winter, beyond the new monitoring windows. SAD hopper dredge
projects were initially conducted in the middle of the dredging
windows, when nearshore waters were cool. During 1996, only nine
sea turtle takes, including one green turtle and eight
loggerheads, were.documented (Table 2c.). No more than three
takes occurred in any project. The new dredging windows and
draghead deflector requirements appeared to provide good
protection to sea turtles.
Hopper dredging operations contracted for the 1997 fiscal year
were planned for early in the calendar year, however a number of
operations were not begun until late winter. Beginning on March
2, 1997, loggerhead takes occurred in Kings Bay at rates higher
than previously observed. Six turtles were taken in four days of
dredging.,. While consulting with NMFS regarding this _.. _.._
unprecedented rate of loggerhead takes, a COE specialist from the
Waterways Experiment station proposed some modifications to the
draghead with the potential to reduce sea turtle takes.
Relocation trawling was also initiated, beginning March 9,1997;
however, as can be seen on Table 2, these efforts did not
preclude further sea turtle takes in Kings Bay.. Dredging was
terminated on March 12, 1997, with only 53 percent of the project
completed.
00

Table 1 lists the sea turtle takes observed in hopper dredges
throughout the SAD during 3997, as well as the steps taken by COE
to reduce the likelihood of takes. Deflector dragheads were re-
engineered to fit specific dredges wherever possible and
relocation trawling was initiated. Dredging was terminated prior
to completion of projects in Kings Bay, Brunswick Harbor,
Savannah Harbor and Charleston Harbor. Consultation was
reinitiated to consider the effects of the remaining hopper
dredging projects anticipated for the 1997 fiscal year. in
addition to those specific projects listed in the resulting April
1997 IBO, dredging at Reach II of the Myrtle Beach dredge
disposal area is likely to begin before the fiscal year ends.
Despite ongoing dredging at the Oregon Inlet, no sea turtle takes
have been documented since May 15.
Proposed Activity
This consultation addresses the use of hopper dredges in channels
and borrow areas along the Atlantic portion of COE's SAD within
the existing dredging windows (Table 3). Channels dredged by
hopper dredges include: Oregon Inlet, Morehead and Wilmington
Harbors, Charleston, Port Royal and Savannah harbors, Brunswick,
Kings Bay, Jacksonville, St. Augustine and Ponce de Leon inlets,
West Palm Beach, Miami and Key west channels. Borrow areas that
may be dredged by hopper dredges include areas off of Dade County
Florida and Myrtle Beach South Carolina.
Draghead deflectors will be used on all projects and observers
will be required at least during those periods identified in
Table 3. Year -round observer coverage will likely be required by
the COE for most channels, particularly those with histories of
high sea turtle catch rates such as Kings Bay. Within the South
Atlantic Division, the COE will try to schedule dredging of the
highest risk areas (Canaveral, Brunswick, Savannah, and Kings
Bay) during periods when nearshore waters are coolest -- after
December 15 but well before March. Priority for winter dredging
will also be given to areas that have substrates that reduce the
efficiency of the deflector (Wilmington Harbor channel, Reach 1
of Myrtle Beach). Completion of all projects during the Cold -
water months will be attempted when possible.
Listed Species and Critical Habitat
Listed species under the jurisdiction of the NMFS that may occur
in channels along the southeastern United States and which may be
affected by dredging include:
THREATENED:
(1) the threatened loggerhead turtle - Caretta caretta
ENDANGERED:
A -5

(1) the endangered right whale - Eubalaena glacialie
(2) the humpback whale - Mega tera novaeangliae
(3) the endangered /threatened green turtle - Che onia mydas
(4) the endangered Kemp's ridley turtle - I,epidochelvs kfmpii
(5) the endangered hawksbill turtle - Eretmochelvs imbricata
(6) the endangered shortnose sturgeon - Acipenser brevirostrum
Green turtles in U.S. waters are listed as threatened, except for
the Florida breeding population which is listed as endangered.
Additional endangered species which are known to occur along the
Atlantic coast include the finback (Balaenop era physalus), the
sei (Balaenontera bores), and sperm (Physeter macrocephalus)
whales and the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelvs coriacea).'
NMFS has determined that these species are unlikely to be
adversely affected by hopper dredging activities.
Information on the biology and distribution of sea turtles can be
found in the 1991 and 1995 BOs, which are incorporated by
reference. Channel specific information has been collected by
COE for channels at Morehead City, Charleston, Savannah,
Brunswick, Fernandina and Canaveral, and is presented in detail
in COE summary report entitled "Assessment of Sea Turtle
Abundance in Six South Atlantic US Channels" (Dickerson et al.,
1994) and in the COE Biological Assessment.
There is no significant new information regarding the status of
these species that has not been discussed in the BOs that have
been incorporated by reference (March 12, 1997 and August 25,
1995).
Assessment of Impacts
The Biological Opinion issued in 1991 contained strict dredging
windows that appeared to be very effective at limiting the number
of sea turtles taken by hopper dredges during channel maintenance
dredging in the Southeast U.S. along the Atlantic coast. Between
1991 and 1995, no more than 8 turtles were taken in any year, and
many of those taken were released alive. Studies conducted by
the COE (Dickerson et al., 1994) documented turtle distribution
anti abundance, in six channels that suggesting the existing
windows were accurate. However, the COE requested expansion of
existing windows to lessen the burden of maintenance dredging
while testing and further developing a rigid draghead deflector
design. The deflector was effective at pushing aside mock
turtles when tested during 1994, and preliminary field trials in
the Canaveral shipping channel had encouraging results. NMFS
considered this new information, presented by the COE in a
biological assessment forwarded to NMFS in November 1994. The
resulting Bo, issued August 25 1995 expanded dredging windows and
modified observer requirements.

Only 9 sea turtle takes were documented in 1996, suggesting that
the expanded dredging windows and the deflector requirements
provided protection to sea turtles that was similar to the
previously more - restrictive windows. However, the COE's internal
policy resulted in conduct of most of the hopper dredging
projects during months when coastal waters were still cold,
consistent with the previous dredging. The increased rate of
take observed during 1997 and discussed below suggests that the
restriction of hopper dredging to months when nearshore waters
are cold remains the best method for minimizing sea turtle takes.
Unfortunately, a number of dredging projects contracted for early
1997 in the SAD but not restricted to mid - winter months, were .
delayed into the Spring. This delay coincided with a
unseasonably warm winter, when the waters of Kings Bay reached -
60 °F in early March. The incidental take of nine loggerheads in
Kings Bay over only 11 days of dredging indicated that the
nearshore abundance of loggerheads was high, apparently higher
than during the late 1980's when observers were first deployed on
hopper dredges in Kings Bay.
There were other indicators of high nearshore sea turtle
abundance along the Southeast U.S. Atlantic coast during 1997.
Commercial shrimp trawling conducted without the use of turtle
excluder devices (TEDs) offshore of South Carolina and Georgia
between May 15 and July 15 resulted in sea turtle catch rates
higher than previously documented. Sixty nine sea turtles were
taken in 29 days of shrimping off of South Carolina, including 65
loggerheads, 3 ridleys and 1 leatherback. Forty -six sea turtles
were taken in 17 days of towing off of Georgia. The sea turtle
catch per unit effort (CPUE) for this operation is about 0.35
turtles per hour of trawling, standardized to 100 feet (30.5 m)
of total headrope length fished. The CPUE (same units) for
commercial shrimp trawling in the 1970s and 1980s reported by
Henwood and Stuntz (1987a) was only 0.0487. Loggerhead turtles
were the predominant species reported by Henwood and Stuntz and
have also been predominantly observed in this study. They
account for most of the increase in overall CPUE. The CPUE for
loggerheads alone has been greater than 0.30 turtles per hour,
while the value reported in Henwood and Stuntz was 0.0456 turtles
per hour. The rates of taking for leatherback and Kemp's ridley
turtles in the Atlantic study area have also been higher than
anticipated.
The high relative density of sea turtles during 1997 may be due
to an unseasonably warm winter or other factors contributing to
annual variations in abundance, due to an actual increase in the
abundance of benthic immature sea turtles in the loggerhead
population, or due to a combination of these factors. Trends in
the status of loggerheads are generally identified at the nesting
beach, when the most accessible life stage, adult nesting
A -7

females, can be counted. Because they mature at 20 to 30 years
of age, increases or decreases in the abundance of benthic
immature loggerheads as determined by incidental captures in
nearshore waters would not be observed for decades. While
nesting beach surveys suggest that the South Florida population
of loggerheads increased and now appears to be stable, increases
have not been apparent on nesting beaches of Georgia and South
Carolina. Further work on the development of multi -year in -water
sampling sites is needed to identify trends in multiple age -
classes of the loggerhead population.
The COE noted that 14 of the 28 takes that occurred during 1997
were on the same dredge, the Eagle. The high rate of takes,
particularly on this dredge, suggested that the deflecting
draghead was not installed properly or was not being operated
properly. Takes occurred in a number of the 1997 dredge projects
during clean -up. Ridges left behind after the initial dredging
are leveled during clean -up, but the draghead passes over
troughs. Takes occurring during clean -up may be difficult to
avoid since the draghead deflector must remain hard on the bottom
to be effective.
The COE has been conducting meetings between districts within the
SAD to discuss the results of assessments of channel conditions
and dredge inspections. They have determined that the draghead
deflector has not been working properly due to poor education of
the dredge operators on its proper use, and due to poor tailoring
of the deflector to specific dragheads. Increased efforts to
educate dredge operators are planned. Additionally, since fewer
than to private hopper dredges operate within SAD, engineers that
have designed the conceptual deflector will be sent to the
dredges to insure that the deflectors are adapted to each
draghead and that the operators understand how to use the
deflector effectively.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
"Cumulative effects" are those effects of future state or private
activities, not involving Federal actions, that are reasonably
certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action
subject to consultation.. These are discussed in detail in the
biological opinions incorporated by reference.
C reclusion;
NMFS believes that the elevated rate of observed sea turtle takes
by dredges in the southeastern United States during March of 1997
was likely due to increased abundance of loggerheads in nearshore
waters due to an unseasonably warm winter. There is no way to
predict whether similar conditions will be encountered in
upcoming seasons. Over the past six years, the COE's SAD has

continuously expressed a commitment to minimize sea turtle takes,
and has conducted research and taken repeated steps to further
this goal. Repeated termination of dredging operations due to
high sea turtle takes during 1997 confirms their commitment to
avoid sea turtle takes. Further efforts to educate the dredging
industry and recruit their interest and involvement in avoiding
sea turtle takes are necessary and are planned by the COE.
Additionally, the COE has committed to additional efforts to
improve the effectiveness of the deflecting draghead. The sea
turtle deflector should be tailored to each hopper dredge
draghead and the dredge operators should be fully trained in the
operation of the draghead to ensure proper use and improve
effectiveness. Improvements in operator and deflector
performance are necessary prior to reliance on the draghead as-.a
mechanism for reducing sea turtle takes.
NMFS anticipates that the COE's interest in improving the
performance of the deflector, their commitment to limit the use
of hopper dredges in channels of high sea turtle abundance during
periods when nearshore waters are likely to be cold, and their
overall goal of further reducing sea turtle takes during hopper
dredge activities will minimize the interactions of hopper
dredges with sea turtles. However, annual variation in the
abundance of sea turtles in some channels and borrow areas make
it likely that sea turtle takes will still occur. Additionally,
overall increases in loggerhead and Kemp's ridley populations are
anticipated due to TED requirements that have reduced the
mortality rates of benthic lifestages of these species. Lastly,
in some years high levels of hopper dredging activity may be
necessary. For example, termination of projects prior to
completion during FY 1997 may result in an increase in the number
and length of hopper dredging projects necessary for channel
maintenance during FYI 1998. Therefore, NMFS believes that up to
35 loggerheads may be taken by injury or mortality, as well as 7
Kemp's ridleys, 7 green turtles, 2 hawksbills, and 5 shortnose
sturgeon. These takes are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of these species and the ongoing commitment by the COE
to. further minimize takes may reduce the likelihood of sea turtle
takes in the future even if nearshore sea turtle abundances
increase.
Conservation Recommendations
Pursuant to section 7(a)(1) of the ESA, conservation
recommendations are made to assist COE in reducing or eliminating
adverse impacts to loggerhead, green, and Kemp's ridley turtles
that result from hopper dredging in the southeastern United
States. The recommendations made in the 1995 SO are pertinent to
this consultation as well, and therefore remain valid. Further
recommendations are given below.
M

Because of the possibility of annual variation in water
temperatures, sea turtle abundance, and hopper dredging
demand, NMFS has retained the dredging windows
established in the 1995 BO. However, the COE has
expressed a commitment to deploy hopper dredges during
cold -water periods in channels with high sea turtle
abundance or with substrates that render the deflector
ineffective. NMFS appreciates the COE's commitment to
do this, and recommends that the SAD priority list be
finalized and distributed to the Districts and NMFS
prior to the initiation of dredging during FY 1998.
The COE should work with the dredging industry to
insure their understanding of the importance of sea
turtle conservation and to increase the industry's
interest in minimizing sea turtle takes.
• Greater than 50% of the loggerheads taken in North
Carolina may be from the northern nesting assemblage of
loggerheads. While recent loggerhead nesting beach
surveys did not identify a decline in the number of
nesting females on beaches north of Cape Canaveral,
increases observed in the south Florida nesting
assemblage have not been noted. High sea turtle catch
rates during only the early weeks of the wood debris
clean -up conducted by COE off Cape Fear during 1997, as
well as preliminary work conducted in North Carolina,
suggest that turtles may be abundant in North Carolina
channels primarily during migration into and emigration
out of North Carolina inshore waters. The COE should
work with the NMFS Beaufort Laboratory and the North
Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries to document the
movements of sea turtles off North Carolina during
spring and fail months. Results from these studies may
provide insights into further safe dredging windows to
minimize the likelihood of takes of loggerheads from
the more vulnerable northern nesting assemblage.'Summer
windows would reduce the pressure to complete all SAD
hopper dredging during cold -water periods.
The COE should investigate further modifications of the
draghead to minimize the need for clean -up. Some
method to level the peaks and valleys created by
dredging would reduce the amount of time dragheads are
removed from the bottom sediments.
A -10

Incidental Take Statement
Section 7(b)(4) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that
when a proposed agency action is found to be consistent with
section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, and the proposed action may
incidentally take individuals of listed species, NMFS will issue a
statement that specifies the impact of any incidental taking of
endangered or threatened species. It also states that reasonable
and prudent measures, and terms and conditions to implement the
measures, be provided that are necessary to minimize such impacts.
Only incidental taking resulting from the agency action, including
incidental takings caused by activities approved by the agency,
that are identified in this statement and that comply with the:
specified reasonable and prudent alternatives, and terms and
conditions, are exempt from the takings prohibition of section
9(a), pursuant to section 7 of the ESA.
Based on the high rate of sea turtle takes observed during of
1997, increases in the Kemp's ridley population, possible
increases in the benthic lifestages of loggerhead populations,
annual variation in nearshore abundance of sea turtles and hopper
dredge demands, the NMFS anticipates that hopper dredging in the
Southeast U.S. Atlantic area of the SAD may result in the injury
or mortality of sea turtles and shortnose sturgeon. Therefore, a
low level of incidental take, and terms and conditions necessary
to minimize and monitor takes, are established. The annual (by
fiscal year) documented incidental take, by injury or mortality,
of seven (7) Kemp's ridleys, seven (7) green turtles, two (2)
hawksbills, thirty -five (35) loggerhead turtles, and five (5)
shortnose sturgeon is set pursuant to section 7(b)(4) of the ESA.
To ensure that the specified levels of take are not exceeded early
in any project, COE should reinitiate consultation for any project
in which more than one turtle is taken within 24 hours, or once
five or more turtles are taken. The Southeast Region, NMFS, will
cooperate with COE in the review of such incidents to determine
the need for developing further mitigation measures or.to
terminate the remaining dredging activity.
Section 7(b)(4)(c) of the ESA specifies that in order to provide
an incidental take statement for an endangered or threatened
species of marine mammal, the taking must be authorized under
section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
(MMPA). Since no incidental take in the Atlantic Region has been
authorized under section 1.01(a)(5) of the MMPA, no statement on
incidental take of endangered right whales is provided.
The reasonable and prudent measures that the NMFS believes are
necessary to minimize the impact of hopper dredging in channels
and borrow areas in the southeastern United States have been
A -11

discussed with COE. The following terms and conditions are
established, in addition to those identified in the 1995 BO, to
implement these measures and to document the incidental take
should such take occur.
1. The COE's draghead deflector engineer that assistant in this
design design should inspect the rigid draghead deflector annually
to ensure that the deflector has been tailored appropriately to
each draghead. Additionally, the inspector should assess whether
the dredge operator appears to be familiar with the operation of
the draghead deflector and provide necessary training where
appropriate. ,
2. If the rigid draghead deflector appears to be ineffective in
Wilmington Harbor and slows the dredging project such that the
amount of time the hopper dredge will be deployed is increased,
the deflector should be removed from the draghead for that
channel.
3. The COE should develop an educational /training program for
dredge operators to increase their understanding of how the
draghead deflector works and why it is necessary.
A -12

n`
a�
a
O
)
N
U m
2 U
J �
z
¢o
H �
7 �
O
N
A -13
A �•'
U O
C D-
c
m` `
Z Z`
c
U
0 3
a'n
P`L3
aA
°
A mmi Y
t C j
O A O
• m p g
N C O
C
V
N
a°
a
Y
W A C
dm G.b. U
.% b •'
q d>
tp d
N 9 q
c
ot� E�
3dE
:E
K
PmO�o
�y
dcr=
y�
nTV
i
9
u• n d V w
v d c
E E u=
A p
b N 9
m
m
b
M
N
_
um
°'un
NcE
.='o
d U q�
T y
•
O M° o
.-•
Vi
C q t
r tl d
O? i n
d
OA wQ�
�2..
m a
Ca
DI : N
CUd
ro j
3L•„
V
36YtdC
Ea
w a N°
p
v a
o
N p
m a N
c o o c
c q
°'
Y
•,c =u >E
°
D W
'D — °p
~ d
P`m
O
90 °ip
a` c
o
' C G
•Q L 9 V
�"
—
p C
y
ncm�na
daa.
�E.
r °cm
�n o•o
.ro m
vm
'
q
A= h •A• W C
d
p° O c
'• N w
A A
d
N 9 0 d
N b N 9
'D O b j
d m d n
_c
V 4— b E
N N
L
N y
b1 w A O
N= N C
O�
O O E
L C T A
Lm A O C C
N ...
=
•° U N m
C
b
a
C6mZ9•.
c
COYy
CC
mm`
�mu`m v`
C
mC
vE
_
_cc
d d
N3d
_
�A
i
mva
.rcc�
—c
v 5 -
—
-
v` d
m- roy —�°�
U°- y
�mc.o
O
m °m
tiw pca
G9 an d
mace
p= m
m�eL
° 0 C
c A
H`. _°. •'
�m —°
��
t Nc
t YoZ —°' =o
C
o�
3 u�5a
Sc
mcdao
3'
=mac �d9x
N O Ix u t t
N n d
N d
3 'C1 E A¢
N a Z N
IA K d C d >i
w
co,
Y l iO t o m'
�Nlh men
N N
O1TOim mOI
P1 N•�
p
4
p
ro
m
�
H
1'1 rl 'n
J J J J J J J J J
J
r'�M'n
JJJ
M �i� n
J J J J J
C
J J J
N N
V Y �N
J J J J J J
Z
Z
J
Z
a
`o
Q.
a
o
d
0
o
o
EU
°• r
^
H ?'
min
S 3
°o°n
?odd
o
a;
Ed
U
0 3
cl
U
U
o
0 0
O
=
Ao
r
ceE�
cx
a
m
a
E n
a N G,
a
E
d o
Ear
m b
v m
c D
o
a d n
LooE
of
a
o
n
of
n o
�UQ
N
¢ v`
Q o
Q o
G
Q u
9
0
d
m
m
r
r
0
n
mm ie
D
'
m
_
nn_
nm
p�
_
_
a
r b
c
'oE
y
c
3
N
�ro�
m2
rno
�
cm
U p
o
A -13

)ie 2a. Sea turtle takes (includes live, injured and killed) observed on hopper dredges
prior to the regional consultation. Observers were not required on all
Projects until 1989, after which extensive monitoring was required.
Year
Project
Turtle Takes
1980
Canaveral
50 Cc, 3 Cm, 18 Unidentified
Total = 71
1981
Canaveral
3 Cc, 1 Cm, 2 Unidentified
Total 6
1984/1985
Canaveral
1 Cc, 11 Unidentified
Total =.12
1986
Canaveral
5 Cc
Total = 9
Kings Bay
1 Cc, 3 Cm
1987
Rings Bay
3 Cc, 1 Cm, 1 Unidentified
Total = 5
1988
Brunswick
1 Cc
Total 46
Canaveral
13 Cc, 3 Cm, 18 Unidentified
Kings Bay
6 Cc, 3 Lk, 2 Cm
1989
Canaveral
9 Cm, 2 Unidentified
Total = 21
Kings Bay
8 Cc, 1 Cm
Savannah
1 Cc
1990
Canaveral
3 Cc, 5 Cm
Total = 12
Kings Bay
4 Cc
1991
Brunswick
20 Cc, 1 Lk, i Unidentified
Total = 43
Charleston
3 Cc
Kings Bay
1 Cc
Savannah
17 Cc
1c . Caretta Gar"ta, Loggerhead ; On CLelonia -yd--, Groan turtle; Lk . Lepidochelya J—pi, Remp's ridley turtle
A -14

ble 2b. Sea turtle takes (includes live, injured and killed) observed on hopper dredges
between the November 1991 and the August 1995 Regional Biological opinion
Year
Project
Turtle Takes
1992
Port Royal, SC
2 Cc
Total = 2
Myrtle Beach (Borrow Area
2 Cc
1994
Canaveral
1 Cm
Total = 8
Morehead City
1 Cc
Kings Bay
2 Cc
Savannah
3 Cc, 1 Lk
1995
Canaveral
1 Cc
Total = 6
palm Beach
3 Cc, 2 Cm
—Yyerneaa , '-zn = cae.ionia mynas, careen turtle; Lk = LepidoeheIys
!mpi, Kemp's ridley turtle
able 2c. Sea turtle takes (includes live, injured and killed) observed on hopper dredges
after the August 25, 1995 Biological Opinion
Year
Project
Turtle Takes
1996
Morehead City Harbor
1 Cc
Total = 9
Myrtle Beach (Borrow Area
2 Cc
Reach I)
Kings Bay
1 Cc
Palm Beach
1 Cc, 1 Cm
Wilmington Harbor
3 Cc
1997'
Brunswick Harbor
1 Cc
Total = 2B
Charleston Harbor
5 Cc
Kings Bay
9 Cc
Morehead City Harbor
6 Cc
Myrtle Beach (Borrow Area
3 Cc
Reach 1)
Savannah Harbor
3 Cc
Wilmington Harbor (Ocean
1 Cc
Bar)
A -15

\
2
d
$
/
j
\
/
j
\
g
\
\
/ •
G\
n
§g
j\
0
\�
a)
\\
j} to
j\
\.\
ƒ)
w(1)
\�
j\
QQ
W ;
e
w%
A 16
\g
I§z
i)�
)E
FI
(
j)}
§/
k
6 \f
/f\
ks-
0,
±/
§S
$
I
]
7
]
w
S )
J
)
$
) . .
)
}
}.
§
cm
( \
)e
§ \
\j
)/
»
))i�
)kz
\
)k�
§\
\
)/
e[
} $
2 ]
�
]
z
) z
k
«
z
!
ƒ
r(M
I ®('
a� ■\
-
\
\
E� \ \R
\ =
E
a2, §!
/2, {2
\�{\§
Ec =&
)
e
]2777
k{)I2
(�0
§R(in
§R[m
* =32
m
0 -0
22�*|
/ \\_
~
c\))
<t.2Iz
°k
ƒ( /#
/\ \ƒ
Q))k
k2 \7{
ee °;
m�
<
,
!}/§
/a»,2
U.
I)) \!
f k
!
\
�;a2#
--
7�5
n. \{s
k//
jj
A 16

An Archaeological Remote Sensing and Target Identification
Survey ofBogue Banks Offshore Borrow Areas Q2, Y1 and
ODMDS, Carteret County, North Carolina
85
p
MORE HE
CITY
o cup HEAUFORT
�0 y
nti v'
vlw
c�
.. .. .. ....
4'
2 7-2
4w
1�4A�-
0 4
37
i 43 4 A
40
_!Ff
'3
15 G-1 S1 .
20 �GF 2y.
'"41�
p
Bak
a.
4
s
47
"E
27 1
" 2
40
V
46
23
0
El F'
51
27'
Ali
3
A i6 4b
4� 43
4;
4,
49
4H
EU lg
49
0 17
4
53
Cos
4
'R 4
Y.
ODMDS Remote Sensing Survey Area
Submitted to:
Moffat & Nichol Engineers
Submitted by:
Mid Atlantic Technology and Environmental Research, Inc.

An Archaeological Remote Sensing and Target Identification
Survey of Bogue Banks Offshore Borrow Areas Q2, Yl and
ODMDS, Carteret County, North Carolina
Submitted To:
Moffat & Nichol Engineers
1616 East MillBrook Road, Suite 160
Raleigh, North Carolina
Submitted By:
Mid Atlantic Technology and Environmental Research, Inc.
441 Blossom Ferry Road
Castle Hayne, North Carolina 28429
Principal Investigator:
X�,
Wes Hall
8 September 2011

ABSTRACT
Carteret County and their consultants are currently engaged in the development of a
comprehensive Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan and Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement that will permit beach nourishment activities to be
carried out over a multi - decadal (up to 50 year) time frame.
As a part of the investigations related to development of the engineering plan and
Environmental Impact Statement, Mid - Atlantic Technology and Environmental
Research, Inc. of Castle Hayne, North Carolina under a subcontract agreement with
Moffat Nichol Engineers, of Raleigh, North Carolina, has conducted Phase I and II
underwater archaeological investigations of proposed sand borrow areas.
The underwater archaeological project was divided into two components. The first
part of the investigation was a marine remote sensing survey of a io,000 by 16,000
feet in size potential borrow area located in a designated Ocean Dredge Material
Disposal Site (Borrow Area ODMDS) positioned offshore Atlantic Beach, North
Carolina. The second part of the investigation was a Phase II underwater
archaeological identification and assessment of a total of 16 remote sensing targets.
The remote sensing targets included: nine located in potential sand Borrow Area Q2,
one located in Borrow Area Y and six targets that were selected after the completion
of the remote sensing survey of Borrow Area ODMDS.
Borrow Areas Q2 and Y were created during a previous beach study conducted in
2007 by the USCOE, Wilmington District. These studies provided the basis for the
remote sensing targets selected for identification from Borrow Areas Q2 and Y.
At the completion the archaeological remote sensing survey of the ODMDS Borrow
Area a total of 25 magnetic and or acoustic target /anomalies were located. Of the
twenty five remote sensing targets recorded within the ODMDS Borrow Area six
were selected for addition underwater investigation.
During the underwater archaeological identification and assessment of portion of the
project 14 of the 16 targets were relocated and at least partially identified. All of the
targets identified were found to be associated with modern debris that appears to be
related to either the present day Ocean Dredge Material Disposal Site or past
artificial reef systems such as the tire reefs created in the 1970s. Target Y -1 near
Bogue Inlet proved to be associated with a small natural rock outcrop with extensive
coral growth. No submerged cultural resources or historic artifacts were identified
during the investigations of Borrow Areas Q2, Y -1 or ODMDS.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
Page
Abstract............................................................................................ ............................... i
Listof Figures .................................................... ............................... ............................iii
Introduction.................................................................................... ...............................
i
ProjectLocation ............................................................................... ..............................2
HistoricalBackground .................................................................... ...............................
4
Pre - survey Consultation and Documentation ................................ ...............................
9
Description of Investigations ........................................................ ...............................
io
Remote Sensing Survey of Borrow Area ODMDS .................... ...............................
io
Magnetic Background Variation ............................................... ...............................
io
Data Analysis / Cultural Resources .......................................... ...............................
io
Data Assessment ( General) ....................................................... ...............................
12
Descriptionof Findings ................................................................ ...............................
14
Potential for Submerged Cultural Resources ............................. .............................14
Remote Sensing Survey ODMDS Borrow Area .......................... .............................14
Identification of Selected Targets ................................................... .............................43
Borrow Area Q2 Target Identification ........................................ .............................44
Borrow Area Y Target Identification ........................................ ...............................
54
Borrow Area ODMDS Target Identification ............................. ...............................
59
Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................ ...............................
61
References..................................................................................... ...............................
62
Appendix A - Shipwrecks in the Vicinity of Bogue Banks ............ ...............................
65
Appendix B - Table of Remote Sensing Targets ODMDS Borrow area ......................
67
Appendix C - Target Identification and Assessment .................... ...............................
68

iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Project Location Map ...................................................... ...............................
3
Figure 2. 2011 proposed Borrow Area ODMDS ............................ ...............................
3
Figure 3. Relative Position of the O.D.M.D.S., and Borrow Areas Q2 and Y ...............
4
Figure 4. Magnetic Contour and Target Location Map Borrow ODMDS ..................
15
Figure 5. Target ODMDS -1 Magnetic Contour Signature ........... ...............................
16
Figure 6. Target Cluster ODMDS -2 Magnetic Contour Signature . ............................1'7
Figure 7. Target ODMDS -3 Magnetic Contour Signature ............. .............................18
Figure 8. Target ODMDS -3 Sonar Target Signature ................... ...............................
19
Figure 9. Target ODMDS -4 Magnetic Contour Signature ............ .............................20
Figure 1o.
Target Cluster ODMDS -5 Magnetic Contour Signature ...........................
21
Figure 11.
Target ODMDS -6 Magnetic Contour Signature ........... .............................22
Figure 12.
Target ODMDS Magnetic Contour Signature ............ ...............................
23
Figure 13.
Target ODMDS -8 Magnetic Contour Signature ......... ...............................
24
Figure 14.
Target ODMDS -9 Magnetic Contour Signature ......... ...............................
25
Figure 15.
Target 0DMDS-10 Magnetic Contour Signature ......... .............................26
Figure 16.
Target ODMDS -11 Magnetic Contour Signature ........ ...............................
27
Figure 17.
Target ODMDS -11 associated Sonar Signature .......... ...............................
27
Figure 18.
Target ODMDS -12 Magnetic Contour Signature ......... .............................28
Figure 19.
Sonar Signature associated with ODMDS- 12 ............. ...............................
29
Figure 20.
Target Cluster ODMDS -13 Magnetic Contour Signature .........................30
Figure 21.
Target ODMDS -14 Magnetic Contour Signature ....... ...............................
31
Figure 22.
Target ODMDS -14 Magnetic Contour Signature ....... ...............................
31
Figure 23.
Target ODMDS -15 Magnetic Contour Signature ......... .............................32
Figure 24.
Target Cluster Q2 -16 Magnetic Contour Signature ..... .............................33
Figure 25.
Target ODMDS -17 Magnetic Contour Signature ......... .............................34
Figure 26.
Target ODMDS -18 Magnetic Contour Signature ....... ...............................
35
Figure 27.
Target ODMDS -19 Magnetic Contour Signature ....... ...............................
36
Figure 28.
Target ODMDS -20 Magnetic Contour Signature ...... ...............................
37
Figure 29.
Target ODMDS -21 Magnetic Contour Signature ......... .............................38
Figure 30.
ODMDS -21 Acoustic Target Signature ........................ .............................38
Figure 31.
Target ODMDS -22 Magnetic Contour Signature ......... .............................39
Figure 32.
Target ODMDS -23 Magnetic Contour Signature ........ .............................40
Figure 33.
Target ODMDS -24 Magnetic Contour Signature ...... ...............................
41
Figure 34.
Target ODMDS -25 Magnetic Contour Signature ........ .............................42
Figure 35.
Target Cluster Q2 -20 Magnetic Contour Signature .... .............................44
Figure 36.
Magnetic Contour and Target Location Map Borrow Area Q2 ................
45
Figure 37.
Target Cluster Q2 -21 Magnetic Contour Signature ..... .............................46
Figure 38.
Target Cluster Q2 -23 Magnetic Contour Signature .. ...............................
47
Figure 39.
Target Cluster Q2 -24 Magnetic Contour Signature ..... .............................48
Figure 40.
Target Cluster Q2 -28 Magnetic Contour Signature .... .............................49
Figure 41.
Target Cluster Q2 -29 Magnetic Contour Signature ..... .............................50
Figure 42.
Target Cluster Q2 -30 Magnetic Contour Signature .. ...............................
51
Figure 43.
Target 30 - Acoustic Target Signature ...................... ...............................
52

iv
Figure 44. Target Cluster Q2 -31 Magnetic Contour Signature ... ............................... 53
Figure 45. Target Cluster Q2 -32 Magnetic Contour Signature ... ............................... 54
Figure 46. Magnetic Contour and Target Location Map Borrow Area Y ................... 55
Figure 47. Target Y -1 Magnetic Contour Signature .................... ............................... 56
Figure 48. Target Y -1 Acoustic Target Signature ........................ ............................... 56
Figure 49. Target Y -1 sandstone outcrop and corals ................... ............................... 57
Figure 50. Target Y -1 hard corals over three feet in diameter on rock outcrop........ 57
Figure 51. Target Y -1 close -up of hard corals .............................. ............................... 58
Figure 52. Target Y -1 corals with fish ............................................. .............................58
Figure 53. Target ODMDS -21 end view of steel cylinder .............. .............................60

INTRODUCTION
Bogue Banks is a 25 -mile long barrier island, in Carteret County, North Carolina.
The island includes the communities of Emerald Isle, Indian Beach /Salter Path, Pine
Knoll Shores, and Atlantic Beach. The beach along Bogue Banks is a popular tourist
destination and is very important to the economy of Carteret County. Since the
199os when several hurricane events exacerbated beach erosion concerns in Bogue
Banks beach communities, the County has been working with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) to develop a long -range shore protection plan.
The foundation of the long range shore protection plan was a federally cost - shared
5o -year Shore Protection Project in combination with locally funded interim
measures that were designed to keep beaches viable until the long -range Shore
Protection Plan could be constructed. However, in the past few years federal support
for the 5o -year Shore Protection Plan has eroded along with the beaches. Current as
well as past Presidential administrations have placed restrictions on federally funded
Shore Protection Projects and have forced Carteret County to investigate pro- active
management of Bogue Bank erosion concerns.
Carteret County and their consultants are currently engaged in the development of a
comprehensive Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan and Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will permit beach nourishment activities
to be carried out over a multi - decadal (up to 50 year) time frame.
As a part of these investigations related to development of the engineering plan and
EIS, Mid - Atlantic Technology and Environmental Research, Inc. (M -AT) of Castle
Hayne, North Carolina under a subcontract agreement with Moffat Nichol
Engineers, of Raleigh, North Carolina, has conducted Phase I and II underwater
archaeological investigations of proposed sand borrow areas. This work was
conducted pursuant to provisions of Section 1o6 of the National Preservation Act of
1966 (36 CFR Boo, Protection of Historic Properties) and the Abandon Shipwreck
Act of 1987 (Abandon Shipwreck Guidelines, National Park Service, Federal Register,
Vol. 55, No. 3, 4 December 199o, pages 5o116- 50145)1
'A national policy for historic preservation has been established in accordance with authorization contained in Sections 1o6 and
110 (formerly E.O. 11593) of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended following the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation Regulations (36 CFR 800). Executive Order 11593 and the Historic Preservation Act Amendments of
198o specified that the Federal Government shall provide leadership in preserving, restoring, and maintaining the historic and
cultural environment of the nation. In 1988, the Abandoned Shipwreck Act (Public Law 100 -298) declared that the states (or
territories of the U.S.) are to manage shipwrecks in state waters. As a result of these acts and other legislation, state and federal
agencies are required to administer cultural properties under their control in a spirit of stewardship and trusteeship. Each
agency is required to initiate such measures as are necessary to insure that policies, plans, and programs will preserve sites,
structures, and objects of historical or archaeological significance that exist on properties owned by the Federal Government or
that are subject to federal regulation.

2
The underwater archaeological project was divided into two components. The first
part of the investigation was a marine remote sensing survey of a potential borrow
area located in a designated Ocean Dredge Material Disposal Site (O.D.M.D.S.)
positioned offshore Atlantic Beach, North Carolina. The proposed borrow area was
approximately 1o,000 by 16,000 feet in size and is herein referred to as Borrow Area
ODMDS. The second part of the investigation was a Phase II underwater
archaeological identification and assessment of a total of 16 remote sensing targets.
The remote sensing targets that included in the underwater investigations were as
follows: Nine (9) located in potential sand Borrow Area Q2 - Targets Q2 -20, 21,
23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32; one (1) located in Borrow Area Y - Target Y -1; and six
(6) targets that were selected after the completion of the remote sensing survey of
Borrow Area ODMDS - Targets ODMDS -2, 8, ii, 12, 21, 24.
Borrow Areas Q2 and Y were created and are part of a previous beach study
conducted a few years ago by the USCOE, Wilmington District. As part of that study
M -AT was contracted by the USCOE to complete a Phase I underwater
archaeological survey for potential borrow areas that included Q2 and Y. The
underwater archaeological investigations were conduct in 2007 and the report
entitled: An Archaeological Remote Sensing Survey of Bogue Banks Offshore
Borrow Areas, Carteret County, North Carolina (Hall 2oo8) was finalized in 2oo8.
The 2007 underwater archaeological investigations provided the basis for the remote
sensing targets selected for identification during this project (i.e. Borrow Areas Q2
and Y).
Historical research and field investigations for this project were carried out between
15 July and 23 August 2011.
PROJECT LOCATION
The ODMDS is located over three nautical miles offshore of Atlantic Beach, North
Carolina at the eastern end of Bogue Banks and is immediately west of the navigation
channel entrance to Beaufort Inlet. The remote sensing survey area or proposed
borrow site was rectangular in shape approximately 16,000 -feet long east to west by
1o,000 -feet wide north to south. Borrow Area ODMDS is positioned in the
northeastern quadrant of the general O.D.M.D.S. (Figures 1 and 2). Figures 2 and 3
show the project location and the relative position of each proposed borrow area.

Figure 1. Project Location Map.
X
°°
v
a
n
- pO�✓ X
aflY o
,
-
- hvr'r,s�
F12�5a 20ft SM
v ,� rfi
'
f F 18f[ (M)
N
3442 N '-
,
\
i',Vc
COy
7734�42
1
+
r
JG
aEJilc'aPi1CN
50
_
a� _
_ _
0D00
V I
37
12
N
Rrs
Re r6"
"fa
,
rr{&, au5
1 3
\V
1
;i3
r 4 6
�
� -1- 13 "ll,
d) FIG25s
r r13
Z
2E
ze �z \ �nl ,r
od ;f 'a
z
\
�--
41
47
,
r i
ae �4Ao
!00
y9
99
;49000 Y
3400400 Y
4 7r
4
—
7
50
5
4a
40 10 4
\ �
7�„A
g\r•
.
46
4G
�
,•44
93
46
a
8
�
33'30QOO Y
" 6j "
V
,3q
3 "
34 38 N
i
01
r
5Y
. 0
49
i �°
�' O
��.o
i•' III
YO 53
IiY -li" r,rr.
5'O
� [i i
k•4 ",-r�
FIR
rrr,r b4
Figure 2. 2011 proposed Borrow Area ODMDS.

M
Figure 3. Relative Position of the O.D.M.D.S., and Borrow Areas Q2 and Y.
(other designated areas are not part of these investigations)
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
North Carolina's barrier islands formed nearly 18,000 years ago when coastal areas
submerged during the Holocene epoch. High sand ridges built up along the
mainland beaches by wind and water action, during the last period of glaciations. As
the sea level rose, the ridge system failed, causing low -lying areas behind to flood. As
a result, lagoons and shallow sounds were formed, leaving the existing dune ridges as
barrier islands.
Inlets have been formed by the wave action and shifting sands. Most of the inlets are
temporary, either migrating along the coast or closing altogether as near shore
currents transport sand parallel to the coastline. Permanent inlets occur along the
southern coast where the mouths of significant rivers provide enough force to
maintain stable inlets (Tubby 2000:59)•
In the late seventeenth century, the region particularly around Cape Lookout was
commonly visited by New England whalers where they set temporary camps among
the dunes ( Angley 1982:5). Permanent settlement of the Bogue Banks began in the
early eighteenth century. In 1720 Cristopher Gale received a patent for 9,461 acres,
"being on the banks and Marshes adjacent betwixt Topsail and Bogue Inlet and is
commonly called Bogue Banks and Bogue Island" ( Angley 1984:1).
In 1722, Beaufort was appointed as "a port for the unloading and discharging [of]
vessels," it was clear that development and growth would depend on trade entering
and clearing through Beaufort Inlet (Paul 1970:370373; Angley 1982:8). Unlike

5
many of the inlets along the North Carolina coast, Beaufort Inlet was relatively stable
and open and offered a safe and deep channel for ship traffic (Stick 1958 :312)•
Throughout the eighteenth century Beaufort and Bogue Inlets were of only local
importance to trade and travel. As in most of eastern North Carolina, early trade
centered around lumber products. Beaufort Inlet served the rich Newport River area
plantations and Bogue Inlet served the White Oak River and its tributaries. Naval
stores, lumber, and agricultural goods from both these areas were exported to the
West Indies in exchange for glassware, cloth, furniture, coffee and rum (Angley
1984:1).
Beaufort supported a strong, though small, shipbuilding industry (Tatham 18o6). In
181o, Jacob Henry, a former representative from Carteret County to the North
Carolina House of Commons, commented upon the local shipbuilding industry at
Beaufort:
The principal trade carried on here is ship building in which they have
acquired a very considerable reputation. Live oak and Cedar are the
timbers principally used but the stock is by no means so abundant as it
has been. Some of the swiftest sailors and best built Vessels in the
United States have been launch'd here, particularly the Ship Minerva, a
well known Packet between Charleston and New York. There are at
present five Vessels at the Stocks, two of which are ready to be launch'd
(Newsome 1929399 Watts 19975)•
In 1815, a hurricane struck the Bogue Banks area and devastated Beaufort. The
storm was described as "being one of the most violent and disastrous ever known
upon the coast." Because of the storm Beaufort Inlet changed significantly; the bar
was "injured so that but 12 feet could be brought over it at low water." Fortunately
the channel eventually recovered from the storm's damage and by 183o depth on the
bar had increased to eighteen feet at mean low water. By 1854, the bar channel had
decreased slightly to a depth of 15 1/2 feet and had migrated slightly to the south
(Watts 19975)•
The development of the railroad in the mid - nineteenth century brought significant
changes to Beaufort and the development of a new port facility at Sheppard's Point
creating a decline in commerce through Beaufort. In 1841, John Motley Morehead,
then governor of North Carolina, began to promote the idea of the establishment of a
port facility at the eastern terminus of the Atlantic and North Carolina Railroad. By
1858 the port and rail facility had become a reality. The editor of the Greensboro
Patriot described the conditions and natural advantages which he believed would
benefit maritime traffic through Beaufort Inlet to the new port facility at Morehead
City in September 1858:
Beaufort, is about three miles, this being about the widest part of the
harbor. The channel is in the form of a half -moon, one horn running

G
eastwardly along the Shackleford banks, called Core Sound, and the
other westwardly by Morehead and Carolina cities, which are situated
on Bogue Sound. The deepest water is along Newport River, which runs
in nearly a north direction between Morehead City and Beaufort,
touching the railroad wharf in the former place. The main channel is
about one mile wide, so that the inside of the channel would be some
two miles from Beaufort, though vessels drawing from nine to ten feet
water can approach the Beaufort wharves at full tide. Running up the
channel about three miles from the bar, we come to the railroad wharf
at Morehead City, where vessels drawing eighteen feet can approach
with ease, and unload and take in lading with the greatest safety
(Konkle 1922:341 -342)•
Within six months the rail and port facility at Morehead City was prospering. Ships
were continually calling at the wharfs and being loaded with cargoes directly from
train cars (Konkle 1922:360 -361).
The Civil War closed Beaufort Inlet to trade and disrupted the lives of the inhabitants
of Morehead City and Beaufort. Union forces took Morehead City on March 22,
1862. Just days later Union troops crossed the Newport River and took control of
Beaufort. Confederate forces still controlled Fort Macon, however. On April 22,
several Union vessels anchored near Harker's Island to the east of Beaufort,
including the steamer Alice Price which served as General Burnside's temporary
headquarters. A Union gunboat and one or two smaller vessels were positioned
inside Beaufort Inlet, controlling the approaches and exits to Bogue and Core
Sounds. By April 25 a fierce battle ensued and the fall of Fort Macon was imminent,
Confederate forces burned the bark Glen on April 25 to keep it out of Union hands.
On April 26, Colonel Moses J. White, commander of Fort Macon, surrendered to
Generals Parks and Burnside on Shackleford Banks (Angley 1982:34; Stick 1958 :148 -
153)•
The occupation of Fort Macon and the surrounding vicinity provided Union naval
forces with access to a deep -water port and place of rendezvous that was used to
support the blockading squadron throughout the remainder of the war. During
December 1864 and January 1865, a fleet under the command of Admiral David
Porter massed at Beaufort Harbor in preparation for their assault on Fort Fisher in
Wilmington, the last major stronghold of the Confederacy in North Carolina. During
the Civil War at least five Confederate vessels were captured at sea in the Cape
Lookout area: the schooners Edwin, Julia, Revere, and Louisa Agnes, captured in
1861; and the steamer Banshee, taken on November 21, 1863 (Angley 1982:35; Price
1948:n.p.). One Confederate vessel was totally lost in the vicinity as a result of
enemy action. On July 9, 1864, the side -wheel steamer Pevensey was chased ashore
and blown up on Bogue Banks, approximately nine miles west of Beaufort Inlet (Hill
1975:11 -13). Not all known shipwrecks near Beaufort were a result of enemy action.
On June 12, 1863, while en route from the Delaware Capes to Charleston, the U.S.S.
Lavender ran aground in heavy seas near Cape Lookout Shoals. The Lavender was a

7
screw tug of 173 tons. On July 20, 1865, the 186 -ton Union screw steamer
Quinnebaugh went ashore on Beaufort bar in rough weather after her machinery
failed. The Quinnebaugh was transporting Union troops, refugees, and civilians
north at the time of her loss (Shomette 197388 -89; Berman 1972:141; Lytle and
Holdcamper 1975:291).
Although of lesser importance, Bogue Inlet was also blockaded by Union forces.
Because of ongoing concerns that the Confederates were using Bogue Inlet to supply
the Confederate war effort, the U.S.S. Ellis under the command of William B.
Cushing was sent to maintain the blockade in mid - October 1862. Use of Bogue Inlet
to run the blockade appears to have been somewhat limited. Only a single schooner
was reported lost at the inlet during the war years. The schooner was reported
"ashore on the west breaker" at Bogue Inlet in mid - November 1863 (Angley 1984:6).
Just six years after the Civil War, the federal government began measures to reduce
the severity of maritime disasters along the coast by establishing the United States
Life Saving Service. In 1874, seven stations were established along the North
Carolina coast. In 1875 a similar station was authorized by Congress for Cape
Lookout. However, was not until ten years later that the station was finally built.
Over the following years three other live saving stations were established on Core
Banks, and a station was also established near Fort Macon (Angley 1982 :35 -36; Stick
1958:169 -170, 310 -313). It was not until the early twentieth century that Congress
also recognized the need for a life saving station at Bogue Inlet (Angley 1984:11).
In the latter years of the nineteenth century the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
conducted several investigations on the feasibility of improvements to navigation of
the White Oak River and Bogue Inlet. During that time produce including naval
stores, cotton, peanuts, lumber, and fish from the White Oak River and Swansboro
were transported to Beaufort Harbor by small boats that navigated the sound. After
several studies, the various proposed projects including a jetty to help stabilize the
inlet were disapproved as being at a cost that exceeded demand (Angley 1984:8 -10).
Commerce on the White Oak River in 1906 was determined to be 21,532 tons most of
which was timber and sawn lumber. The remaining tonnage consisted of seafood,
agricultural commodities and some general merchandise. Almost all of the cargo
passed from Swansboro through the inland channel to Morehead City or Beaufort
(Angley 1984;13). Until the 192os Beaufort was the southern terminus of of the
Intracoastal Waterway along the Atlantic Seaboard. In 1932, the Intracoastal
Waterway was extended from Beaufort to the Cape Fear River south of Wilmington.
By 1938, traffic on the waterway consisted of 8,500 motor vessels, Zoo barges, and
300 tugs conducting 9,00o trips. Intracoastal Waterway became a primary artery
for cargo including seafood, fertilizer, agricultural products, lumber, petroleum
product and other merchandise (Angley 1984;14)•
Following the Civil War at Morehead City and Beaufort the fishing industry became
an important source of income. Menhaden fishing was of particular importance.
From 1865 to 1873, the State of North Carolina's first menhaden processing plant

was in operation on Harker's Island. By 190o several menhaden plants were in
operation at various locations on Bogue and Core Sounds including Beaufort (Hill
1975:16 -18 Watts 19977)•
Although the fishing industry was growing, the port at Morehead City developed
slowly. Limited traffic through the port was mostly attributed to the depth of water
over the bar of the entrance channel to Beaufort Inlet. The size of the shoals related
to the bar was also increasing in size. By the 188os the Federal government began to
make improvements to the inlet in an attempt to increase maritime trade to port.
Over the next eight years five jetties were constructed on Shackleford Point and
another six jetties were constructed on Fort Macon Point. By 1889 the deterioration
of the inlet had been halted (Angley 1982:40). To further improve the inlet the
entrance channel across the Beaufort Inlet bar was dredged to a depth of 20 feet at
mean low water in 1905 and 1907. A 20 -foot channel, 200 feet wide, was also
established between the inlet and the wharves at Morehead City. A smaller channel,
seven feet deep and loo feet wide, was created to serve the wharves along the
Beaufort waterfront (Angley 1982:40).
In 1912 federal records indicate 12 sailing vessels and 35 gasoline powered vessels
were registered at Morehead City. At Beaufort 175 sailing vessels, 240 gasoline
powered vessels, and six barges were registered. Between 1 July 1898 and 3 June
1908, 82 vessels were reported lost off the North Carolina coast (Angely 1982:42).
In 1923 the tugboat Juno sank in the Beaufort Inlet channel creating a hazard
to navigation and caused great difficulty to vessels attempting to use the inlet.
The wreck of the Juno was eventually leveled with explosives but the need for
channel improvements was clear. Beginning in 1926 the federal government
made considerable improvements to the use of the Port of Morehead City by
increasing the depth of the channel from Beaufort Inlet from 20 -feet to 30-
feet (Stick 1952:237 -238 Watt 19979 -10).
During World War Two German submarines brought war within sight of coastal
communities. On one night, March 18, 1942, German submarines sank three tankers
in the Cape Lookout area: the Papoose, the W. E. Hutton, and the E. M. Clark. Just
five days later another tanker, the Naeco was sunk in the same vicinity (Stick
1952:234). Following the attacks, coastal communities of North Carolina were
developed "black out" system along with coastal watches. In addition, a more
efficient convoy system for tankers and other commercial vessels was devised.
Additional planes and patrol vessels were also put into service particularly for the
Cape Lookout area (Stick 1952:237 -239 Watts 1997:10).
The value of deepwater ports was recognized by the North Carolina State Legislature
in 1945 with the creation of the NC State Ports Authority. In 1949 the General
Assembly approved the issue of $7.5 million in bonds for construction and
improvement of seaports to promote trade throughout the state. Terminals
equipped to handle oceangoing vessels were completed at Wilmington and

I
Morehead City in 1952. Their positions nearly midway between major competing
ports in Virginia and South Carolina made them more accessible to North Carolina
traders. Morehead City has become a major port for products including phosphate,
scrap metal, sulfur, rubber asphalt and other bulk products. At Morehead City,
planning continues for expansion onto Ports Authority property on Radio Island and
preparing for the larger ships of the future (ncstateport.com).
PRE- SURVEY CONSULTATION AND DOCUMENTATION
As part of the investigative effort, M -AT first conducted a literature search to help
document man's activities in the vicinity and to provide a historical context for the
assessment of potential cultural resources discovered offshore. The search helped to
determine the extent and type of commercial and naval activity offshore, which
further assisted in the assessment of targets identified during field investigations.
This research focused on primary and secondary materials, as compiled by
environmental and archeological agencies responsible for managing the State's
cultural resources and depositories, such as libraries and museums. In addition,
research included consultation with local historians and the State Underwater
Archaeologist at Fort Fisher.
The following offices and /or institutions were contacted:
• Underwater Archaeology Unit, Division of Archives and History, Fort Fisher, NC
• North Carolina Maritime Museum, Beaufort, NC
• NC State Archives
• Office of the Historian, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C.
• Marine Casualty Branch, U.S. Coast Guard
• Maritime Historian, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Preliminary secondary sources examined:
• The Encyclopedia of American Shipwrecks
• Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States 1807 -1868
• Shipwrecks of the Western Hemisphere
• Shipwrecks of the Civil War
• Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion
• Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
• Web Site Review of http: / /anchor.ned.noaa.gov /awois /search.cfm
• Historical Maps and Charts
Researchers reviewed source materials at each institution and conducted interviews
with librarians /technical staff to determine the best potential sources for
background information. A list of known or potential shipwrecks has been
developed for the vicinity.

10
DESCRIPTION OF INVESTIGATIONS
Remote Sensing Survey of Borrow Area ODMDS
M -AT's underwater archaeology team conducted the survey using a 25400t long
survey vessel Two primary remote sensing devices were used: a Geometries 882
cesium marine magnetometer and a Marine Sonic 600 kHz digital, side -scan sonar.
Each instrument was interfaced with a Trimble 232 Differential Global Positioning
System.
Data was collected along parallel lines spaced at loo -foot intervals. Magnetic data,
along with corresponding positioning data, was recorded at .5- second sample
intervals (or approximately every 5 feet along a track line at 6 knots) using
HYPACKTM data acquisition software. Water depths within the ODMDS Borrow
Area range between 5o -feet in the offshore portion of the borrow area to 35 -feet on
the inshore portion. A 40 pound tri -wing depressor was utilized to maintain the
magnetometer tow sensor at a depth of 10 to 20 feet above the bottom within
ODMDS survey area. The 882 sensor was trailed behind the depressor. At 6 knots
the depressor's tow -line traveled at approximately a 4o degree angle to the transom
of the survey vessel. Beginning at the offshore or deeper portion of each borrow area
the magnetometer height was set. Using the angle of the depressor's tow line and its
length, the height of the magnetometer sensor was adjusted to achieve a maximum
of a 20400t sensor height above the bottom.
Side scan sonar data was recorded with Marine Sonic Sea Scan® acoustic data
acquisition software using an onboard PC computer system. Side Scan Sonar data
was recorded at a scale of 164 feet (50 meters) per channel. The height of sonar fish
was adjusted to achieve the best records for the conditions.
Magnetic Background Variation
Artificial induced variation in magnetic data or background noise was maintained at
less than .3 nanoteslas (nT) at a sample rate of 1/2 second. Noise spikes, such as
those produced by sharp turns or rapid changes in speed, were easily identified and
removed during the data editing process. Once the data had been reduced to pole,
the magnetic background was represented by the "zero value data" depicted in the
magnetic contour maps.
Data Analysis / Cultural Resources
During field investigations, data being produced by the magnetometer, side -scan
sonar were closely monitored. Targets (magnetic or acoustic) were identified and
recorded as they were generated. Also noted on field records was information about
the local environment, which included man -made features such as pipelines, channel
markers, crab traps, and conditions that could influence magnetic or acoustic data.

11
After the survey area was completed, archaeologists edited the magnetic data for
detailed analysis and comparison to acoustic data. Editing was performed in three
phases. The initial phase consisted of using HYPACK's single -beam editing program
to review raw data in individual survey lines and to delete any artificially induced
noise or data spikes. While editing survey lines, a preliminary target table was
developed that included individual target coordinates, signature characteristics,
intensity, and duration. Once all survey lines for an area were edited, the edited data
was converted to an xyz file (Easting and Northing State Plane Coordinates, and
magnetometer data — measured in nanoteslas), also using HYPACK. Next, the xyz
files were imported into a Triangular Irregular Network (TIN) modeling program
that was used to contour the data in 1- nanotesla intervals. Once the data was
contoured, the contour graphic was converted to a dxf file and imported into
AutoCAD in order to clearly view individual magnetic anomalies and their
association with acoustic target signatures. Once in AutoCAD, additional editing of
the total magnetic intensity was performed without affecting individual magnetic
anomalies. For example, dramatic or pronounced diurnal changes that frequently
will create a "striped," "zigzag," or "herring bone" pattern in the contour lines can
was edited out and averaged across a survey area to create a more realistic and
accurate contour map.
A second major analytical technique employed included the subtraction of general
background from each successive data sample to develop the actual field gradient.
The gradient is the vertical difference (z) between samples. By subtracting
successive data samples one from the other the effects of diurnal change are
completely eliminated. The resulting data represents only the localized changes in
the magnetic background created by ferrous object(s) (i.e. anomalies). When
graphically represented by contouring (using the same method described above),
only the intensity of variation and localize influence is represented.
During the analysis process, magnetic anomalies were categorized using the anomaly
intensity, duration and /or extent, and signature characteristics. In addition, the
anomaly's geographic location was taken into consideration, as well as its association
with acoustic target signatures.
After magnetic data was developed into a target list, acoustic data was examined
using SeaScanTM acoustic data review software to identify any unnatural or man-
made features in the records. Once identified, acoustic features were described
using visible length, width, and height from the bottom surface. The coordinates of
the acoustic features also were recorded.

12
Data Assessment (General)
Target signatures were evaluated using the National Register of Historic Places
criteria' as a basis for the assessment. For example, although an historic object
might produce a remote sensing target signature, it is unlikely that a single object
(such as a historic anchor or cannon ball) has the potential to meet the criteria for
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
Target assessment was based primarily on the nature and characteristics of the
acoustic and magnetic signatures. Shipwrecks — large or small — often have
distinctive acoustic signatures, which are characterized by geometrical features
typically found only in a floating craft. Most geometrical features identified on the
bottom (in open water) are manmade objects. Often an acoustic signature will have
an associated magnetic signature. Generally, if the acoustic signature demonstrates
geometric forms or intersecting lines with some relief above the bottom surface and
have a magnetic signature of any sort; it can be categorized as a potentially
significant target. Often, modern debris near docks, bridges, or an anchorage is
easily identified solely based on the characteristics of its acoustic signature.
However, it is more common to find material partially exposed. Frequently, these
objects produce a record that obviously indicates a man -made object, but the object
is impossible to identify or date. Also in making an archaeological assessment of any
sonogram record, the history and modern use of the waterway must be taken into
consideration. Naturally, historically active areas tend to have greater potential for
submerged cultural resources. The assessment process prioritizes targets for further
underwater archaeological investigations.
Magnetic target signatures alone are more difficult to assess. Without any
supporting sonogram record, the type of the bottom sediments and the water
currents become more important to the assessment process. A small, single- source
magnetic signature has the least potential to be a significant cultural resource.
Although it might represent a single history object, this type of signature has little
potential to meet National Register criteria.
A more complex magnetic anomaly, represented by a broad monopolar or dipolar
type signature, has a greater potential to be a significant cultural resource,
depending on bottom type. Shipwrecks that occur in regions with hard bottoms,
with little migrating sand, tend to remain exposed and are often visible on sonogram
records. A magnetic anomaly that is identified in a hard bottom area and has no
associated acoustic signature frequently can be discounted as being a historic
p��rusn�ti�xi�atprr��,r�

13
shipwreck. Most likely, such an anomaly is modern debris, such as wire rope, chain,
or other ferrous material.
Soft migrating sand or mud can bury large wrecks, leaving little or no indication of
their presence on the bottom. The types of magnetic signatures that a boat or ship
might produce are infinite, because of the large number of variables including
location, position, chemical environment, other metals, vessel type, cargo, sea state,
etc. These variables are what determine the characteristics of every magnetic target
signature. Since shipwrecks occur in a dynamic environment, many of the variables
are subject to constant change. Thus, in making an assessment of a magnetic
anomalies potential to represent a significant cultural resource, investigators must
be circumspect in their predictions.
Broad, multi- component signatures (again, depending on bottom characteristics and
other factors) often have the greatest potential to represent a shipwreck. On the
other hand, high- intensity, multi- component, magnetic signatures (without an
accompanying acoustic signature) in areas of relatively high velocity currents can be
discounted as a historic resource. Eddies created by the high - velocity currents
almost always keep some portion of a wreck exposed. Generally, wire rope or some
other low - profile ferrous debris produces this type of signature in these
circumstances. Many types of magnetic anomalies display characteristics that are
not easily interpreted. The only definitive method of determining the nature of the
object creating these anomalies is by physical examination.

14
DESCRIPTION OF FINDINGS
Potential for Submerged Cultural Resources
Prehistoric
Currently there is no evidence to suggest that there is a potential for significant
prehistoric cultural resources in the offshore area of coastal North Carolina.
Certainly, there is potential for isolated prehistoric artifacts and perhaps even
concentrations of artifacts however, those types of sites have yet to be found and
there are currently no criteria or method available to enhance their potential
discovery. Late Pleistocene or Holocene landforms that may have supported direct
evidence of prehistoric occupation in the offshore waters of North Carolina have
been transgressed and homogenized by natural high- energy ocean processes.
Therefore the potential for significant prehistoric site to be present or possibly
impacted by offshore construction activity in the waters off the North Carolina coast
are unlikely.
Historic
Investigations to identify documented shipwrecks near the project area revealed that
numerous ships have wrecked in the vicinity of Bogue Banks, Beaufort Inlet and
Bogue Inlet (see Historic Shipwrecks in the Vicinity of Bogue Banks - Appendix A).
The historic shipwreck tentatively identified as the Queen Anne's Revenge and
currently undergoing investigation immediately north of Borrow Area Q2 helps to
demonstrate the potential for other historic shipwrecks in the vicinity of Beaufort
Inlet. By way of example several targets identified during the 2007 survey of Borrow
Area Q2 had similar magnetic signatures characteristic with that of the Queen Anne's
Revenge shipwreck site.
Remote Sensing Survey ODMDS Borrow Area
At the completion of the marine magnetometer and side scan sonar survey of the
ODMDS Borrow Area over 40 magnetic anomalies had been recorded. Of these,
several were in relatively close geographic proximity suggesting that they may be
related to the same event or activity. Base on solely on proximity, those anomalies
were grouped into targets clusters. This created a total of 25 targets within the
ODMDS Borrow Area either represented by individual anomalies or those grouped
together. Of these targets, only 5 (five) had an associated sonar signatures (Figure
4). All other acoustic signatures were either ready identified as fish or objects such
as buoy weights.

333000
332000
331000
330000
329000
328000
327000
326000
325000
324000
323000
Legend ODMDS Borrow Area
o i000 2000 3000 4000 5000 positive values Magnetic Contour and Target Location Map
Scale negative values
mag. background / zero values Data Reduced to Pole @ i Nanotesla Contours
North Carolina State Plane Coordinates NAD 1983
Figure 4. 'Magnetic Contour and Target Location Map.
M
n
ON
M
Ot*I
NO
LO
00
O
LO
00 00
00
00
00
00
00
00
ON
ON
%0 %0
1
%-0
%-0
10
10
%-0
%-0
N N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Legend ODMDS Borrow Area
o i000 2000 3000 4000 5000 positive values Magnetic Contour and Target Location Map
Scale negative values
mag. background / zero values Data Reduced to Pole @ i Nanotesla Contours
North Carolina State Plane Coordinates NAD 1983
Figure 4. 'Magnetic Contour and Target Location Map.

Target Descriptions:
ODMDS i
NC State Plane x= 2696456 Y= 331126
Target ODMDS -1 consisted of a monopolar magnetic anomaly recorded along a
single survey line with a maximum magnetic intensity of more than 4 nT. No
acoustic target signature was identified in association with the magnetic anomaly.
The simple monopolar characteristic of the targets signature suggests that it was
created by a single ferrous object with limited potential to be associated with a
significant submerged cultural resource. No additional investigation or mitigation is
recommended (Figure 5).
o O
0
Cv R
3311
DD -1
Figure 5. Target ODMDS -1 Magnetic Contour Signature.

17
ODMDS -2 — Cluster
NC State Plane x= 2695144 Y= 332126
Target Cluster ODMDS -2 consisted of at least eight dipolar and multi- component
magnetic anomalies. The individual anomalies although separated by as much as
two hundred feet, were grouped together because of their general proximity within
the ODMDS survey area. The targets ranged in intensity between 5 and 20 nT
(Figure 6). No acoustic target signature was found in association with the various
magnetic anomalies within the cluster.
Because of the potential for the cluster of magnetic anomalies to be related to a
historic event or activity, this target was selected for diver identification and
assessment during the target identification portion of this project.
0
o-
Q
3�4
° C
00
332200
Figure 6. Target Cluster ODMDS -2 Magnetic Contour Signature.

ODMDS -3
NC State Plane x= 2694491 Y= 330904
Target cluster ODMDS -3 was group together as a linear series of magnetic anomalies
with a magnetic intensity between 1 and 4 nT. The line of anomalies extended for
more than Boo feet (Figure 7). A faint linear acoustic signature that extended across
sonar records over at least four survey lines suggesting that magnetic anomalies
associated with target cluster ODMDS -3 was created by a wire rope or shielded cable
(Figure 8).
The linear relationship of the magnetic target and supporting sonar records indicates
it has little potential to be associated with a significant cultural resource. No
additional underwater archaeological investigation or mitigation is recommended.
■
s
I �
I
I
s
Figure 7. Target ODMDS -3 Magnetic Contour Signature.

19
Figure 8. Target ODMDS -3 Sonar Target Signature. (nadir removed from sonar record)

20
ODMDS -4
NC State Plane x= 2693245 Y= 329310
Target ODMDS -4 had a monopolar magnetic signature with an intensity of more
than 4 nT (Figure 9). No acoustic target signature was found in association with the
magnetic signature.
The simple monopolar characteristic of the targets signature suggests that it was
created by a single ferrous object with limited potential to be associated with a
significant submerged cultural resource. No additional investigation or mitigation is
recommended.
0
0 0
CO C11 Ir
CO CO CO
M M M
I'D kn
C11 N
329300
CMD
n-
Figure 9. Target ODMDS -4 Magnetic Contour Signature.
ODMDS -5
NC State Plane x= 2693107 y= 332650
Target cluster ODMDS -5 consisted of at least two dipolar magnetic anomalies on two
survey lines with a maximum magnetic intensity of 10 nT (Figure 1o). No acoustic
target signature was identified in association with the magnetic anomalies. The
intensity, proximity, and characteristics of the targets signatures suggest they may be
related or similar objects.
Although they may be related, the individual anomalies appear emanate from a
single source each with limited potential to be associated with a significant
submerged cultural resource. No additional underwater archaeological investigation
or mitigation is recommended.

21
0
Cq
CYD
0
4O iO
Cv Cv
332900
(0
�::D
0
332800
332700
OD MD S -,5
Figure 1o. Target Cluster ODMDS -5 Magnetic Contour Signature.
ODMDS -6
NC State Plane X= 2692702 y= 327105
Target ODMDS -6 consisted of broad multi- component magnetic anomaly on two
survey lines with a maximum magnetic intensity of 10 nT (Figure 11). No acoustic
target signature is associated with the magnetic signature.
Broad multi- component characteristics can be related to more than one ferrous
object or objects lying in close proximity. In some circumstances this type of

22
magnetic signature has the potential to be associated with a submerged cultural
resource; however this targets location within an offshore shore dredge disposal area
makes it more likely to be associated with ferrous debris. No additional underwater
archaeological investigation or mitigation is recommended.
0 0 0
ti CO
c� c�
C CN
c� c�
327
Figure ii. Target ODMDS -6 Magnetic Contour Signature.
ODMDS -7
NC State Plane x= 2692246 y= 327412
Target ODMDS -7 has a monopolar magnetic signature with an intensity of more
than 3 nT (Figure 12). No acoustic target signature was found in association with the
magnetic signature.
The simple monopolar characteristic of the targets signature suggests that it was
created by a single ferrous object with limited potential to be associated with a
significant submerged cultural resource. No additional investigation or mitigation is
recommended.

23
0 0
0
CV C�'7
N N
ON
N N
327400
MMD -7
Figure 12. Target ODMDS Magnetic Contour Signature.
ODMDS -8
NC State Plane x= 2691834 Y= 328491
Target ODMDS -8 consisted of multi- component magnetic anomaly detected on two
survey lines with a maximum magnetic intensity of 42 nT (Figure 13). No acoustic
target signature was recorded in association with the target.
The broad multi- component characteristics of the magnetic anomaly suggest that it
could be related to more than one ferrous object lying in close proximity. Because
this type of magnetic signature has the potential to be associated with a submerged
cultural resource, this target was selected for diver identification and assessment
during the target identification portion of this project.

24
Figure 13. Target ODMDS -8 Magnetic Contour Signature.
ODMDS -9
NC State Plane x= 2691951 Y= 332672
Target ODMDS -9 consisted of a broad single dipolar magnetic anomaly detected on
two survey lines with a maximum magnetic intensity of 10 nT (Figure 14). No
acoustic target signature was identified in association with the magnetic anomaly.
The simple dipolar characteristic of the target signature suggests that it was created
by a single object such a pipe or other linear object. No additional investigations or
mitigation are recommended

25
33 270 1
332
i
z
ODMDS-
Figure 14. Target ODMDS -9 Magnetic Contour Signature.
ODMDS -io
NC State Plane x= 2691471 y= 332058
Target ODMDS -10 consisted of a broad single dipolar magnetic anomaly detected on
two survey lines with a maximum magnetic intensity of 6 nT (Figure 15). No
acoustic target signature was identified in association with the magnetic anomaly.
The simple dipolar characteristic of the target signature suggests that it was created
by a single object such a pipe or other linear object. No additional investigations or
mitigation are recommended.
Cd
CV
i
z
ODMDS-
Figure 14. Target ODMDS -9 Magnetic Contour Signature.
ODMDS -io
NC State Plane x= 2691471 y= 332058
Target ODMDS -10 consisted of a broad single dipolar magnetic anomaly detected on
two survey lines with a maximum magnetic intensity of 6 nT (Figure 15). No
acoustic target signature was identified in association with the magnetic anomaly.
The simple dipolar characteristic of the target signature suggests that it was created
by a single object such a pipe or other linear object. No additional investigations or
mitigation are recommended.

m
0
qO
0
tV [V
332100
3320
ODMDS-10
Figure 15. Target ODMDS -10 Magnetic Contour Signature.
ODMDS -ii
NC State Plane x= 26goo67 y= 328602
Target ODMDS -11 had a single dipolar magnetic signature on two survey lines with a
maximum magnetic intensity of 8 nT (Figure 16). Acoustic records indicate at least
one linear object as well as other debris protruding above the bottom in same vicinity
as the magnetic anomaly (Figure 17).
Although this type of magnetic signature would appear to have limited potential to
be associated with a significant submerged cultural resource, the addition of an
acoustic signature made the target good candidate for target identification. Target
ODMDS -11 was selected for diver identification and assessment during the target
identification portion of this project.

828700
0
Ch
r�
ODMDS -ii
Figure 16. Target ODMDS -ii Magnetic Contour Signature.
Figure 17. Target ODMDS -ii associated Sonar Signature.
ODMDS 12
27

M
NC State Plane x= 2689758 Y= 329159
Target ODMDS -12 had a single dipolar magnetic signature on a single survey line
with a maximum magnetic intensity of 5 nT (Figure 18). A scatter of material
including linear objects protruding above was recorded on acoustic records in
association with the magnetic signature (Figure 19).
Although this type of magnetic signature would appear to have limited potential to
be associated with a significant submerged cultural resource, the addition of an
acoustic signature made the target good candidate for identification. Target
ODMDS -12 was selected for diver identification and assessment during the target
identification portion of this project.
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
OD
r OD O I OD
r'
329300
i
329200
4;iD
29100
ODD -1
Figure 18. Target ODMDS -12 Magnetic Contour Signature.

29
Figure 19. Sonar Signature associated with ODMDS -12.
ODMDS -13
NC State Plane x= 2689458 Y= 331823
Target Cluster Q2 -13 consisted of two dipolar magnetic anomalies on three survey
lines with a maximum magnetic intensity of 11 nT (Figure 2o). No acoustic target
signature was recorded in associations with the magnetic anomalies. The intensity,
proximity, and characteristics of the targets' signatures suggest they may be related
or at least similar ferrous objects.
Although they may be related, the individual anomalies appear emanate from a
single source each with limited potential to be associated with a significant
submerged cultural resource. No additional underwater archaeological investigation
or mitigation is recommended.

30
0 0
0 0 0
N 0] V 01
S 6 6 6
OD OO-D OD
N N N
N N L N N
3ig0o
i800
�0 0
ODMDS-1
Figure 20. Target Cluster ODMDS -13 Magnetic Contour Signature.
ODMDS -14
NC State Plane x= 2688258 Y= 331380
Target ODMDS -14 had a dipolar magnetic signature with an intensity of more than 4
nT (Figure 2o). A large mound of sand /sediment was identified on acoustic records
associated with the magnetic anomaly.
Based on the mound in the sonar signature the target appears to be associated with a
relatively recent dredge material disposal site. No additional investigation or
mitigation is recommended.

31
00 00 m
�
OD 00
00 OD 00
OD
In n ID
N N N N
331500
o
331300
ODMDS-14
Figure 21. Target ODMDS -14 Magnetic Contour Signature.
Figure 22. Target ODMDS -14 Magnetic Contour Signature.

32
ODMDS -15
NC State Plane x= 2686524 Y= 332863
Target ODMDS -15 consisted of multi- component magnetic anomaly detected on two
survey lines with a maximum magnetic intensity of 6 nT (Figure 23). No acoustic
target signature was recorded in association with the target.
Broad multi- component characteristics can be related to more than one ferrous
object or objects lying in close proximity. In some circumstances this type of
magnetic signature has the potential to be associated with a submerged cultural
resource; however this targets location within an offshore shore dredge disposal area
makes it more likely to be associated with ferrous debris. No additional underwater
archaeological investigation or mitigation is recommended
O 0
0 O
LO
M
332900
332800
ODMDS-1
Figure 23. Target ODMDS -15 Magnetic Contour Signature.

33
ODMDS -i6
NC State Plane x= 2685354 Y= 325494
Target ODMDS -16 consisted of two monopolar magnetic anomalies recorded along a
two survey lines with a maximum magnetic intensity of more than 2 nT (Figure 24).
No acoustic target signature was identified in association with the magnetic
anomalies. The target appears to be one or more associated objects possibly a
section of wire rope. No additional underwater archaeological investigation or
mitigation is recommended.
0 0 0 0
O O O
N [r7 V LO �
LO LO
[o OD m m
N N N
32
ODDS -16
325400
Figure 24. Target Cluster Q2 -16 Magnetic Contour Signature.
ODMDS -17
NC State Plane x= 2685258 Y= 332187
Target ODMDS -17 consisted of a single dipolar magnetic anomaly on a single survey
line with a maximum magnetic intensity of 9 nT (Figure 25). No acoustic target
signature was identified in association with the magnetic anomalies.
The simple dipolar characteristic of the targets signature suggests that it was created
by a single object such a pipe or other linear object with limited potential to be
associated with a significant submerged cultural resource. No additional
investigation or mitigation is recommended.

34
❑ o
CO cc 00 - N N N
332200--
332100
ODMDS-17
Figure 25. Target ODMDS -17 Magnetic Contour Signature.
ODMDS -i8
NC State Plane x= 2685275 Y= 330778
Target ODMDS -18 consisted of a single dipolar magnetic anomaly on a single survey
line with a maximum magnetic intensity of 8 nT (Figure 26). No acoustic target
signature was identified in association with the magnetic anomalies.
The simple dipolar characteristic of the targets signature suggests that it was created
by a single object such a pipe or other linear object with limited potential to be
associated with a significant submerged cultural resource. No additional
investigation or mitigation is recommended.

Q g
ev CO
LO LO
0
cv CA
0800
35
Figure 26. Target ODMDS -18 Magnetic Contour Signature.
ODMDS -i9
NC State Plane x= 2684952 Y= 329756
Target ODMDS -19 was a monopolar magnetic anomaly recorded along a single
survey line with a maximum magnetic intensity of more than 3 nT (Figure 27). No
acoustic target signature was identified in association with the magnetic anomaly.
The simple monopolar characteristic of the targets signature suggests that it was
created by a single ferrous object with limited potential to be associated with a
significant submerged cultural resource. No additional investigation or mitigation is
recommended.
O MDS -i8
Figure 26. Target ODMDS -18 Magnetic Contour Signature.
ODMDS -i9
NC State Plane x= 2684952 Y= 329756
Target ODMDS -19 was a monopolar magnetic anomaly recorded along a single
survey line with a maximum magnetic intensity of more than 3 nT (Figure 27). No
acoustic target signature was identified in association with the magnetic anomaly.
The simple monopolar characteristic of the targets signature suggests that it was
created by a single ferrous object with limited potential to be associated with a
significant submerged cultural resource. No additional investigation or mitigation is
recommended.

Li
o D
LO
CO
c� eil
329800
329700
ODMD S-
Figure 27. Target ODMDS -19 Magnetic Contour Signature.
ODMDS -2o
NC State Plane x= 2684659 Y= 330275
Target ODMDS -20 consisted of a single dipolar magnetic anomaly on a single survey
line with a maximum magnetic intensity of 6 nT. No acoustic target signature was
identified in association with the magnetic anomaly.
The simple dipolar characteristics of the targets signature suggests that it was
created by a single object such a pipe or other linear object. No additional
investigations or mitigation are recommended.

37
0 0 0
0 0
00 CO CO. .
ry ry
330300
C
33020
Figure 28. Target ODMDS -20 Magnetic Contour Signature.
ODMDS -21
NC State Plane x= 2684164 y= 328818
Target ODMDS -21 single dipolar magnetic anomaly on a single survey line with a
maximum magnetic intensity of 9 nT (Figure 29). A single linear object
approximately 8 feet in length and protruding above the bottom was recorded on
acoustic records in association with the magnetic signature (Figure 30).
Although this type of magnetic signature would appear to have limited potential to
be associated with a significant submerged cultural resource, the addition of an
acoustic signature made the target good candidate for identification. Target
ODMDS -21 was selected for diver identification and assessment during the target
identification portion of this project.

328900
328800
Mwel
RLbi
0
0
CO
❑DMDS -21
Figure 29. Target ODMDS -21 Magnetic Contour Signature.
Figure 30. ODMDS -21 Acoustic Target Signature.

39
ODMDS -22
NC State Plane x= 2684346 y= 32736o
Target ODMDS -22 consisted of broad dipolar magnetic anomaly on two survey lines
with a maximum magnetic intensity of 5 nT (Figure 22). No acoustic target
signature is associated with the magnetic signature.
Although very broad the simple dipolar characteristic of the targets signature
suggests that it was created by a single object such a linear object with limited
potential to be associated with a significant submerged cultural resource. No
additional investigation or mitigation is recommended.
O O O
O O
L
ID I
ID ID
N N
00
327300
ODMD 2
Figure 31. Target ODMDS -22 Magnetic Contour Signature.
ODMDS -23
NC State Plane x= 2684477 Y= 325366
Target ODMDS -23 consisted of broad monopolar magnetic anomaly on two or three
survey lines with a maximum magnetic intensity of 3 nT (Figure 32). No acoustic
target signature is associated with the magnetic signature.
Although very broad the simple monopolar characteristics of the targets signature
suggests that it was created by a single object. No additional investigation or
mitigation is recommended.

M
° O 0 °
P
00 OD 00
m � m
2
325300
f
f
ODMDS -23
Figure 32. Target ODMDS -23 Magnetic Contour Signature.
ODMDS -24
NC State Plane x= 2683689 Y= 327949
Target ODMDS -24 consisted of broad multi- component magnetic anomaly on two
survey lines with a maximum magnetic intensity of io nT (Figure 33). No acoustic
target signature is associated with the magnetic signature.
The broad multi- component characteristics of the magnetic anomaly suggest that it
could be related to more than one ferrous object lying in close proximity. Because
this type of magnetic signature has the potential to be associated with a submerged
cultural resource, this target was selected for diver identification and assessment
during the target identification portion of this project.

o a o
CO
M M
00
ODMDS -24
Figure 33. Target ODMDS -24 Magnetic Contour Signature.
ODMDS -25
NC State Plane x= 2682463 y= 327117
41
Target ODMDS -25 consisted of a mostly dipolar magnetic anomaly detected on a
single survey line with a maximum magnetic intensity of 6 nT (Figure 34). No
acoustic target signature was recorded in association with the target.
The simple dipolar characteristics of the targets signature suggests that it was
created by a single object such a pipe or other linear object. No additional
investigations or mitigation are recommended.

42
O 0 4
� Ln O
N N N
CO
D "I p
N
327100
g27o
OD _ -
Figure 34. Target ODMDS -25 Magnetic Contour Signature.

43
IDENTIFICATION OF SELECTED TARGETS
One of the primary goals for the this project was the identification and assessment of
io previously recorded remote sensing targets found during a 2007 remote sensing
survey also conducted by M -AT under contract with US Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District. The report entitled An Archaeological Remote Sensing Survey
of Bogue Banks Offshore Borrow Areas, Carteret County, North Carolina was
finalized in 2oo8 (Hall 2oo8).
As part of the Carteret County's long range beach nourishment EIS nine (9) remote
sensing targets from the 2007 underwater archaeological survey in Borrow Area Q2
and one target (1) from Borrow Area Y were selected to be identified and
archaeologically assessed for this investigation. An additional six (6) targets were
also selected following completion of the ODMDS remote sensing survey creating a
total of 16 targets to be identified.
M -AT's underwater archaeology team conducted the target identification survey
from a 25400t long survey vessel /dive platform. Target relocation was achieved
using the survey software HYPACK's navigation program and DGPS positioning to
return to the North Carolina State Plane coordinates for each target location.
At each target's location the vessel was maneuvered into a position as close as
possible to target coordinates and a buoy was deployed to mark its position. In some
cases, such as complex target clusters, either a side scan sonar or a marine
magnetometer was used to further resolve target positions or to select particular
anomalies within the group. Once the position was marked by a buoy the survey
vessel was anchored over that location and a diver was deployed. In the cases of a
buried target (indicated by a magnetic anomaly) underwater archaeologists typically
employed a handheld underwater proton - precession magnetometer to find the exact
location of the anomalies' signature on bottom. Once confirmed, the marker buoy
was move to that location on the bottom. Next, if no evidence of the target was
identified on the ocean floor, a io- foot -long 3/4 -inch hydraulic probe was used to
penetrate the bottom in a concentrated probing pattern around the buoy weight until
the ferrous object was found.
In some cases objects such as wire rope or pipe, could be effectively identified during
the probing process. In other cases where the target could not be identified by
simple probing, a 4 -inch handheld induction dredge - powered by a 21/2 -inch fire
pump, was employed to excavate down to the material creating the magnetic
anomaly. Test excavations to depths below about five feet proved to be difficult and
somewhat dangerous. At depths over three feet it was necessary to widen and
terrace the test hole to keep the sometimes vertical walls from sloughing in on divers.
For this reason test excavations over five- feet -deep were avoided if it was possible to
reasonably identify the source of the anomaly by hydraulic probing.

M"
Borrow Area Q2 Target Identification
From Borrow Area Q2 targets Q2 -20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 were selected
for identification. Only target Q2 -3o had an accompanying acoustic signature
(Figure 36).
Borrow Area Q2 Targets Selected for Identification:
Q2- 2o- Cluster
NC State Plane x= 2692898 Y= 337662
Original Target Description:
Target Q2 -20 was recorded as a cluster of multi- component and smaller dipolar
anomalies on five survey lines with a maximum magnetic intensity of 145 nT (Figure
35)• No acoustic target signature was identified in association with the magnetic
anomalies.
Q2 -2o
Testing Location: x= 2692852 y= 337668
Testing Results:
After probing and excavation of one of the magnetic anomalies within the cluster the
target was identified, as 1 -inch wire rope buried 5 feet below the bottom.
Figure 35. Target Cluster Q2 -20 Magnetic Contour Signature.

0 0 0
n 0 0 0 l� OD 0 0 O O o 0 0 o O o 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o O O o 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 o O o O o O o O
O N Cl) V M 10 L, 00 T O N 7 lO DD O o o
M
DD DD DD ao OD ao DD DD DD ao O1 T P T P T P T P O O O O
%D to %D %D lD %D %D %D %D %D to %D %D %D %D L, L,
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Q2 -2i- Cluster
NC State Plane x= 2696327 Y= 336350
Original Target Description:
Target Cluster Q2 -21 consisted of several widely scattered dipolar magnetic
anomalies on 8 survey lines with a maximum magnetic intensity of 10 nT (Figure
37). No acoustic target signature was identified in association with the magnetic
anomalies.
Q2 -21
Testing Location: x= 2696168 y= 336326
Testing Results:
After probing and excavation, a portion of the target cluster was identified as a steel
belted automobile tire buried 7 feet. In addition, divers also believe they
encountered some small diameter wire rope at a depth of approximately 9 feet and in
the immediate vicinity of the tire.
O O O O O O O O O O
6} 6} 47 6} 47 47 6} 07 61
co co [a co [a [a co [a co [a [D (0
N N N N N N N N {V N {V
336400
336300
336200
6
336100
336000
335900
�I
335800
Figure 37. Target Cluster Q2 -21 Magnetic Contour Signature.
Q2 -23- Cluster

47
NC State Plane x= 2691870 y =33495
Original Target Description:
Target Cluster Q2 -23 consisted of widely scattered multi- component and dipolar
magnetic anomalies on 12 survey lines with a maximum magnetic intensity of 48 nT
(Figure 38). No acoustic target signature was identified in association with the
magnetic anomalies.
Q2 -23
Testing Location: x= 269190o y= 335635
Testing Results:
After probing of one of the magnetic anomalies within the target cluster was
identified a concrete pipe or piling 12 to 16- inches in diameter buried approximately
6 to 7 feet below the bottom. No excavation was conducted due to the depth of the
object.
ZD
Z�\
CID
Figure 38. Target Cluster Q2 -23 Magnetic Contour Signature.

.;
Q2- 24- Cluster
NC State Plane x= 2693811 Y= 334618
Original Target Description:
Target Cluster Q2 -24 consisted of widely scattered multi- component and dipolar
magnetic anomalies on 13 survey lines with a maximum magnetic intensity of 44 nT
(Figure 28). No acoustic target signature was identified in association with the
magnetic anomalies.
Q2 -24
Testing Location: x= 2693810 Y= 334625
Testing Results:
After probing and excavation of one of the anomalies within the target cluster a 2-
inch wire rope with an associated 2 -inch steel ring was identified. The object was
possibly a tow bridle or lift -sling buried 4 to 5 feet below the bottom.
33510
�N
0
�vv
o� a0
�a
Figure 39. Target Cluster Q2 -24 Magnetic Contour Signature.

Q2- 28- Cluster
NC State Plane x= 2696546 Y= 332769
Original Target Description:
Target Cluster Q2 -28 consisted of multi- component
with a maximum magnetic intensity of 20 nT. No
identified in association with the magnetic anomalies.
M
anomaly on three survey lines
acoustic target signature was
Q2 -28
Testing Location: x= 2686441 Y= 332821
Testing Results:
Probing and excavation was conducted at of one of the magnetic anomalies within
the Q2 -28 target cluster. The anomaly was identified as what appeared to be
concrete rubble with rebar reinforcement. The concrete rubble was buried 4 to 6
feet. Also identified (probing only) was some type of steel plate or flat steel object
over 2 feet in width and buried approximately 8 feet deep.
CD CD CD
CD CD 0
Lf) cc
co cc co
00
c co
N N CV N
r
332900
332800
r �
332700
NC State Plane Coordnates -N D 1983
Figure 40. Target Cluster Q2 -28 Magnetic Contour Signature.

50
Q2- 29- Cluster
NC State Plane x= 2688551 Y= 333005
Original Target Description:
Target Cluster Q2 -29 consisted of two low intensity dipolar anomalies on two survey
lines with a maximum magnetic intensity of 12 nT. No acoustic target signature was
identified in association with the magnetic anomalies.
Q2 -29
Testing Location: x= 2688423 Y= 333026
Testing Results:
Target Q2 -29 was relocated on the bottom with a handheld magnetometer then
extensively probed down to 10 feet below the bottom. No identification of the object
creating the magnetic anomaly was made. The object was either buried deeper than
ten feet or was small enough to be missed by concentrated probing.
CD CD CD CD
CD CD CD CD
Lf) Q0 r- OD
OD OD OD OD
OD OD OD OD
Q0 Q0 Q0 Q0
C4 C4 C4
333100 L
LD
333aaa
332000
XC Smk PI -e0 -dk-kr XAD iS3
Figure 41. Target Cluster Q2 -29 Magnetic Contour Signature.

51
Q2 -30- Cluster
NC State Plane x= 2690490 Y= 333515
Original Target Description:
Target Cluster Q2 -30 consisted of multi- component and dipolar magnetic anomalies
on six to eight survey lines with a maximum magnetic intensity of 16 nT. Acoustic
records associated with the anomalies show a pile of linear objects over 70 feet in
length by 20 feet wide exposed just above the bottom.
Q2 -3o
Testing Location: x= 2688423 Y= 333026
Testing Results:
Target Q2 -30 was relocated on the bottom with a handheld magnetometer then
extensively probed down to 10 feet below the bottom. No identification of the object
creating the magnetic anomaly was made. The object was either buried deeper than
ten feet or was small enough to be missed by concentrated probing. The sonar image
originally found associated with the magnetic anomaly appears to have been created
by a large size school of fish. Although and interesting shipwreck shaped image it
appears to have been only coincidental to the anomaly cluster.
Figure 42. Target Cluster Q2 -30 Magnetic Contour Signature.
o a o 0 0
333700
co 0 0) m CD
N N N
0
4
kcv
333600
333500
P
f
o
333400
333300
4
NC State Plane Coordinates -NAB 1983
Figure 42. Target Cluster Q2 -30 Magnetic Contour Signature.

52
�I
r�
73 ft �.
Figure 43. Target 30 — Acoustic Target Signature.
Q2 -3i- Cluster
NC State Plane x =2693045 Y= 332$56
Original Target Description:
Target Cluster Q2 -31 consisted of multi- component and dipolar magnetic anomalies
on four to six survey lines with a maximum magnetic intensity of 24 nT. No acoustic
target signature was identified in association with the magnetic anomalies.
Q2 -3i
Testing Location: x= 2693141 Y= 332$15
Testing Results:
After extensive probing of one of the magnetic anomalies within the target cluster
was identified as approximately 1 -inch wire rope buried approximately 6 to 7 feet
below the bottom. No excavation was conducted due to the depth of the object.

53
CD o a o 0 0
CD o { a o o f, o
0o rn j f j o ry l! r�
rN rN M
rn rn rn rn rn
�n cn �n cn �n cn
rN rN rN rN rN rN
333100
333000}
C7
332900
332800
332704
NC to PI n s-NAD 1983
Figure 44. Target Cluster Q2 -31 Magnetic Contour Signature.
Q2 -32- Cluster
NC State Plane x= 2695255 Y= 332311
Original Target Description:
Target Cluster Q2 -32 consisted of multi- component and dipolar magnetic anomalies
on 12 to 14 survey lines with a maximum magnetic intensity of 38 nT. No acoustic
target signature was identified in association with the magnetic anomalies.
Q2 -32
Testing Location: x= 269452$ Y= 332526
Testing Results:
After extensive probing of one of the magnetic anomalies within the target cluster
was identified as a coil of either wire rope or steel wire buried approximately 8 feet
below the bottom. No excavation was conducted due to the depth of the object.

333100 I U ,
� V
31a I o
54
Figure 45. Target Cluster Q2 -32 Magnetic Contour Signature.
Borrow Area Y Target Identification
In Borrow Area Y there was only one target: Y- 1(Figure46).
Y -1
NC State Plane x= 2690477 Y= 333505
Original Target Description:
Target Y -1 consisted of multi- component magnetic anomaly with maximum
magnetic intensity of 16 nT (Figure 47). Acoustic records associated with the
anomaly identified an unusually shaped object (much like an historic steam boiler)
approximately 16 feet long by 7 feet wide (Figure 48).
Y -1
Testing Location: x= 2690475 8 Y= 332490
Testing Results:
Divers identified the target as what appears to be a natural sandstone rock outcrop
covered with various types of soft and hard corals. A small modern anchor and chain
a few feet north of outcrop may responsible for the magnetic signature originally
found associated with the target. Surrounding the rock outcrop the bottom was
covered by a thin veneer of sand and scattered soft corals (Figures 49 -52)•

33
N,*Cerolim Slate Pla C,,,v - NAD1983
A
Figure 46. Magnetic Contour and Target Location Map Borrow Area Y.

m
0 0
0 0
0 T-
o 0
m G7
LO LO
CV iV
320200
320100
Figure 47. Target Y -1 Magnetic Contour Signature.
Figure 48. Target Y -1 Acoustic Target Signature.

57
Although visibility was limited on the day of the site investigation, below are some
images captured off of video taken at Target Y -1:
Figure 49. Target Y -1 sandstone outcrop and corals
Figure 50. Target Y -1 hard corals over three feet in diameter on rock outcrop.

M
Figure 51. Target Y -1 close -up of hard corals
Figure 52. Target Y -1 corals with fish.

59
Borrow Area ODMDS Target Identification
Of the 25 target /anomalies recorded in the ODMDS Borrow Area six were select for
diver identification during this project: ODMDS targets 2, 8, 11, 12, 21 and 24 were
investigated by underwater archaeologist (see Figure 4). Original target
descriptions, contours and sonar signatures for the ODMDS Survey area are
presented in the remote sensing section of this report.
ODMDS Targets Selected for Identification:
ODMDS -2
Testing Location: x= 2694963 Y= 332711
Testing Results:
During probing the anomaly was identified as a single linear ferrous object 6 or fl-
inches in diameter and buried approximately 7 feet. Divers were unable to
determine the length of the object. The object was determined to be rounded or oval
in shape possibly a section of steel pipe or bar. After concentrated probing within a
15 -foot radius of the object no other objects were encountered down to a depth of lo-
feet below the bottom.
ODMDS -8
Testing Location: x= 2691818 y= 332495
Testing Results:
During probing the magnetic anomaly was identified as a coil or loop of at least 11/2 -
inch wire rope buried approximately 7 feet below the bottom. No excavation was
conducted due to the depth of the object.
ODMDS -ii
Testing Location: x= 269oo68 y= 3328605
Testing Results:
Although hampered by poor visibility, divers identified a 6 -foot long section of four -
inch iron or steel pipe and the remains of a yellow reef buoy.
ODMDS -12
Testing Location: x= 268976o y= 329159
Testing Results:
Although hampered by poor visibility, divers partially identified the material
producing the targets signatures as 4 to 5 inch braided polypropylene hawser and
what was possibly the remains of a homemade a rebar grappling hook.

M9
ODMDS -21
Testing Location: x= 268976o y= 329159
Testing Results:
Identified by a diver on the bottom as an approximately 8 -foot long by 12 -inch in
diameter steel pipe or cylinder. The walls of the cylinder were at least 3- inches thick.
Figure 53. Target ODMDS -21 end view of steel cylinder.
ODMDS -24 Testing Location: x= 26918i8 y= 332495
Testing Results:
During probing the magnetic anomaly was identified as a coil or loop of at least f-
inch wire rope buried approximately 5 to 6 feet below the bottom. No excavation
was conducted due to the depth of the object.

61
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
At the completion the archaeological remote sensing survey of the ODMDS Borrow
Area a total of 25 individual and clustered magnetic anomalies were identified. Of
these anomalies five were found to be associated with a sonar target signature. A
total of six (6) of the 25 were recommended for addition investigations. These
included Targets ODMDS -2, 8, ii, 12, 21, and 24. The remaining 19 targets were
classified as unlikely to have the potential to be associated with a significant
submerge cultural resource (Appendix B - Table of Remote Sensing Targets ODMDS
Borrow Area)
Following the remote sensing survey of the borrow area Phase II investigations to
identify and assess targets commenced. Diving was conducted to identify nine
targets in the Q2 Borrow Area, one target in the Y Borrow Area, and six targets in the
ODMDS borrow area. At the completion of diving investigations 14 of the 16 targets
had been relocated and at least partially identified. Two of the targets in area Q2
were relocated with a handheld underwater magnetometer on the ocean bottom
however; these targets were not found after extensive probing down to a depth of ten
feet. It would appear that the targets were either deeply buried or physically small
enough to be missed by probing (see Appendix C - .Target Identification and
Assessment).
All of the targets identified during this project were found to be associated with
modern debris that is either related to the present day Ocean Dredge Material
Disposal Site or past artificial reef systems such as the tire reefs created in the 1970s.
Target Y -1 near Bogue Inlet proved to be associated with a small natural rock
outcrop and covered with extensive coral growth. No submerged cultural resources
or historic artifacts were identified during the investigations of Borrow Areas Q2, Y -1
or ODMDS.

62
REFERENCES
Angley, Wilson
1982 An Historic Overview of The Beaufort Inlet - Cape Lookout Area of North
Carolina. Report on file at the Research Branch, N. C. Division of
Archives and History, Raleigh, North Carolina.
1984 An Historical Overview of Bogue Inlet. North Carolina Division of Archives
and History, Raleigh, NC.
Berman, Bruce D.
1972 Encyclopedia of American Shipwrecks. The Mariners Press, Boston.
Hall, Wes
2oo8 An Archaeological Remote Sensing Survey of Bogue Banks Offshore Borrow
Areas, Carteret County, North Carolina. Report on File at U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Wilmington District
Hill, Mrs. Fred.
1975 Historic Carteret County, North Carolina. Carteret County Historical
Research Association, Beaufort, North Carolina.
Konkle, Burton A.
1922 John Motley Morehead and the Development of North Carolina,1796-
1866. William J. Campbell, Philadelphia.
Lytle, William M. and Forrest R. Holdcamper.
1975 Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States 1790 - 1868, "The Lytle
Holdcamper List." The Steamship Historical Society of America, Staten
Island, New York.
Marx, Robert F.
1975 Shipwrecks of the Western Hemisphere, 1492 -1825. New York: David
McKay and Co.
Newsome, A. R. (editor)
1929 A Miscellany from the Thomas Henderson Letter Book, 1810 -1811.
North Carolina Historical Review.

63
Newton, J. G., O. N. Pilkey, and J. O. Blanton
1971 Wreck lists and charts in North Carolina Department of Conservation and
Development. Division of Mineral Resources. An Oceanographic Atlas of the
Carolina Continental Margin. Prepared at Duke University Marine
Laboratory at Beaufort, North Carolina, from research supported by the North
Carolina Board of Science and Technology, the United States Science
Foundation, and the United States Geological Survey.
Paul, Charles L.
197o Beaufort, North Carolina: Its Development as a Colonial Town. North
Carolina Historical Review No. 47, October, pp. 370 -387.
Shomette, Donald G.
1973 Shipwrecks of the Civil War. Donic Ltd., Washington, D. C.
Stick, David
1952 Graveyard of the Atlantic: Shipwrecks of the North Carolina Coast. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
1958 The Outer Banks of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Tubby, Raymond
2000 Historical and Archaeological Investigation of the 1750 Spanish Plate Fleet
Vessel El Salvador. Unpublished Masters thesis, East Carolina University.
United States Congress, Senate Executive Document, No. 78, 33rd Congress,
1st Session.
Watts, Gordon P. Jr. et al.
1975 Report of the Activities of the 1975 Field School in Underwater Archaeology,
Cape Lookout Vicinity. Unpublished report by Underwater Archaeology Unit,
prepared for the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources and the
University of North Carolina at Wilmington.

E
Watts, Gordon P. Jr.
1992 A Remote Sensing Survey and Reconnaissance Investigations to Identify and
Assess Targets Located Along Range A, a Bar Channel Widener, a Channel
Extension, and Two Spoil Deposits at Beaufort, Inlet North Carolina. Report
on file Environmental Resources Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
District, Wilmington, North Carolina
1997 Underwater Remote Sensing Survey and Diver Inspection near Beaufort
Inlet, North Carolina. Report on file Environmental Resources Branch U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers District, Wilmington, North Carolina
www.ah.der.state.ne.us/QAR
2007 An Historical Overview of the Beaufort — Cape Lookout Area. Archives and
History, Division of Cultural Resource, State of the North Carolina web site.
www.nestateports.com
2007 History of North Carolina State Ports Authority. North Carolina State Port
Authority Web Site. Internet world wide web.

65
APPENDIX A - SHIPWRECKS IN THE VICINITY OF BOGUE BANKS
Name of Vessel
Type
Tons
Cause
Date Lost D -M -Y
Place
Comments
Reference
6
Queen Anne's Revenge
ship
?
grounded
o6 - ?? -1718
Topsail Inlet /Beaufort Inlet
6
Adventure
sloop
?
grounded
o6 - ?? -1718
Topsail Inlet ?Beaufort Inlet
6
El Salvador
snow
?
grounded
o8 -30 -1750
Cape Lookout - South
34,6
Susannah
schooner
?
grounded
04 -02 -1753
At entrance to Old Topsail Inlet
4,6
unknown
brig
?
grounded
10 -19 -1769
At Old Topsail Inlet
6
unknown
brig
?
ran ashore
? ? -09 -1769
Below Topsail Inlet
6
Betsy
sloop
?
grounded
01 -01 -1771
At Old Topsail Inlet
5,6
Hero
schnooner
?
grounded
02 -09 -1790
Beaufort Bar
5,6
Polly
sloop
?
unknown
07 -16 -1793
Ashore near Beaufort
5,6
unknown
brig
?
grounded
09 -17 -1814
Beaufort Bar
6
Antelope
schooner
?
grounded
03 -10 -1815
Near Beaufort
6
Eagle
brig
?
unknown
03 -10 -1815
Near Beaufort
6
Orleans
brig
?
unknown
03 -10 -1815
Near Beaufort
6
Harriot
ship
?
unknown
o6 -25 -1817
Bogue Banks near Beaufort
6
Santa Maria
ship
?
grounded
03 -22 -1819
Beaufort Bar
6
Tionel
schooner
?
grounded
04 -12 -1842
West of Beaufort Bar
2
Delaware
schooner
?
unknown
28 -12 -1844
4 mi. SW Beaufort Bat
1
Colonel Hanson
schooner
ran ashore
04 -09 -1846
Bogue Banks run ashore at Swansboro
1
Walter J. Doyle
schooner
unknown
03 - ?? -1852
Beaufort Bar
2,34
Sun
schooner
unknown
01 -13 -1854
Beaufort Inlet
2,34
Charles M. Creese
schooner
unknown
o9 - ?? -1851
Beaufort Inlet
3
unknown
schooner
grounded
11 - ?? -1863
Bogue Inlet
1
Pevensey
steamer
543
ran ashore
o6 -o9 -1864
Bogue Banks iron hull
blockade runner
2,3,
Quinnebaugh
steamer
186
stranded
07 -2o -1865
Shackleford Banks
4
Fearless
steamer
128
stranded
11 -15 -1866
Beaufort
4
Jonas Sparks
schooner
?
unknown
04 -14 -1867
Beaufort Bar
2,34
Katy Wentworth
schooner
294
unknown
18 -11 -1886
Bogue Banks
1 live lost
2,34
Bronx
sloop
24
unknown
o6 -21 -1892
3 miles SW Beaufort
2,34
Carrie L. Davis
schooner
?
ran ashore
? ? - ?? -1902
Bogue Inlet total loss of
cargo and vessel
1
Thomas L. James
schooner
?
ran ashore
??-??-1902
Bogue Inlet
total lost of cargo
1
Governor Safford
steamer
307
ran ashore
24 -07 -1908
near Bogue Inlet
1
Clifton
steamer
256
stranded
18 -05 -1909
Beaufort
built 1864
4
M.B. Davis
schooner
18
foundered
8 -12 -1917
near Bogue Inlet
1
Maside
steamer
39
unknown
12 -14 -1920
2 mi. S of Fort Macon
2
Louise Howard
schooner
173
unknown
14 -04 -1921
3 mi. S of Fort Macon station
1
Alela
power yacht
70
burnt
20 -05 -1923
2 mi. NE of Fort Macon station
built 1913
24
Juno
tug
62
foundered
22 -07 -1923
Beaufort
built 1876
4
Morris and Cliff
schooner
132
foundered
16 -o1 -1926
near Bogue Inlet
1,2
W.E. Hutton
tanker
4359
sunk
18 -03 -1942
off Bogue Inlet sunk by
German Submarine
1,2
Senateur Duhamel
trawler
133
unknown
19 -12 -1942
34 41'09"N, 760 43'18"W
built 1923
2
Libertad
cargo
93
foundered
o8 -12 -1952
Beaufort Inlet
2
Doswell S. Edwards
cargo
93
foundered
12 -o8 -1952
Beaufort Inlet
built 1926
2

Mom
Reference Sources to Shipwreck List
1. Angley, Wilson. An Historical Overview of Bogue Inlet, Research Branch, North Carolina Division of Archives and History.
2. Wreck lists and charts in North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development. Division of Mineral Resources. An Oceanographic Atlas of
the Carolina Continental Margin. By J. G. Newton, O. N. Pilkey, and J. O. Blanton, 1971. Prepared at Duke University Marine Laboratory at
Beaufort, North Carolina, from research supported by the North Carolina Board of Science and Technology, the United States Science Foundation,
and the United States Geological Survey.
3. Stick, David. Graveyard of the Atlantic: Shipwrecks of the North Carolina Coast. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1952•
4. Berman, Bruce D. Encyclopedia ofAmerican Shipwrecks, Boston, Mass.: The Mariners Press, 1972.
5. Marx, Robert F. Shipwrecks of the Western Hemisphere, 1492 -1825. New York: David McKay and Co., 1975•
6. www.garonline.org. Eighteen Century Shipwrecks in the vicinity of BeaufortlnletArea. Archives and History, Division of Cultural Resource, State
of the North Carolina web site

92
APPENDIX B - TABLE OF REMOTE SENSING TARGETS ODMDS BORROW AREA
An Archaeological Remote Sensing and Target Identification Survey of Bogue Banks Offshore Borrow
Areas Q2, Yl and ODMDS, Carteret County, North Carolina
Target
NC - State Plane Coord.
Mag /max nT/ +/- 1 nT influence
Sonar ID
Recommendations / Avoidance Buffer
ODMDS -1
x= 2696456 Y= 331126
Mono /48nT/ +/ -100 ft
n/a
no additional investigations
ODMDS -2
x= 26951441 Y= 332875
clust. dipol /multi/5 -20 nT /200 ft
n/a
add. uw invest/ ID.this project
ODMDS -3
x= 2694491 Y= 330904
clust. dipol,mono /1 -4 nT /40 -8oft.
linear obj over 600 ft. -wire rope
no additional investigations
ODMDS -4
x= 2693245 Y= 329310
mono /4 nT /100 ft
n/a
no additional investigations
ODMDS -5
x= 2693107 Y= 332650
2x - dipol /lo nT /75 ft
n/a
no additional investigations
ODMDS -6
x= 2692702 Y= 327105
broad multi /10 nt /200 ft.
n/a
no additional investigations
ODMDS -7
x= 2692246 Y= 327412
mono /3 nT /100 ft.
n/a
no additional investigations
ODMDS -8
x= 2691834 Y= 328491
multi /42 nT /250 ft.
n/a
add. uw invest /ID. this project
ODMDS -9
x= 2691951 Y= 332672
dipol /lo nT /125 ft.
n/a
no additional investigations
ODMDS -lo
x= 2691471 Y= 332058
dipol /6 nT /120 ft.
n/a
no additional investigations
ODMDS -11
x= 2690067 Y= 328602
dipol /8 nT /loo ft.
wide scat obj.1 -linear 6ft.
add. uw invest /ID this project
ODMDS -12
x= 2689758 Y= 329159
dip01/5 nT /loo ft.
scat. objects w/ linear 35ft +
add. uw invest /ID. this project
ODMDS -13
x= 2689458 Y= 331823
cluster 2- dip01/5 nT /125 ft.
n/a
no additional investigations
ODMDS -14
x= 2688258 Y= 331380
dip01/4 nT /75 ft
mound 70 feet w /obj. /dump site
no additional investigations
ODMDS -15
x= 2686524 Y= 332863
multi /6 nT /150 ft
n/a
no additional investigations
ODMDS -16
x= 2685354 Y= 325494
mono /2 nT /100 ft
n/a
no additional investigations
ODMDS -17
x= 2685258 Y= 332187
dipol /9 nT /loo ft
n/a
no additional investigations
ODMDS -18
x= 2685275 Y= 330778
dipol /8 nT /100 ft
n/a
no additional investigations
ODMDS -19
x= 2684952 Y= 329756
mono /3 nT /100 ft
n/a
no additional investigations
ODMDS -2o
x= 2684659 Y= 330275
dipol /6 nT /110 ft
n/a
no additional investigations.
ODMDS -21
x= 2684164 Y= 328818
dipol /9 nT /125 ft
Linear obj. 8 ft.
add. uw invest /ID. this project
ODMDS -22
x= 2684346 Y= 327360
broad dip01/5 nT /200 ft
n/a
no additional investigations
ODMDS -23
x= 2684477 Y= 325366
mono /3 nT /200 ft
n/a
no additional investigations
ODMDS -24
x= 2683689 Y= 327949
multi /10 nT /220 ft
n/a
add. uw invest /ID. this project
ODMDS -25
x= 2682463 Y= 327117
dipol /6 nT /100 ft
n/a
no additional investigations

•:
APPENDIX C - TARGET IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT
An Archaeological Remote Sensing and Target Identification Survey of Bogue Banks Offshore Borrow
Areas Q2, Y1 and ODMDS, Carteret County, North Carolina
Target
Coord. Of Object or Testing
Findings
Recornrnendations
Q2 -20
X= 2692852 Y= 337668
1 -inch wire rope buried 4 to 5 ft. excavated.
No addition investigation or mitigation
Q2 -21
x= 2696168 y= 336326
auto tire buried 5 ft excavated - wire rope at 9 ft probed
No addition investigation or mitigation
Q2-23
x= 26919oo y= 335635
12 to 16 -inch concrete pipe or pile buried 6 -7 feet.
No addition investigation or mitigation
Q2-24
x= 2693810 Y= 334625
2 -inch wire rope w /steel ring poss. bridle or sling
No addition investigation or mitigation
Q2 -28
x= 2686441 Y= 332821
concrete rubble w /rebar buried 5 -6 ft. flat steel at 8 ft (probe)
No addition investigation or mitigation
Q2-29
x= 2688423 Y= 333026
neg. identification. Concentrated probing down to 10 feet
No addition investigation or mitigation
Q2 -30
x= 2688423 Y= 333026
neg. identification. Concentrated probing down to 10 feet
No addition investigation or mitigation
Q2-31
x= 2693141 Y= 332815
1- inch? wire rope buried 7 -8 ft.
No addition investigation or mitigation
Q2-32
x= 269452$ Y= 332526
wire rope /steel wire buried 8 ft. size unknown (probed)
No addition investigation or mitigation
Y -1
X= 2690475 Y= 332490
sandstone rock outcrop w /soft and hard corals /sm. anchor
No addition investigation or mitigation
ODMDS -2
x= 2694963 Y= 332711
6 to 8 inch pipe/bar undetermined length buried 7 ft (probed)
No addition investigation or mitigation
ODMDS -8
x= 2691818 y= 332495
2 -inch wire rope loop /coil buried 7 ft (probed)
No addition investigation or mitigation
ODMDS -11
x= 269oo68 y= 328613
yellow reef buoy with 6 ft long 4 dia pipe
No addition investigation or mitigation
ODMDS -12
x= 268976o y= 329173
4 -5 inch poly hawser / rebar grapple hook remains
No addition investigation or mitigation
ODMDS -21
x= 2684164 y= 328818
8ft. long /3 -inch thick walled pipe /cylinder
No addition investigation or mitigation
ODMDS -24
x= 2691818 y= 332495
1 -inch wire rope in loop /coil. buried 5 -6 ft (probed)
No addition investigation or mitigation

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter S. Sandbeck, Adtninistrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Li+berh C, Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
June 3, 2008
W. Coleman Long, Chief
Planning and Environmental Branch
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402 -1890
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Stook, Director
Re: Place dredge material from Morehead City ODMDS on beaches of Bogue Banks, Carteret County,
ER 08 -1235
Dear Mr. Long:
Thank you for your letter of April 23, 2008, regarding the above project. We concur that no pre - construction
cultural resources surveys of the Offshore Dredged Material Disposal Site ( ODMDS) are necessary as long as
the post- project depth of the ODMDS does not exceed the original bottom contour.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill - Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919- 807 -6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
LC'L tea_
eter Sandbeck
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 2769911617 Telephone/Fax: [phone] -6599

fA
-TZ ` CEIVE
MAY l
r? G
BY:
L
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandheck, Administrator
Beverly leaves Perdue, Govemor office of Archives and History
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
May 11, 2010
Rahlff Ingle
Dial Cordy & Associates, Inc.
201 North Front Street
Suite 307
Wilmington, NC 28401
Re: Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan, Carteret County, ER 10 -0774
Dear Mr. Ingle:
Thank you for your letter of April 26, 2010, concerning the above project.
The following si.N archaeological sites have been recorded along Bogue Banks. Some of the sites represent
wreckage from ships lost in nearby water that has washed ashore. It should be noted that the environmental
processes that deposit those remains along the beaches could also remove them. The locations given are for
the last known positions of these sites.
All coordinates are using the NAD83 datum and are in UTM Zone 18
0001BBB Iron Steamer Pier Wreck Site (3840366N, 0332561E)
Believed to be the Civil War blockade- runner Pevensq,, an iron -hull side -wheel steamer, lost June
9, 1864. The wreck is located approximately 100 yards offshore lying almost parallel to the
beach. Portions of a paddle wheel are visible during low tide.
0002BBB Guts Emplacement Site (3838105N, 0317035E)
Granite stones located in the surf zone adjacent to the 6200 block of Ocean Drive at Emerald
Isle, believed to be from a World War II coastal shore battery exposed by beach erosion.
0003BBB Salter Path Site
Ship timbers 14" square, approximately= 42 feet and 18 feet long with 1.25" diameter iron
fasteners located roughly 1200 feet east of the beach access road near Squatters Campground.
0004BBB Cupola Site (3839081N, 032251 SE)
Portions of a ship hull approximately 30' long and 14' wide fastened with iron pins, yellow pine
planking on oak frames. Located in the surf zone near 18`x' Street, Emerald Isle. (Tag Numbers
134, 135)
Location: 109 Fast Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27 601 Mailiag Address: 4637 Mail service (:cnrer, Mdeigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone /Pax: (919) 81)7- 6570/807 -6599

0005BBB Emerald Isle Pier Wreck (3838758N, 0320674E)
Ship timber 40' long, 12" x 18" square, iron fasteners and one attached frame. Located near
Emerald Isle Fishing Pier. (Tag Numbers 155, 156)
0006BBB Ocean Reef Site (3838806N, 0320892E)
Ship wreckage covering an area of approximately 100' by 35' near the Ocean Reef Condos
(marked by a warning sign on the beach). Extensive remains with iron fasteners.
Our office has no objection to deposition of additional sand on these archaeological sites, as it will serve to
better protect them. If however the sites are exposed and it is necessary for heavy equipment to work nearby,
the Underwater Archaeology Branch should be contacted, and arrangements trade for a staff member to re-
inspect the sites to establish an appropriate work buffer zone and /or to monitor operations.
In the offshore portions of the project area we have recorded 21 underwater archaeological sites. Those sites
are primarily shipwrecks in the vicinity of Beaufort Inlet. You should also be aware that a number of remote
sensing surveys have been conducted in the project area to locate submerged cultural resources. One of those
surveys was conducted for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by Mid - Atlantic Technology and Environmental
Research, Inc. of offshore borrow areas along Bogue Banks. Two of those borrow areas, Borrow Area Q2 and
Borrow Area Y, contain unassessed remote sensing targets. If either of those areas is to be used for the current
project, those targets should be avoided or additional archaeological investigations should be conducted to
determine the source and significance of the material generating the remote sensing anomaly. Finally, if the
current projects uses borrow areas that have not been previously investigated a comprehensive survey should
be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of submerged
archaeological remains lying within the project boundaries. Potential effects on these resources should be
assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919 -807 -6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above - referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
r_
iPeter Sandbeck

ATTACHMENT 1
SEDIMENT COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS AND BACKUP INFORMATION
Sediment Compatibility Analysis
Geophysical Seafloor Imaging — Backscatter
Geophysical Seafloor Imaging — Bathymetry
Geophysical Subsurface Imaging — Isopach (Sediment Thickness) Map
Geophysical Subsurface Imaging — Profile Maps
Vibracore Photos
Vibracore Geological Logs
Vibracore Sediment Sieve Analyses
Vibracore Penetration Graphs

cQ
G
O
U
CW
G
G!
N
H
m
�3
�1I1
O
m
ri
O
N
c-I
+J
E
N
a-
u
C
co
N
co
c-I
N
t
d
L
0
Q
w
c-I
O
O
N
N
U
N
U
C
N
L
v
cr-
O
u
m
LL
i
OJ
9
ral
u
Lq
O
o �
UJ
+�
U
c-I
i N �
O W
i Q
Q
N
c O r1
L f6
O p[
N
u O
� O
v
OJ
C
f6
COJ
G
o
O L
111
CF)
`^ -0 N
N >
Ca Ca
LL Ln L
4, 4- U'
C C 4J
U
U C
L L u
N N U
CL d LJ
CL
AF
r-1 I r-1
M 00
O O
t t
c-I 01
I� O
c-I c-I
O
N
� O
N O
N �
� C N
Q C �
G L
N
U i
C f6
N N
cu
crm
00
00
Q
z
01
O
N
111
cu
i
I >>
� J
cJ
- C
C O
N '
ra ctb
-0 N
N
0A 00
-0 00
CU
� Q Z
f0
E O
t N
U
IZI
N J
OcJ
C
� 00
00
Q
N >
Q
O Z
4- 44.,
Qn
N s
Q E co .0
Qn 4�
fB
IA
QJ c CU
C O w
Z ri N
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Q
ri
N
l0
r
M
0)
00
r-I
N
-ti-
00
N
00
M
N
01
L!1
r-I
rl
N
rl
l0
00
M
L!1
01
00
O
00
O
rl
N
r-I
N
01
N
O
r-I
O
O
111
00
N
r-I
l0
01
O
00
01
01
O
O
Q
O
N
s
.a.
O
m
l0
ri
m
rl
0)
l0
0)
0)
l0
l0
O
O
-tt
r�
-tt
N
-tt
m
-tt
-tt
ri
ri
O
00
00
O
F�
l0
O
111
l0
n
n
-tl:
l0
111
l0
n
111
O
01
l0
l0
l0
-tl:
n
M
l0
n
00
n
n
n
�p
ri
ri
N
ri
ri
N
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
N
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
ri
0J
E
E
00
00
111
M
N
-tt
111
-i
M
M
l0
ri
ri
m
l0
M
M
N
l0
M
N
m
00
M
ri
ri
N
N
N
N
M
N
M
M
mm
M
M
N
M
N
N
M
M
M
M
M
N
N
M
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
COJ
G
OJ
f6
C
r-1
l0
l0
111
CO
Ln
00
N
M
N
�
M
N
M
r
l0
N
�
01
I�
o0
o0
Ln rl
Ln
rl
O
N
N
O
M
N
I�
c-I
l0
ri
N
l0
N
-1
O
M
CO
M
N
c-I
l0
r-I
N
M
N
c-I
c-I
c-I
c-I
c-I
ri
N
ri
ri
1--1
1--1
1--1
1--1
1--1
1--1
1--1
1--1
1--1
1--1
1--1
1--1
ri
ri
f6
U
M
m
00
N
m
N
N
m
00
l0
l0
M
I"
r-I
N
l0
M
N
rl
ri
N
L(1
ri
m
l0
l0
m
N
111
N
O
p
1--1
-tt
1--1
I"
M
N
ri
ri
ri
M
00
M
00
ri
M
N
M
O
1--1
-tt
N
v
Cri
00
�
00
�
0)
Ln
M
ri
M
N
00
r-I
01
M
L(1
l0
L(1
I�
N
00
01
N
L(1
N
c-I
O
c-I
ri
00
111
N
ri
M
ri
01
ri
�
N
M
't
ri
N
111
M
U
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
111
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
-a
rl
01
N
rl
01
M
r-I
M-tt
N
r-I
N
w-ti-
M
M
w
111
m
l0
N
m�t
111
111
m
M
O
O
M
00
N
r-I
M
00
N
M
I,
r-I
I,
l0
O
111
O
M
l0
01
O
111
I,
N
01
(Y1
N
(v1
O
N
m
00
01
6
00
00
01
n
n
n
6
I-�
00
n
n
00
00
O
6
00
l0
00
4
00
01
00
6
6
6
00
00
N
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
aj
N
r-I
01
M
111
W
r-I
l0
rl
LD
N
w
l0
w
N
L(1
M
r-I
rl
l0
rl
l0
01
r-I
N
L!1
N
N
p
l0
l0
p
111
N
M
M
I�
l0
ri
ri
111
O
I�
M
O
O
01
111
l0
r-I
111
N
L
c-I
O
c-I
c-I
N
r-I
N
O
r-I
r-I
N
N
ri
ri
4
O
O
N
ri
111
O
O
O
O
O
O
ri
ri
V
to C
_N
s
O
O
O
O
O
M
O
O
0l
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0l
0l
O
O
0l
O
M
O
O
0l
O
l0
Ca
C Q
l0
l0
l0
l0
111
N
111
111
M
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
ri
l0
l0
111
111
l0
111
N N
N Q
O
O
cI
cI
cI
cI
cI
M
O
O
O
O
l0
l0
111
M
y-,
O
l0
N
00
M
111
c-I
l0
O
N
rl
N
rl
N
rl
N
l0
00
01
O
111
rl
c-I
l0
00
�
f6
111
111
�
�
111
111
�
�
111
�
�
111
M
�
�
111
111
111
�
111
111
111
111
�
111
111
�
111
Q
aj
_N
V
E
cI
cI
O
cI
l0
cI
N
cI
00
cI
M
l0
1--1
l0
O
I"
O
N
O
r"
I�
N
rl
N
rl
M
m
N
O
N
O
00
O
�t
111
O
l0
M
l0
I"
l0
c-I
r*�
N
00
N
C
O
c I
c I
c I
c I
c I
c I
I�
M
M
l0
l0
Q
4������L.6
M
M
M
N
N
N
N
01
01
L(1
L(1
M
M
M
N
N
_N
Z
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
V
u
++
m
OJ
+'
++
.�..
I�
M
01
M
111
111
O
00
m
M
m
l0
f6
S
l0
i
l0
i
r-I
i
c-I
111
i
c-I
L(1
i
c-I
i
111
i
c-I
i
N
i
4
l0
i
l0
i
c-I
111
01
00
�
nj
l0
r-j
L
m
+'
a
O
'
l0
O
'
l0
N
�
r-
O
�
O
O
O
O
U)
O
111
6
O
01
O
LD
N
O
L!1
O
'
O
'
U0J
c-I
c-I
c-I
r-I
c-I
c-I
,�
00
l0
C
0J
E
O
_ aj
a m
N
E
c-I
N
c-I
N
M
c-I
N
M
c-I
N
M
c-I
N
M
c-I
N
c-I
N
M
c-I
N
c-I
N
M
c-I
N
In
m 3
m
(n Z
0J
Q
O
i
O
00
In
D
0J
O
0
V
00
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ri
ri
ri
N
N
N
N
111
111
111
l0
l0
rl
rl
rl
w
w
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
i
f6
E
3
00
00
Q
z
01
O
N
111
cu
i
I >>
� J
cJ
- C
C O
N '
ra ctb
-0 N
N
0A 00
-0 00
CU
� Q Z
f0
E O
t N
U
IZI
N J
OcJ
C
� 00
00
Q
N >
Q
O Z
4- 44.,
Qn
N s
Q E co .0
Qn 4�
fB
IA
QJ c CU
C O w
Z ri N

0022 0022
@g2
@@2
7
\
` E
(E ®
A
/! ;J{
LO
§
m
§
#
J3
\
w
k
.5
m
0
3
J
!
)
'a;
§
\
F-
E
E
-
k
)
\
k
w�
=
2
\
�
)
U)§
k)
°
§
°
§
\
a&
§
§
S
>
\
\
5
/
—
ea ae
(�d��
\
)n
*
-j=
%Cl
) :
§
§
/
\\ \ \u\
Cl)
§
Cl)
§
(D
(D V)
±EV2 ==
a2[e(A
k\ /©]§ZD
/[§
222)
/ §
� I
� \ �
_
\�
L) /
,)
,
2
'
0022 00 22
@g2
@@2

§
(
§
(
§
Cl)
§
(
§
§
§
\
@22
|� �y
@22
-
,,
Al � e
, / � •� ..
. . �. -.
$ `
--
�
@22
, \
@22
@g2 0
. �
� y
{�
-
�
7
� §
� 9z`
[
z} �
T �
�
, � <
?
�
- � \
f�
� rz
�
@g2 0
CA
!, (
§ 3 »>
,A
F- ±
w k )/
o §
I 2 |
W E L ` §
a
; r
w�
U) § �
)
a& k)
)
Cl
_�;)
\ §))
0 0
ID
a \ \/
.2
> -0
I7 co
> >__
�)E
X22 /aa
0_oo
z]2amG
CO
/
o
k
a
c
I
(D
w
R
)
k
j
)
7
\_r
��
�

S
OOOZEE
LO
S
S
Cl)
N
S
�Np
N
S
rn
0
S
0
OOOEEE
OOOEEE
OON EE OOOOE
/ I
/ I
I
I
/ I
/ I
/ I
/ r
/ I
I
/ I
/ O
I
I I
l I
I I
I I
I I
I I
l I
I
1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I � I
I I
I I
I I
l I
I I
I I
I I
l
I
I
I
l I
I r
OOOZEE
Im
OON EE OOOOE
N
0
O e
N o
N E
LL 0 soy °3
U °m
Y
0
a E
F-
W E u_ 2
2 m '0 S
W = L
Z v U
m
m m
Ui Z .v
5
0 o �
Z E
a yyIZ
L V,
ate,
�(�
N
o
L " _
'O c U
� � N
O
O O c
C N O
ld Q- L N
V
N
C, O F O
6 v
7 � -0
rn W N
O N cz O
Q1 ld
0 O E L
Z N
m
m
w
Y
V
L
� co O
L
C
01
� � I) LL
E2
0
O
N O
v U
a)
o �
� O Y
u u
O m_ L
J �
N
O O N
C U a cn
r I
®I I

O
f�p
N
0
rn
I
N
pO
O
O)
0
rn
0
0
rn
nnnrrr
OOOEEE
nnnrrr
nnnrrr
f
• I
I
4�0 8Zp
O O
I
I
I
I
I
I
! I
I
I
1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1 Oep 91p
I
Q I
I
l I
1 I
I I
I I
1 I
l I
I I
l I
I I
I I
I I
I I
l I
I I
I I
I I
i 8�p �Zp I
T1- O
I I
1 I
J
O
ODOZEE
OOME
nnnnrr
Ir
OOOOEE
N
0
Q
O
N
OD-
e
CA
H
a
o
sQ 3
Y
U°
di
.5
CO O
W
o
o
F-
.a
E
4
U
W
E
v
a
W
0
L
=
Z U)
)
U
Q
W a'
0
m
(j
=
m
m
io
N Z
3
.v
ow
Z
v
L
E
yy�
V,
o
Q)
v
L C
Q
lG ...
0
N T
O O
CL N
N N
L) N p
O
1
7 N OS
V) M -13
N
_ -p
i N
L)
V O "
N
L w
a)
+�+ O N ❑
O N X N
ZC7NL
w
c
Y
U
L
pp
O
C
�
W
Ca
N
Q� Q1
v% v
O
u
0
J
N OI
Q U
N
Q
a m�
u N
m
a E
E
a v
a)
w a
o-
r
OI
I

INSERT PROFILE MAPS HERE

Core Photographs
ODMDS Core 18 - ODMDS Core 28
Prepared for:
1/
MOFFATT & NCCAOL
Moffatt & Nichol
1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27609
Submitted by:
■
c*A1 ine
P.."'.."P.,
Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey, Inc.
155 Hudson Avenue
Norwood, NJ 07648
February 9, 2012

us-)Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 18
0 — 5 feet
ho" 1
HaFFA'IT & NICHOL
s91 ' f0 '411' ' 41PT 'il 21
r_ `
65

us-)Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 18
5 — 10 feet
ho" 1
HaFFA'IT & NICHOL
i'
ODMDS
.:

us-)Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 18
10 — 15 feet
ho" 1
MOFFA17 & NICHOL
67

Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 18
15 —17.83 feet
ho" 1
MOFFA17 & NICHOL
C.3

us-')Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 19
0 — 5 feet
ho" 1
HaFFA'IT & NICHOL
3 4
ODMDS
Core 19
419-r .,I
.'
A- .

us-)Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 19
5 — 10 feet
ho" 1
HaFFA'IT & NICHOL
70

us-)Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 19
10 — 15 feet
ho" 1
MOFFA17 & NICHOL
ODMDS
71

us-)Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 19
15 —19.25 feet
hghq
MOFFATT & NFCHi1L
• r
,r
10 11 1 2 3 4
ODMDS
72

a�Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 20
0 — 5 feet
hghq
MOFFATT & NICHOL
ODMDS
Core 20
.
lid i i i1ii. i i,l, 1 :Z 3 4 5 6 7 N
9
ODMDS
6.7 Core 20
9 10 1 1 t 3 4 51 6 7 a 9 10 11 2 3
A 7 A r.J 1 (; f 1 1 1> -t a r, R 7 a n r
73

Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 20
5 — 10 feet
hghq
MOFFATT & NICHOL
Lm m-MA ODMDS
Core 20
74

sAlpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 20
10 —13.83 feet
ODMDS
ODMDS
Core 20 i
hghq
MOFFATT & NFCHi1L
75

us-')Alaine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 21
0 — 5 feet
ODMDS
Core 21
1 is ' I imi I -,
ho" 1
HaFFA'IT & NICHOL
ODMDS
Core 21
2 3 4
ODMDS
Core 21
4 V
".��e%�'�Y +'.td. it ��� �19r l�•. .tai.. L..A�:.�.� �
W1.1
1

us-)Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 21
5 — 10 feet
ODMDS
Core 21
ho" 1
HaFFA'IT & NICHOL
ODMDS
Core 21
77

us-)Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 21
10 —15.92 feet
hghq
MOFFATT & NFCHi1L
ODMDS
Core 21
ODMDS
Core 21
78

us-)Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 22
0 — 5 feet
ho" 1
HaFFA'IT & NICHOL
ODMDS
Core 22
79

Bogue Banks
is'Alpi�� M�FFATT Master Beach Renourishment Plan hghq
Morehead City, NC & NII
ODMDS Core 22
5 — 10 feet
ODMDS
Core 611 2 ' 2 ildIlIAH11'
11 5 FT 1 2 3 5 61
r3m. ---
4 5 6 7 'r- 9
ell
ODMDS
.Core 22
5 6- 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4
-A
V, I , 4
ODMDS
Core 22
1� 11 11.11
10 11 ! ;r1 2
L-Iff
m

Alpine
R!
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC MOFFA'IT &NICHOL
ODMDS Core 22
10 — 15 feet
ODMDS
Core 22
ODMDS
Core 22
�4
r�MYii�ac _J�
81

us-')Alaine
mm
7 g 9 io 11 F
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 22
15 — 19 feet
ODMDS
Core 22
ODMDS
Core 22
ho" 1
MOFFA17 & NICHOL
r' '
r

fb' Amine Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 24
0 — 5 feet
ODMDS
.7 Core 24
A F a -7 — .s �
1
A
i
ODMDS
Core 24
2 >. I 5, 6 7 $ 9
87
l �
k
hghq
MOFFATT & NICHOL
Fx
87
l �
k
hghq
MOFFATT & NICHOL

us-)Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 24
5 — 8 feet
ho" 1
HaFFA'IT & NICHOL
E1-13

us-)Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 24
8 — 13 feet
ho" 1
HaFFA'IT & NICHOL
ODMDS

Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 24
12.42 — 13.75 feet
ODMDs
Core 24
i'''''41''' '6
hghq
MOFFATT & NICHOL
M

Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 25
0 — 5 feet
ODMDS
Core 25
hghq
MOFFATT & NICHOL
11
,r
l
MEMOw..a. s --- •ay.rrs.r
ODMDS
Core 25
111 1 21 3
VVI C La .....A
3 o 1.1 i
L^
1..
91

Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 25
5 — 10 feet
ho" 1
HaFFA'IT & NICHOL
ODMDS
Core 25
ON

us-)Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 25
10 — 15 feet
ho" 1
MOFFA17 & NICHOL
93

us-)Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 25
15 —19.42 feet
ho" 1
MOFFA17 & NICHOL
94

Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 26
0 — 5 feet
ho" 1
HaFFA'IT & NICHOL
+,DMDS
Core 26
95

Alpine
S FT -1 2
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 26
5 — 10 feet
C7DMDS
Core 26
QDMDS
Core 26
hghq
MOFFATT & NICHOL
h.
,r

us-)Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC MOFFA17 &NICHOL
ODMDS Core 26
10 —13.75 feet
� ODMDS
ODMDS
Core 26
I n a F; 6 7 10
97

us-)Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 27
0 — 5 feet
ho" 1
HaFFA'IT & NICHOL
ODMDS
Core 27

us-)Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 27
5 — 10 feet
QDMDS
Core 27
ho" 1
HaFFA'IT & NICHOL
4DMDS
Core 27
b:2
moms
4DMDS
Core 27
•
b:2
•

us-)Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 27
10 — 15 feet
ho" 1
MOFFA17 & NICHOL
100

u*Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 27
15 —16.75 feet
hghq
MOFFATT & NFCHi1L
101

us-)Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 28
0 — 5 feet
ho" 1
HaFFA'IT & NICHOL
QDMDS
rr��
Core 28
J 4 J L � 'R� _ _ 2 3 4
102

us-)Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 28
5 — 10 feet
� ODMDS
Core 28
ho" 1
HaFFA'IT & NICHOL
103

Alpine
Bogue Banks
Master Beach Renourishment Plan
Morehead City, NC
ODMDS Core 28
10 -12.58 feet
9-- - 0 q- ODMDS
Core 28
hghq
MOFFATT & NICHOL
ODMDS
Core 28
NOW
4
104

Core Geological Logs
ODMDS Core 18 - ODMDS Core 28
Prepared for:
hdh%
110FFATT & IVICHOL
Moffatt & Nichol
1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27609
Submitted by:
mine
A GARDLINE COMPANY
Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey, Inc.
155 Hudson Avenue
Norwood, NJ 07648
February 9, 2012

Hole No. 0 -18
DRILLING LOG
DIVISION
INSTALLATION
ODMDS 1OF
SHEET 1
1 SHEETS
1. PROJECT
Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 3.5 in
11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWN (TBM orMSL)
NAVD 88
2. LOCATION (Coordinates or Station)
N 332,252.6 E 2,690,367.3
12. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL
Vibracore
3. DRILLING AGENCY
Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey
13. TOTAL NO. OF OVERBURDEN DISTURBED UNDISTURBED
SAMPLES TAKEN 3
4. HOLE NO. (As shown on drawing title and
file number) 0-18
14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES
5. NAME OF DRILLER
C. Dill
15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER
6. DIRECTION OF HOLE
® VERTICAL 0 INCLINED --- DEG. FROM VERT.
16. DATE HOLE :STARTED COMPLETED
12/12/2011 12/12/2011
17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE -44.1
7. Penetration, ft 20.2
18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING 90 %
8. Recovery, ft 17.9
19. GEOLOGIST
C. Dill
9. Total Recovery, % 90.0
ELEVATION
a
DEPTH
b
LEGEND
c
CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
d
% CORE
RECOV-
ERY
e
BOX OR
SAMPLE
NO.
f
REMARKS
(Drilling time, water loss, depth
weathering, etc., ifsignificant)
9
-44.1
-56.1
0.0
12.0
Gray fine to medium Well- graded Sand, rare
shells and shell hash (5 %)
100
1
0.0
6.0
100
2
6.0
12.0
-61.9
17.8
Sharp break at 12 ft to Dark gray fine Silty
Sand and shell hash (80 %)
100
3
12.0
18.0
ENG FORM 1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE.
MAR71
PROJECT
Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourish
HOLE NO.
er(D -Rlgn

Hole No. 0 -19
DRILLING LOG
DIVISION
INSTALLATION
ODMDS 1OF
SHEET 1
1 SHEETS
1. PROJECT
Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 3.5 in
11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWN (TBMorMSL)
NAVD 88
2. LOCATION (Coordinates or Station)
N 332,250.3 E 2,691,366.5
12. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL
Vibracore
3. DRILLING AGENCY
Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey
13. TOTAL NO. OF OVERBURDEN: DISTURBED UNDISTURBED
SAMPLES TAKEN 4
4. HOLE NO. (As shown on drawing title and
file number) 0 -19
14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES
5. NAME OF DRILLER
C. Dill
15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER
6. DIRECTION OF HOLE
® VERTICAL 0 INCLINED --- DEG. FROM VERT.
16. DATE HOLE :STARTED COMPLETED
12/12/2011 12/12/2011
17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE -36,1
7. Penetration, ft 20.0
18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING 107 %
8. Recovery, ft 21.5
19. GEOLOGIST
C. Dill
9. Total Recovery, % 107.0
ELEVATION
a
DEPTH
b
LEGEND
c
CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
d
% CORE
RECOV-
ERY
e
BOX OR
SAMPLE
NO.
f
REMARKS
(Drillingtime, waterloss, depth
weathering, etc., rfsignificant)
g
36.1
-49.1
0.0
13.0
e°
Gray to dark gray fine to medium Well- graded
Sand; lenses of shell fragments at 4' -5 -5' and
6.9 -7.5'
100
1
0.0
6.0
100
2
6.0
12.0
100
3
12.0
17.0
-53.1
17.0
Dark gray Clay lens
Dark gray fine to medium Well- graded Sand, rare
shell fragments (5 %)
-55.4
19.3
'
Gray fine Poorly- graded Sand, few shells, little
dark gray silt -clay in thin laminae
100
4
17.0
19.3
ENG FORM 1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE.
MAR 71
PROJECT
Boque Banks Master Beach Nourish
HOLE NO.
enOPlan

Hole No. 0 -20
DRILLING LOG
DIVISION
INSTALLATION
ODMDS 1OF
SHEET 1
1 SHEETS
1. PROJECT
Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 3.5 in
11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWN (TBM orMSL)
NAVD 88
2. LOCATION (Coordinates or Station)
N 332,250.4 E 2,692,364.7
12. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL
Vibracore
3. DRILLING AGENCY
Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey
13. TOTAL NO. OF OVERBURDEN DISTURBED UNDISTURBED
SAMPLES TAKEN 3
4. HOLE NO. (As shown on drawing title and
file number) O_20
14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES
5. NAME OF DRILLER
C. Dill
15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER
6. DIRECTION OF HOLE
® VERTICAL 0 INCLINED --- DEG. FROM VERT.
16. DATE HOLE :STARTED COMPLETED
12/11/2011 12/11/2011
17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE -36,4
7. Penetration, ft 15.7
18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING 86 %
8. Recovery, ft 13.8
19. GEOLOGIST
C. Dill
9. Total Recovery, % 86.0
ELEVATION
a
DEPTH
b
LEGEND
c
CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
d
% CORE
RECOV-
ERY
e
BOX OR
SAMPLE
NO.
f
REMARKS
(Drilling time, water loss, depth
weathering, etc., ifsignificant)
9
-36.4
-50.2
0.0
13.8
0°
Gray fine to medium Well- graded Sand with
rare (5 %) shells and shell hash; sand color is
brown -gray for two inches at 5 ft.; coarse shell
layer (90 %) at 13 -13.4 ft.
100
1
0.0
5.0
100
2
5.0
10.0
100
3
10.0
13.9
ENG FORM 1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE.
MAR71
PROJECT
Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourish
HOLE NO.
4@42115n

Hole No. 0 -21
DRILLING LOG
DIVISION
INSTALLATION
ODMDS 1OF
SHEET 1
1 SHEETS
1. PROJECT
Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 3.5 in
11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWN (TBM orMSL)
NAVD 88
2. LOCATION (Coordinates or Station)
N 332,249.3 E 2,693,363.5
12. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL
Vibracore
3. DRILLING AGENCY
Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey
13. TOTAL NO. OF OVERBURDEN DISTURBED UNDISTURBED
SAMPLES TAKEN 3
4. HOLE NO. (As shown on drawing title and
file number) 0 -21
14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES
5. NAME OF DRILLER
C. Dill
15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER
6. DIRECTION OF HOLE
® VERTICAL 0 INCLINED --- DEG. FROM VERT.
16. DATE HOLE :STARTED COMPLETED
12/12/2011 12/12/2011
17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE -37,0
7. Penetration, ft 17.6
18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING 85 %
8. Recovery, ft 15.9
19. GEOLOGIST
C. Dill
9. Total Recovery, % 85.0
ELEVATION
a
DEPTH
b
LEGEND
c
CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
d
% CORE
RECOV-
ERY
e
BOX OR
SAMPLE
NO.
f
REMARKS
(Drilling time, water loss, depth
weathering, etc., ifsignificant)
9
-37.0
-42.0
0.0
5.0
Gray -brown fine to medium Well- graded
Sand, with some scattered shells
100
1
0.0
5.0
-52.9
15.9
Gray fine to medium Well- graded Sand, some
rare shell pieces; lens of dark gray clay 1"
thick at 9.9'
100
2
5.0
10.0
100
3
10.0
15.0
ENG FORM 1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE.
MAR71
PROJECT
Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourish
HOLE NO.
er@421bn

Hole No. 0 -22
DRILLING LOG
DIVISION
INSTALLATION
ODMDS 1OF
SHEET 1
1 SHEETS
1. PROJECT
Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 3.5 in
11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWN (TBM orMSL)
NAVD 88
2. LOCATION (Coordinates or Station)
N 332,253.7 E 2,694,363.6
12. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL
Vibracore
3. DRILLING AGENCY
Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey
13. TOTAL NO. OF OVERBURDEN DISTURBED UNDISTURBED
SAMPLES TAKEN 4
4. HOLE NO. (As shown on drawing title and
file number) 0 -22
14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES
5. NAME OF DRILLER
C. Dill
15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER
6. DIRECTION OF HOLE
® VERTICAL 0 INCLINED --- DEG. FROM VERT.
16. DATE HOLE :STARTED COMPLETED
12/10/2011 12/10/2011
17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE -32,7
7. Penetration, ft 20.0
18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING 100 %
8. Recovery, ft 20.0
19. GEOLOGIST
C. Dill
9. Total Recovery, % 100.0
ELEVATION
a
DEPTH
b
LEGEND
c
CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
d
% CORE
RECOV-
ERY
e
BOX OR
SAMPLE
NO.
f
REMARKS
(Drilling time, water loss, depth
weathering, etc., ifsignificant)
9
-32.7
-51.7
0.0
19.0
Gray to brown fine to medium Well- graded
Sand, intermittent shells and shell hash
(20 %); some shells to 2 inches in size at 8"
and VY below sea floor and between 8'10
and 10'
100
1
0.0
5.0
100
2
5.0
10.0
100
3
10.0
15.0
100
4
15.0
20.0
ENG FORM 1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE.
MAR71
PROJECT
Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourish
HOLE NO.
er@4212n

Hole No. 0 -24
DRILLING LOG
DIVISION
INSTALLATION
ODMDS 1OF
SHEET 1
1 SHEETS
1. PROJECT
Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 3.5 in
11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWN (TBM orMSL)
NAVD 88
2. LOCATION (Coordinates or Station)
N 331 ,252.2 E 2,690,362.0
12. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL
Vibracore
3. DRILLING AGENCY
Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey
13. TOTAL NO. OF OVERBURDEN DISTURBED UNDISTURBED
SAMPLES TAKEN 4
4. HOLE NO. (As shown on drawing title and
file number) 0 -24
14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES
5. NAME OF DRILLER
C. Dill
15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER
6. DIRECTION OF HOLE
® VERTICAL 0 INCLINED --- DEG. FROM VERT.
16. DATE HOLE :STARTED COMPLETED
12/12/2011 12/12/2011
17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE -49,3
7. Penetration, ft 18.5
18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING 73 %
8. Recovery, ft 13.8
19. GEOLOGIST
C. Dill
9. Total Recovery, % 73.0
ELEVATION
a
DEPTH
b
LEGEND
c
CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
d
% CORE
RECOV-
ERY
e
BOX OR
SAMPLE
NO.
f
REMARKS
(Drilling time, water loss, depth
weathering, etc., ifsignificant)
9
49.3
-54.2
0.0
4.9
.
Gray fine to medium Well- graded Sand with
Silt, few shells (15 -20 %); dark gray clay lens
at 4'4"
100
1
0.0
4.9
-56.1
6.8
Sharp change to 4.9 feet to dark gray fine
Poorly- graded Sand, some shell fragments
(20 -30 %)
101
2
4.9
6.8
-63.1
13.8
Soft dark gray organic Silty Sand, some shells
(30 -40 %)
100
3
6.8
13.9
ENG FORM 1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE.
MAR71
PROJECT
Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourish
HOLE NO.
er@4214in

Hole No. 0 -25
DRILLING LOG
DIVISION
INSTALLATION
ODMDS 1OF
SHEET 1
1 SHEETS
1. PROJECT
Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 3.5 in
11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWN (TBMorMSL)
NAVD 88
2. LOCATION (Coordinates or Station)
N 331,253.1 E 2,691,364.5
12. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL
Vibracore
3. DRILLING AGENCY
Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey
13. TOTAL NO. OF OVERBURDEN: DISTURBED UNDISTURBED
SAMPLES TAKEN 4
4. HOLE NO. (As shown on drawing title and
file number) 0 -25
14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES
5. NAME OF DRILLER
C. Dill
15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER
6. DIRECTION OF HOLE
® VERTICAL 0 INCLINED --- DEG. FROM VERT.
16. DATE HOLE :STARTED COMPLETED
12/11/2011 12/11/2011
17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE -42,0
7. Penetration, ft 20.0
18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING 95 %
8. Recovery, ft 19.5
19. GEOLOGIST
C. Dill
9. Total Recovery, % 95.0
ELEVATION
a
DEPTH
b
LEGEND
c
CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
d
% CORE
RECOV-
ERY
e
BOX OR
SAMPLE
NO.
f
REMARKS
(Drilling time, water loss, depth
weathering, etc., rfsignificant)
g
42.0
-59.9
0.0
17.9
e°
Light gray fine to medium Well- graded Sand,
trace shells and shell fragments (10 -15 %)
100
1
0.0
6.0
100
2
6.0
12.0
100
3
12.0
17.9
-61.5
19.5
Dark gray fine Poorly- graded Sand with Silt,
some shells and shell fragments (15 -25 %)
100
4
17.9
19.5
ENG FORM 1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE.
MAR 71
PROJECT
Boque Banks Master Beach Nourish
HOLE NO.
en®P15n

Hole No. 0 -26
DRILLING LOG
DIVISION
INSTALLATION
ODMDS 1OF
SHEET 1
1 SHEETS
1. PROJECT
Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 3.5 in
11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWN (TBM orMSL)
NAVD 88
2. LOCATION (Coordinates or Station)
N 331,247.3 E 2,692,365.1
12. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL
Vibracore
3. DRILLING AGENCY
Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey
13. TOTAL NO. OF OVERBURDEN DISTURBED UNDISTURBED
SAMPLES TAKEN 3
4. HOLE NO. (As shown on drawing title and
file number) 0 -26
14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES
5. NAME OF DRILLER
C. Dill
15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER
6. DIRECTION OF HOLE
® VERTICAL 0 INCLINED --- DEG. FROM VERT.
16. DATE HOLE :STARTED COMPLETED
12/11/2011 12/11/2011
17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE -45,7
7. Penetration, ft 20.4
18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING 68 %
8. Recovery, ft 13.8
19. GEOLOGIST
C. Dill
9. Total Recovery, % 68.0
ELEVATION
a
DEPTH
b
LEGEND
c
CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
d
% CORE
RECOV-
ERY
e
BOX OR
SAMPLE
NO.
f
REMARKS
(Drilling time, water loss, depth
weathering, etc., ifsignificant)
9
-45.7
-55.0
0.0
9.3
Gray fine to medium Well- graded Sand, some
small shell fragments (10 -20 %); Very rare 1"
clay balls
100
1
0.0
5.0
100
2
5.0
9.3
-59.5
13.8
Dark gray fine Silty Sand with some clay
lenses and shells (30 -50 %)
100
3
9.3
13.8
ENG FORM 1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE.
MAR71
PROJECT
Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourish
HOLE NO.
@4219n

Hole No. 0 -27
DRILLING LOG
DIVISION
INSTALLATION
ODMDS 1OF
SHEET 1
1 SHEETS
1. PROJECT
Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 3.5 in
11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWN (TBM orMSL)
NAVD 88
2. LOCATION (Coordinates or Station)
N 331,253.5 E 2,693,366.3
12. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL
Vibracore
3. DRILLING AGENCY
Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey
13. TOTAL NO. OF OVERBURDEN DISTURBED UNDISTURBED
SAMPLES TAKEN 4
4. HOLE NO. (As shown on drawing title and
file number) 0 -27
14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES
5. NAME OF DRILLER
C. Dill
15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER
6. DIRECTION OF HOLE
® VERTICAL 0 INCLINED --- DEG. FROM VERT.
16. DATE HOLE :STARTED COMPLETED
12/11/2011 12/11/2011
17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE -43,6
7. Penetration, ft 19.4
18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING 86 %
8. Recovery, ft 16.8
19. GEOLOGIST
C. Dill
9. Total Recovery, % 86.0
ELEVATION
a
DEPTH
b
LEGEND
c
CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
d
% CORE
RECOV-
ERY
e
BOX OR
SAMPLE
NO.
f
REMARKS
(Drilling time, water loss, depth
weathering, etc., ifsignificant)
9
-43.6
-56.5
0.0
12.9
Gray fine to medium Well- graded Sand, rare
shells (5 %) in lenses
100
1
0.0
4.0
100
2
4.0
8.0
100
3
8.0
12.9
-60.4
16.8
Dark gray fine Silty Sand with shell fragments
(20 %) and rare clay lenses tot /2" thick
100
4
12.9
16.8
ENG FORM 1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE.
MAR71
PROJECT
Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourish
HOLE NO.
er@421An

Hole No. 0 -28
DRILLING LOG
DIVISION
INSTALLATION
ODMDS 1OF
SHEET 1
1 SHEETS
1. PROJECT
Bogue Banks Master Beach Nourishment Plan
10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 3.5 in
11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWN (TBMorMSL)
NAVD 88
2. LOCATION (Coordinates or Station)
N 331,246.1 E 2,694,358.6
12. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL
Vibracore
3. DRILLING AGENCY
Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey
13. TOTAL NO. OF OVERBURDEN: DISTURBED UNDISTURBED
SAMPLES TAKEN 3
4. HOLE NO. (As shown on drawing title and
file number) O_28
14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES
5. NAME OF DRILLER
C. Dill
15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER
6. DIRECTION OF HOLE
® VERTICAL 0 INCLINED --- DEG. FROM VERT.
16. DATE HOLE :STARTED COMPLETED
12/10/2011 12/10/2011
17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE -42,7
7. Penetration, ft 19.2
18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING 63 %
8. Recovery, ft 12.9
19. GEOLOGIST
C. Dill
9. Total Recovery, % 63.0
ELEVATION
a
DEPTH
b
LEGEND
c
CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
d
% CORE
RECOV-
ERY
e
BOX OR
SAMPLE
NO.
f
REMARKS
(Drillingtime, waterloss, depth
weathering, etc., rfsignificant)
g
42.7
-54.3
0.0
11.6
e°
e
Gray fine to medium Well- graded Sand, few shell
fragments (15 -20 %)
100
1
0.0
6.0
100
2
6.0
11.6
55.3
12.6
.'
Sharp change at 11.6 ft to dark gray soft Silty
Sand and clay, few shells (20 %)
100
3
11.6
12.6
ENG FORM 1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE.
MAR 71
PROJECT
Boque Banks Master Beach Nourish
HOLE NO.
enOPagn

Carteret County, NC
Sediment Analysis
For Vibracores 018 -028
Submitted to:
Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey, Inc.
Norwood, NJ
Submitted by:
Coastal Tech
Melbourne, Florida
February 7, 2012
k) Coastal Technology Corporation

Table of Contents
1.0 Sedimentologic Summary Table
2.0 Granularmetric Curves
3.0 Granularmetric Tables

1.0 Sedimentologic Summary Table

Sedimentologic Summary
Vibracore
Sample
Interval
Sample
Number
gINT Granularmetrics
USC
Composition (wt %)
Sieve
Treatment
Size Class wt%
Gravel Sand < #200 < #230
Descriptive Statistics
Mean mm Verbal Std. Dev. hi
Organic
Carbonate
Siliciclastic
0 -6
1
1.22
98.07
0.71
0.53
0.28
F
1.10
SW
0.9
12.1
87.0
DRY
018
6 -12
2
0.21
99.39
0.40
0.29
0.28
F
1.02
SW
0.6
12.6
86.8
DRY
12 -18
3
0.09
80.56
19.35
18.62
0.20
F
1.05
SM
2.0
23.2
74.8
WET
0 -6
1
0.00
99.82
0.18
0.08
0.25
F
0.86
SW
0.6
10.6
88.8
DRY
019
6 -12
2
1.69
98.27
0.04
0.00
0.29
F
1.07
SW
0.6
13.5
85.9
DRY
12 -17
3
1.63
98.19
0.18
0.12
0.32
F
1.10
SW
0.7
12.8
86.5
DRY
17 -19.3
4
0.00
99.30
0.70
0.49
0.24
F
0.73
SP
0.7
9.5
89.8
DRY
0 -5
1
2.55
97.31
0.14
0.12
0.35
F
1.29
SW
0.6
17.8
81.6
DRY
020
5 -10
2
1.28
97.83
0.89
0.72
0.31
F
1.18
SW
0.8
21.2
78.0
DRY
10 -13.9
3
2.31
97.24
0.45
0.39
0.30
F
1.21
SW
0.6
9.3
90.1
DRY
0 -5
1
0.36
99.34
0.30
0.28
0.30
F
0.92
SW
0.6
16.2
83.2
DRY
021
5 -10
2
1.77
97.72
0.51
0.46
0.36
F
1.24
SW
0.6
11.7
87.7
DRY
10 -15
3
1.66
98.11
0.23
0.16
0.31
F
1.08
SW
0.7
12.3
87.0
DRY
0 -5
1
2.14
97.72
0.14
0.13
0.34
F
1.20
SW
0.6
16.2
83.2
DRY
022
5 -10
2
2.12
97.68
0.20
0.14
0.31
F
1.18
SW
0.4
12.3
87.3
DRY
10 -15
3
1.58
98.04
0.38
0.37
0.29
F
1.03
SW
0.4
11.7
87.9
DRY
15 -20
4
1.06
98.53
0.41
0.40
0.34
F
1.02
SW
0.5
14.7
84.8
DRY
0 -6
1
1.88
97.98
0.14
0.11
0.36
F
1.25
SW
0.6
13.3
86.1
WET
023
6 -10
2
0.08
91.77
8.15
7.82
0.19
F
0.71
SP -SM
1.0
8.0
1 91.0
WET
10 -15
3
0.71
82.41
16.88
16.64
0.27
F
1.06
SM
1.2
24.2
74.6
WET
15 -17.2
4
9.13
81.15
9.72
9.42
0.81
M
1.90
SW -SM
1.9
53.3
44.8
WET
0 -4.9
1
4.78
90.03
5.19
4.81
0.24
F
1.59
SW -SM
1.5
13.0
85.5
WET
024
4.9 -6.8
2
0.32
99.38
0.30
0.20
0.26
F
0.85
SP
0.5
10.4
89.1
DRY
6.8 -13.9
3
1.85
78.09
20.06
18.63
0.38
F
1.63
SM
2.3
32.9
64.8
WET
0 -6
1
0.90
98.65
0.45
0.36
0.33
F
1.10
SW
0.5
13.6
85.9
DRY
025
6 -12
2
2.05
96.99
0.96
0.83
0.33
F
1.21
SW
0.5
18.0
81.5
DRY
12 -17.9
3
1.79
98.06
0.15
0.12
0.32
F
1.17
SW
0.9
19.2
79.9
DRY
17.9 -19.5
4
0.00
93.03
6.97
6.63
0.18
F
0.80
SP -SM
1.6
9.7
88.7
WET
0 -5
1
5.01
94.52
0.47
0.37
0.36
F
1.62
SW
0.6
12.7
86.7
DRY
026
5 -9.3
2
0.97
98.79
0.24
0.21
0.30
F
0.97
SW
0.4
11.9
87.7
DRY
9.3 -13.8
3
0.35
77.82
21.83
20.37
0.23
F
1.33
SM
1.5
10.7
87.8
WET
0 -4
1
0.56
99.24
0.20
0.20
0.40
F
1.06
SW
0.5
16.7
82.8
DRY
027
4 -8
2
0.67
98.95
0.38
0.35
0.32
F
1.00
SW
0.5
12.0
87.5
DRY
8 -12.9
3
0.16
99.35
0.49
0.41
0.29
F
0.88
SW
0.5
11.8
87.7
DRY
12.9 -16.8
4
0.40
86.13
13.47
12.72
0.21
F
1.15
SM
1.8
20.3
77.9
WET
0 -6
1
0.59
99.29
0.12
0.09
0.28
F
0.93
SW
0.5
12.8
86.7
DRY
028
6 -11.6
2
0.41
99.34
0.25
0.16
0.30
F
0.95
SW
0.5
13.4
86.1
DRY
f1 1.6-12.9
3
0.35
76.30
23.35
22.80
0.27
F
1.13
SM
1.7
13.9
84.4
WET

2.0 Granularmetric Curves

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
018 #1
t
SW
#200 -0.71
#230 - 0.53
0.90
12.10
2.09
1.82
-1.78
7.36
1.1
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -15 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
4D Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
018 #2
t
SW
#200 -0.40
#230 - 0.29
0.60
12.60
2.09
1.83
-1.52
5.54
1.02
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -15 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
018 #3
SM
00 - 19.35
30 - 18.62
2.00
23.20
2.71
2.29
-2.05
7.19
1.05
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -15 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
4D Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
019 #1
t
SW
#200 -0.18
#230 - 0.08
0.60
10.60
2.16
1.98
-1.25
5.07
0.86
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -15 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
019 #2
t
SW
#200 -o.04
#230 - 0.00
0.60
13.50
2.03
1.77
-2.18
9.5
1.07
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -15 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
019 #3
t
SW
#200 -0.18
#230 - 0.12
0.70
12.80
1.91
1.65
-1.89
8.21
1.1
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -15 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
4D Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
019 #4
t
Sp
#200 -0.70
#230 - 0.49
0.70
9.50
2.17
2.05
-1.28
6.1
0.73
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -15 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
020 #1
t
SW
#200 -0.14
#230 - 0.12
0.60
17.80
1.9
1.53
-1.67
5.92
1.29
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -15 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
4D Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
020 #2
t
SW
#200 -0.89
#230 - 0.72
0.80
21.20
2.05
1.71
-1.59
6.15
1.18
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -15 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
020 #3
t
SW
#200 -0.45
#230 - 0.39
0.60
9.30
2.13
1.76
-2.07
7.65
1.21
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -15 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
4D Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
021 #1
t
SW
#200 -0.30
#230 - 0.28
0.60
16.20
1.9
1.72
-1.63
6.83
0.92
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -15 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
4D Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
021 #2
t
SW
#200 -0.51
#230 - 0.46
0.60
11.70
1.79
1.48
-1.26
4.62
1.24
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -15 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
021 #3
t
SW
#200 -0.23
#230 - 0.16
0.70
12.30
1.99
1.71
-1.84
7.2
1.08
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -15 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
022 #1
t
SW
#200 -0.14
#230 - 0.13
0.60
16.20
1.89
1.55
-1.95
7.52
1.2
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -15 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
4D Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
022 #2
t
SW
#200 -0.20
#230 - 0.14
0.40
12.30
2.05
1.7
-2.05
7.54
1.18
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -15 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
022 #3
t
SW
#200 -0.38
#230 - 0.37
0.40
11.70
2.04
1.77
-2.66
12.61
1.03
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -15 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
022 #4
t
SW
#200 -0.41
#230 - 0.40
0.50
14.70
1.79
1.57
-1.95
7.72
1.02
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -15 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
024 #1
SW -SM
X00 -5.19
#230 - 4.81
1.50
13.00
2.6
2.03
2.2
6.99
1.59
Pro ect Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -16 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
4D Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
024 #2
t
Sp
#200 -0.30
#230 - 0.20
0.50
10.40
2.06
1.92
-1.55
7.11
0.85
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -16 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
024 #3
SM
o0 -20.06
30 - 18.63
2.30
32.90
2.31
1.38
-0.68
2.61
1.63
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -16 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
4D Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
025 #1
t
SW
#200 -0.45
#230 - 0.36
0.50
13.60
1.84
1.6
-1.38
5.35
1.1
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -16 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
025 #2
t
SW
#200 -0.96
#230 - 0.83
0.50
18.00
1.96
1.61
-1.54
5.84
1.21
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -16 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
025 #3
t
SW
#200 -0.15
#230 - 0.12
0.90
19.20
1.94
1.64
-1.79
6.54
1.17
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -16 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
025 #4
SP -SM
#200 -6.97
#230 - 6.63
1.60
9.70
2.67
2.47
-2.67
12.34
0.8
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -16 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
026 #1
t
SW
#200 -0.47
#230 - 0.37
0.60
12.70
2.07
1.46
-1.64
5.22
1.62
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -16 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
026 #2
t
SW
#200 -0.24
#230 - 0.21
0.40
11.90
1.96
1.72
-1.77
7.34
0.97
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -16 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
026 #3
SM
o0 -21.83
30 - 20.37
1.50
10.70
2.74
2.09
-1.52
4.48
1.33
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -16 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
027 #1
t
SW
#200 -0.20
#230 - 0.20
0.50
16.70
1.54
1.34
-1.02
4.24
1.06
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -17 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
027 #2
t
SW
#200 -0.38
#230 - 0.35
0.50
12.00
1.92
1.66
-1.7
6.84
1
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -17 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
027 #3
t
SW
#200 -0.49
#230 - 0.41
0.50
11.80
2
1.81
-1.56
6.8
0.88
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -17 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
027 #4
SM
00 - 13.47
30 - 12.72
1.80
20.30
2.62
2.22
-2.12
7.34
1.15
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -17 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
028 #1
t
SW
#200 -0.12
#230 - 0.09
0.50
12.80
2.08
1.85
-1.93
7.91
0.93
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -17 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
028 #2
t
SW
#200 -0.25
#230 - 0.16
0.50
13.40
2.01
1.76
-1.73
6.93
0.95
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -17 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

PHI Sieve Sizes -4.25 -4 -3 -2.25 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 3.75 4
Standard Sieve Sizes 3/45/8 5/16 4 5 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230
100
90
80
70
m
CD
m 60
0
7"I
7
50
m ' 40
cQ
30
20
10
0
100 5
10 5 1 5 0.1 5
Millimeters
Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
2)
Q)
40
T
m
N
50 E
m
0
U
60
Q)
a
70
80
90
100
0.01 5 0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt and Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Sample
I Symbol
lElev. (ft)l
USCS
I % Fines
I % Organics
% Carbonatesl
Median
I Mean
I Skew
Kurt
Sort
Sample Information
028 #3
SM
00 -23.35
30 - 22.80
1.70
13.90
2.43
1.89
-1.38
4.89
1.13
Project Name:
Carteret Count y
Comments:
Analysis Date:
01 -17 -12
Depths and elevations based on measured values
Analyzed By:
LA
COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Easting (X, ft):
Northing (Y, ft):
Horizontal System:
Vertical System:

3.0 Granularmetric Tables

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 018#1
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -15 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
131.28
Wash Weight (g):
131.28
Pan Retained (g):
0.52
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.13
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.71
#230 - 0.53
organics (% ):
0.90
Carbonates ( %):
1 12.10
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.79
0.60
0.79
0.60
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.63
0.48
1.42
1.08
4
-2.25
4.76
0.18
0.14
1.60
1.22
5
-2.00
4.00
0.49
0.37
2.09
1.59
7
-1.50
2.83
0.74
0.56
2.83
2.15
10
-1.00
2.00
1.10
0.84
3.93
2.99
14
-0.50
1.41
2.00
1.52
5.93
4.51
18
0.00
1.00
2.98
2.27
8.91
6.78
25
0.50
0.71
4.41
3.36
13.32
10.14
35
1.00
0.50
7.60
5.79
20.92
15.93
45
1.50
0.35
13.43
10.23
34.35
26.16
60
2.00
0.25
23.85
18.17
58.20
44.33
80
2.50
0.18
39.94
30.42
98.14
74.75
120
3.00
0.13
25.51
19.43
123.65
94.18
170
3.50
0.09
5.97
4.55
129.62
98.73
200
3.75
0.07
0.73
0.56
130.35
99.29
230
4.00
0.06
0.24
0.18
130.59
99.47
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
3.09
2.74
2.51
2.09
1.44
1.00
-0.39
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.82
0.28
1.1
-1.78
7.36

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 018#2
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -15 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
135.32
Wash Weight (g):
135.32
Pan Retained (g):
0.28
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.08
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.40
#230 - 0.29
organics (% ):
0.60
Carbonates ( %):
1 12.60
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.08
0.06
0.08
0.06
4
-2.25
4.76
0.20
0.15
0.28
0.21
5
-2.00
4.00
0.33
0.24
0.61
0.45
7
-1.50
2.83
1.51
1.12
2.12
1.57
10
-1.00
2.00
1.59
1.17
3.71
2.74
14
-0.50
1.41
2.48
1.83
6.19
4.57
18
0.00
1.00
3.35
2.48
9.54
7.05
25
0.50
0.71
4.49
3.32
14.03
10.37
35
1.00
0.50
7.31
5.40
21.34
15.77
45
1.50
0.35
13.20
9.75
34.54
25.52
60
2.00
0.25
25.40
18.77
59.94
44.29
80
2.50
0.18
40.91
30.23
100.85
74.52
120
3.00
0.13
30.01
22.18
130.86
96.70
170
3.50
0.09
3.64
2.69
134.50
99.39
200
3.75
0.07
0.28
0.21
134.78
99.60
230
4.00
0.06
0.15
0.11
134.93
99.71
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.96
2.71
2.51
2.09
1.47
1.01
-0.41
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.83
0.28
1.02
-1.52
5.54

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 018#3
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -15 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
S
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
135.18
Wash Weight (g):
110.62
Pan Retained (g):
0.46
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.12
Fines % ):
20 - 19.3
#230 - 18.6
Organics (% ):
2.00
Carbonates (% ):
23.20
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.07
0.05
0.07
0.05
4
-2.25
4.76
0.05
0.04
0.12
0.09
5
-2.00
4.00
0.20
0.15
0.32
0.24
7
-1.50
2.83
0.77
0.57
1.09
0.81
10
-1.00
2.00
1.33
0.98
2.42
1.79
14
-0.50
1.41
2.63
1.95
5.05
3.74
18
0.00
1.00
2.35
1.74
7.40
5.48
25
0.50
0.71
2.11
1.56
9.51
7.04
35
1.00
0.50
2.35
1.74
11.86
8.78
45
1.50
0.35
2.61
1.93
14.47
10.71
60
2.00
0.25
4.66
3.45
19.13
14.16
80
2.50
0.18
28.16
20.83
47.29
34.99
120
3.00
0.13
47.60
35.21
94.89
70.20
170
3.50
0.09
12.22
9.04
107.11
79.24
200
3.75
0.07
1.90
1.41
109.01
80.65
230
4.00
0.06
0.99
0.73
110.00
81.38
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
3.27
2.71
2.26
2.04
-0.14
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
2.29
0.20
1.05
-2.05
7.19

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 019#1
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -15 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
127.68
Wash Weight (g):
127.68
Pan Retained (g):
0.11
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.00
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.18
#230 - 0.08
organics (% ):
0.60
Carbonates ( %):
1 10.60
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4
-2.25
4.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5
-2.00
4.00
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
7
-1.50
2.83
0.41
0.32
0.44
0.34
10
-1.00
2.00
0.43
0.34
0.87
0.68
14
-0.50
1.41
1.39
1.09
2.26
1.77
18
0.00
1.00
2.18
1.71
4.44
3.48
25
0.50
0.71
3.77
2.95
8.21
6.43
35
1.00
0.50
7.48
5.86
15.69
12.29
45
1.50
0.35
13.31
10.42
29.00
22.71
60
2.00
0.25
21.37
16.74
50.37
39.45
80
2.50
0.18
41.62
32.60
91.99
72.05
120
3.00
0.13
29.40
23.03
121.39
95.08
170
3.50
0.09
5.62
4.40
127.01
99.48
200
3.75
0.07
0.43
0.34
127.44
99.82
230
4.00
0.06
0.13
0.10
127.57
99.92
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
3.00
2.76
2.56
2.16
1.57
1.18
0.26
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.98
0.25
0.86
-1.25
5.07

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 019#2
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -15 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
129.43
Wash Weight (g):
129.43
Pan Retained (g):
0.01
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.01
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.04
#230 - 0.00
organics (% ):
0.60
Carbonates ( %):
1 13.50
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
1.70
1.31
1.70
1.31
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.00
0.00
1.70
1.31
4
-2.25
4.76
0.49
0.38
2.19
1.69
5
-2.00
4.00
0.39
0.30
2.58
1.99
7
-1.50
2.83
0.24
0.19
2.82
2.18
10
-1.00
2.00
0.89
0.69
3.71
2.87
14
-0.50
1.41
1.71
1.32
5.42
4.19
18
0.00
1.00
2.47
1.91
7.89
6.10
25
0.50
0.71
4.03
3.11
11.92
9.21
35
1.00
0.50
7.47
5.77
19.39
14.98
45
1.50
0.35
14.04
10.85
33.43
25.83
60
2.00
0.25
29.12
22.50
62.55
48.33
80
2.50
0.18
41.45
32.03
104.00
80.36
120
3.00
0.13
22.75
17.58
126.75
97.94
170
3.50
0.09
2.46
1.90
129.21
99.84
200
3.75
0.07
0.15
0.12
129.36
99.96
230
4.00
0.06
0.05
0.04
129.41
100.00
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.92
2.60
2.42
2.03
1.46
1.05
-0.29
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.77
0.29
1.07
-2.18
9.5

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 019#3
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -15 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
133.18
Wash Weight (g):
133.18
Pan Retained (g):
0.06
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.10
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.18
#230 - 0.12
organics (% ):
0.70
Carbonates ( %):
1 12.80
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.42
0.32
0.42
0.32
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
1.19
0.89
1.61
1.21
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.25
0.19
1.86
1.40
4
-2.25
4.76
0.31
0.23
2.17
1.63
5
-2.00
4.00
0.09
0.07
2.26
1.70
7
-1.50
2.83
0.66
0.50
2.92
2.20
10
-1.00
2.00
0.95
0.71
3.87
2.91
14
-0.50
1.41
2.18
1.64
6.05
4.55
18
0.00
1.00
3.51
2.64
9.56
7.19
25
0.50
0.71
5.62
4.22
15.18
11.41
35
1.00
0.50
10.56
7.93
25.74
19.34
45
1.50
0.35
18.31
13.75
44.05
33.09
60
2.00
0.25
27.18
20.41
71.23
53.50
80
2.50
0.18
39.59
29.73
110.82
83.23
120
3.00
0.13
19.68
14.78
130.50
98.01
170
3.50
0.09
2.18
1.64
132.68
99.65
200
3.75
0.07
0.23
0.17
132.91
99.82
230
4.00
0.06
0.08
0.06
132.99
99.88
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.90
2.53
2.36
1.91
1.21
0.79
-0.41
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.65
0.32
1.1
-1.89
8.21

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 019#4
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -15 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SP
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
124.56
Wash Weight (g):
124.56
Pan Retained (g):
0.42
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.15
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.70
#230 - 0.49
organics (% ):
0.70
Carbonates ( %):
1 9.50
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4
-2.25
4.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5
-2.00
4.00
0.09
0.07
0.09
0.07
7
-1.50
2.83
0.05
0.04
0.14
0.11
10
-1.00
2.00
0.21
0.17
0.35
0.28
14
-0.50
1.41
0.67
0.54
1.02
0.82
18
0.00
1.00
1.45
1.16
2.47
1.98
25
0.50
0.71
2.54
2.04
5.01
4.02
35
1.00
0.50
4.79
3.85
9.80
7.87
45
1.50
0.35
9.97
8.00
19.77
15.87
60
2.00
0.25
26.87
21.57
46.64
37.44
80
2.50
0.18
46.26
37.14
92.90
74.58
120
3.00
0.13
25.99
20.87
118.89
95.45
170
3.50
0.09
4.29
3.44
123.18
98.89
200
3.75
0.07
0.51
0.41
123.69
99.30
230
4.00
0.06
0.26
0.21
123.95
99.51
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.99
2.73
2.51
2.17
1.71
1.50
0.63
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
2.05
0.24
0.73
-1.28
6.1

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 020 #1
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -15 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
126.68
Wash Weight (g):
126.68
Pan Retained (g):
0.01
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.11
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.14
#230 - 0.12
organics (% ):
0.60
Carbonates ( %):
1 17.80
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
2.14
1.69
2.14
1.69
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.45
0.36
2.59
2.05
4
-2.25
4.76
0.63
0.50
3.22
2.55
5
-2.00
4.00
0.86
0.68
4.08
3.23
7
-1.50
2.83
1.49
1.18
5.57
4.41
10
-1.00
2.00
1.89
1.49
7.46
5.90
14
-0.50
1.41
3.23
2.55
10.69
8.45
18
0.00
1.00
4.17
3.29
14.86
11.74
25
0.50
0.71
5.19
4.10
20.05
15.84
35
1.00
0.50
8.54
6.74
28.59
22.58
45
1.50
0.35
13.97
11.03
42.56
33.61
60
2.00
0.25
25.72
20.30
68.28
53.91
80
2.50
0.18
36.20
28.58
104.48
82.49
120
3.00
0.13
19.26
15.20
123.74
97.69
170
3.50
0.09
2.59
2.04
126.33
99.73
200
3.75
0.07
0.17
0.13
126.50
99.86
230
4.00
0.06
0.03
0.02
126.53
99.88
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.91
2.55
2.37
1.90
1.11
0.51
-1.30
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.53
0.35
1.29
-1.67
5.92

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 020 #2
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -15 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
126.80
Wash Weight (g):
126.80
Pan Retained (g):
0.49
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.34
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.89
#230 - 0.72
organics (% ):
0.80
Carbonates ( %):
1 21.20
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
1.35
1.06
1.35
1.06
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.19
0.15
1.54
1.21
4
-2.25
4.76
0.09
0.07
1.63
1.28
5
-2.00
4.00
0.09
0.07
1.72
1.35
7
-1.50
2.83
1.17
0.92
2.89
2.27
10
-1.00
2.00
1.57
1.24
4.46
3.51
14
-0.50
1.41
2.83
2.23
7.29
5.74
18
0.00
1.00
4.19
3.30
11.48
9.04
25
0.50
0.71
5.93
4.68
17.41
13.72
35
1.00
0.50
8.57
6.76
25.98
20.48
45
1.50
0.35
12.29
9.69
38.27
30.17
60
2.00
0.25
21.88
17.26
60.15
47.43
80
2.50
0.18
35.68
28.14
95.83
75.57
120
3.00
0.13
24.95
19.68
120.78
95.25
170
3.50
0.09
4.49
3.54
125.27
98.79
200
3.75
0.07
0.40
0.32
125.67
99.11
230
4.00
0.06
0.21
0.17
125.88
99.28
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.99
2.71
2.49
2.05
1.23
0.67
-0.67
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.71
0.31
1.18
-1.59
6.15

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 020 #3
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -15 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
134.32
Wash Weight (g):
134.32
Pan Retained (g):
0.22
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.20
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.45
#230 - 0.39
organics (% ):
0.60
Carbonates ( %):
1 9.30
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
1.43
1.06
1.43
1.06
3.5
-2.50
5.66
1.22
0.91
2.65
1.97
4
-2.25
4.76
0.46
0.34
3.11
2.31
5
-2.00
4.00
0.55
0.41
3.66
2.72
7
-1.50
2.83
1.20
0.89
4.86
3.61
10
-1.00
2.00
1.45
1.08
6.31
4.69
14
-0.50
1.41
2.53
1.88
8.84
6.57
18
0.00
1.00
2.74
2.04
11.58
8.61
25
0.50
0.71
4.07
3.03
15.65
11.64
35
1.00
0.50
6.48
4.82
22.13
16.46
45
1.50
0.35
9.86
7.34
31.99
23.80
60
2.00
0.25
22.11
16.46
54.10
40.26
80
2.50
0.18
50.51
37.60
104.61
77.86
120
3.00
0.13
25.63
19.08
130.24
96.94
170
3.50
0.09
3.24
2.41
133.48
99.35
200
3.75
0.07
0.27
0.20
133.75
99.55
230
4.00
0.06
0.08
0.06
133.83
99.61
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.95
2.66
2.46
2.13
1.54
0.95
-0.92
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.76
0.30
1.21
-2.07
7.65

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 021 #1
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -15 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
114.49
Wash Weight (g):
114.49
Pan Retained (g):
0.01
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.28
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.30
#230 - 0.28
organics (% ):
0.60
Carbonates ( %):
1 16.20
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.41
0.36
0.41
0.36
4
-2.25
4.76
0.00
0.00
0.41
0.36
5
-2.00
4.00
0.37
0.32
0.78
0.68
7
-1.50
2.83
0.51
0.45
1.29
1.13
10
-1.00
2.00
1.00
0.87
2.29
2.00
14
-0.50
1.41
1.65
1.44
3.94
3.44
18
0.00
1.00
2.46
2.15
6.40
5.59
25
0.50
0.71
3.88
3.39
10.28
8.98
35
1.00
0.50
7.34
6.41
17.62
15.39
45
1.50
0.35
14.40
12.58
32.02
27.97
60
2.00
0.25
31.14
27.20
63.16
55.17
80
2.50
0.18
34.37
30.02
97.53
85.19
120
3.00
0.13
15.26
13.33
112.79
98.52
170
3.50
0.09
1.29
1.13
114.08
99.65
200
3.75
0.07
0.06
0.05
114.14
99.70
230
4.00
0.06
0.02
0.02
114.16
99.72
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.87
2.48
2.33
1.90
1.38
1.02
-0.14
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.72
0.30
0.92
-1.63
6.83

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 021 #2
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -15 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
130.07
Wash Weight (g):
130.07
Pan Retained (g):
0.16
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.32
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.51
#230 - 0.46
organics (% ):
0.60
Carbonates ( %):
1 11.70
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.37
0.28
0.37
0.28
3.5
-2.50
5.66
1.45
1.11
1.82
1.39
4
-2.25
4.76
0.50
0.38
2.32
1.77
5
-2.00
4.00
0.46
0.35
2.78
2.12
7
-1.50
2.83
1.71
1.31
4.49
3.43
10
-1.00
2.00
1.88
1.45
6.37
4.88
14
-0.50
1.41
4.08
3.14
10.45
8.02
18
0.00
1.00
5.09
3.91
15.54
11.93
25
0.50
0.71
7.35
5.65
22.89
17.58
35
1.00
0.50
12.61
9.69
35.50
27.27
45
1.50
0.35
17.17
13.20
52.67
40.47
60
2.00
0.25
21.02
16.16
73.69
56.63
80
2.50
0.18
32.75
25.18
106.44
81.81
120
3.00
0.13
19.57
15.05
126.01
96.86
170
3.50
0.09
3.16
2.43
129.17
99.29
200
3.75
0.07
0.26
0.20
129.43
99.49
230
4.00
0.06
0.07
0.05
129.50
99.54
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.94
2.57
2.36
1.79
0.88
0.36
-0.98
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.48
0.36
1.24
-1.26
4.62

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 021 #3
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -15 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
133.66
Wash Weight (g):
133.66
Pan Retained (g):
0.12
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.07
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.23
#230 - 0.16
organics (% ):
0.70
Carbonates ( %):
1 12.30
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.5
-2.50
5.66
1.88
1.41
1.88
1.41
4
-2.25
4.76
0.34
0.25
2.22
1.66
5
-2.00
4.00
0.23
0.17
2.45
1.83
7
-1.50
2.83
0.85
0.64
3.30
2.47
10
-1.00
2.00
1.27
0.95
4.57
3.42
14
-0.50
1.41
2.06
1.54
6.63
4.96
18
0.00
1.00
3.09
2.31
9.72
7.27
25
0.50
0.71
5.13
3.84
14.85
11.11
35
1.00
0.50
8.60
6.43
23.45
17.54
45
1.50
0.35
13.52
10.12
36.97
27.66
60
2.00
0.25
30.32
22.68
67.29
50.34
80
2.50
0.18
42.76
31.99
110.05
82.33
120
3.00
0.13
20.92
15.65
130.97
97.98
170
3.50
0.09
2.19
1.64
133.16
99.62
200
3.75
0.07
0.20
0.15
133.36
99.77
230
4.00
0.06
0.09
0.07
133.45
99.84
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.90
2.55
2.39
1.99
1.37
0.88
-0.49
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.71
0.31
1.08
-1.84
7.2

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 022 #1
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -15 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
116.26
Wash Weight (g):
116.26
Pan Retained (g):
0.00
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.13
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.14
#230 - 0.13
organics (% ):
0.60
Carbonates ( %):
1 16.20
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.97
0.83
0.97
0.83
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.38
0.33
1.35
1.16
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.76
0.65
2.11
1.81
4
-2.25
4.76
0.38
0.33
2.49
2.14
5
-2.00
4.00
0.57
0.49
3.06
2.63
7
-1.50
2.83
1.00
0.86
4.06
3.49
10
-1.00
2.00
1.36
1.17
5.42
4.66
14
-0.50
1.41
2.53
2.18
7.95
6.84
18
0.00
1.00
3.46
2.98
11.41
9.82
25
0.50
0.71
4.91
4.22
16.32
14.04
35
1.00
0.50
8.09
6.96
24.41
21.00
45
1.50
0.35
13.41
11.53
37.82
32.53
60
2.00
0.25
25.92
22.29
63.74
54.82
80
2.50
0.18
38.40
33.03
102.14
87.85
120
3.00
0.13
12.82
11.03
114.96
98.88
170
3.50
0.09
1.07
0.92
116.03
99.80
200
3.75
0.07
0.07
0.06
116.10
99.86
230
4.00
0.06
0.01
0.01
116.11
99.87
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.82
2.44
2.31
1.89
1.17
0.64
-0.92
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.55
0.34
1.2
-1.95
7.52

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 022 #2
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -15 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
133.58
Wash Weight (g):
133.58
Pan Retained (g):
0.07
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.10
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.20
#230 - 0.14
organics (% ):
0.40
Carbonates ( %):
1 12.30
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
1.14
0.85
1.14
0.85
3.5
-2.50
5.66
1.09
0.82
2.23
1.67
4
-2.25
4.76
0.60
0.45
2.83
2.12
5
-2.00
4.00
0.75
0.56
3.58
2.68
7
-1.50
2.83
1.66
1.24
5.24
3.92
10
-1.00
2.00
1.53
1.15
6.77
5.07
14
-0.50
1.41
2.16
1.62
8.93
6.69
18
0.00
1.00
2.80
2.10
11.73
8.79
25
0.50
0.71
3.97
2.97
15.70
11.76
35
1.00
0.50
6.21
4.65
21.91
16.41
45
1.50
0.35
11.59
8.68
33.50
25.09
60
2.00
0.25
28.67
21.46
62.17
46.55
80
2.50
0.18
47.72
35.72
109.89
82.27
120
3.00
0.13
21.60
16.17
131.49
98.44
170
3.50
0.09
1.69
1.27
133.18
99.71
200
3.75
0.07
0.12
0.09
133.30
99.80
230
4.00
0.06
0.08
0.06
133.38
99.86
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.89
2.55
2.40
2.05
1.49
0.96
-1.03
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.7
0.31
1.18
-2.05
7.54

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 022 #3
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -15 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
142.11
Wash Weight (g):
142.11
Pan Retained (g):
0.02
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.36
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.38
#230 - 0.37
organics (% ):
0.40
Carbonates ( %):
11.70
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
1.46
1.03
1.46
1.03
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
1.46
1.03
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.46
0.32
1.92
1.35
4
-2.25
4.76
0.32
0.23
2.24
1.58
5
-2.00
4.00
0.14
0.10
2.38
1.68
7
-1.50
2.83
0.71
0.50
3.09
2.18
10
-1.00
2.00
0.86
0.61
3.95
2.79
14
-0.50
1.41
1.62
1.14
5.57
3.93
18
0.00
1.00
2.22
1.56
7.79
5.49
25
0.50
0.71
3.53
2.48
11.32
7.97
35
1.00
0.50
6.88
4.84
18.20
12.81
45
1.50
0.35
14.64
10.30
32.84
23.11
60
2.00
0.25
33.62
23.66
66.46
46.77
80
2.50
0.18
55.74
39.22
122.20
85.99
120
3.00
0.13
17.72
12.47
139.92
98.46
170
3.50
0.09
1.56
1.10
141.48
99.56
200
3.75
0.07
0.09
0.06
141.57
99.62
230
4.00
0.06
0.01
0.01
141.58
99.63
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.86
2.47
2.36
2.04
1.54
1.15
-0.16
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.77
0.29
1.03
-2.66
12.61

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 022 #4
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -15 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
132.33
Wash Weight (g):
132.33
Pan Retained (g):
0.01
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.39
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.41
#230 - 0.40
organics (% ):
0.50
Carbonates ( %):
1 14.70
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.64
0.48
0.64
0.48
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.38
0.29
1.02
0.77
4
-2.25
4.76
0.38
0.29
1.40
1.06
5
-2.00
4.00
0.50
0.38
1.90
1.44
7
-1.50
2.83
1.61
1.22
3.51
2.66
10
-1.00
2.00
1.41
1.07
4.92
3.73
14
-0.50
1.41
2.41
1.82
7.33
5.55
18
0.00
1.00
3.26
2.46
10.59
8.01
25
0.50
0.71
4.32
3.26
14.91
11.27
35
1.00
0.50
7.70
5.82
22.61
17.09
45
1.50
0.35
18.62
14.07
41.23
31.16
60
2.00
0.25
42.43
32.06
83.66
63.22
80
2.50
0.18
36.97
27.94
120.63
91.16
120
3.00
0.13
10.65
8.05
131.28
99.21
170
3.50
0.09
0.48
0.36
131.76
99.57
200
3.75
0.07
0.03
0.02
131.79
99.59
230
4.00
0.06
0.01
0.01
131.80
99.60
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.74
2.37
2.21
1.79
1.28
0.91
-0.65
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.57
0.34
1.02
-1.95
7.72

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 024 #1
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -16 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW -SM
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
118.65
Wash Weight (g):
113.17
Pan Retained (g):
0.24
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.00
Fines /o):
#20 - 5.19
#230 - 4.81
Organics (% ):
1.50
Carbonates (% ):
1 13.00
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
1.62
1.37
1.62
1.37
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.70
0.59
2.32
1.96
3.5
-2.50
5.66
2.73
2.30
5.05
4.26
4
-2.25
4.76
0.62
0.52
5.67
4.78
5
-2.00
4.00
1.10
0.93
6.77
5.71
7
-1.50
2.83
1.37
1.15
8.14
6.86
10
-1.00
2.00
1.68
1.42
9.82
8.28
14
-0.50
1.41
1.84
1.55
11.66
9.83
18
0.00
1.00
1.43
1.21
13.09
11.04
25
0.50
0.71
1.20
1.01
14.29
12.05
35
1.00
0.50
1.75
1.47
16.04
13.52
45
1.50
0.35
1.92
1.62
17.96
15.14
60
2.00
0.25
4.22
3.56
22.18
18.70
80
2.50
0.18
27.47
23.15
49.65
41.85
120
3.00
0.13
47.96
40.42
97.61
82.27
170
3.50
0.09
13.44
11.33
111.05
93.60
200
3.75
0.07
1.43
1.21
112.48
94.81
230
4.00
0.06
0.45
0.38
112.93
95.19
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
3.88
3.08
2.91
2.60
2.14
1.62
-2.19
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
2.03
0.24
1.59
-2.2
6.99

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 024 #2
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -16 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SP
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
137.36
Wash Weight (g):
137.36
Pan Retained (g):
0.22
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.04
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.30
#230 - 0.20
organics (% ):
0.50
Carbonates ( %):
1 10.40
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.04
4
-2.25
4.76
0.39
0.28
0.45
0.32
5
-2.00
4.00
0.10
0.07
0.55
0.39
7
-1.50
2.83
0.41
0.30
0.96
0.69
10
-1.00
2.00
0.68
0.50
1.64
1.19
14
-0.50
1.41
1.27
0.92
2.91
2.11
18
0.00
1.00
2.13
1.55
5.04
3.66
25
0.50
0.71
3.34
2.43
8.38
6.09
35
1.00
0.50
6.56
4.78
14.94
10.87
45
1.50
0.35
14.44
10.51
29.38
21.38
60
2.00
0.25
33.84
24.64
63.22
46.02
80
2.50
0.18
42.22
30.74
105.44
76.76
120
3.00
0.13
26.61
19.37
132.05
96.13
170
3.50
0.09
4.54
3.31
136.59
99.44
200
3.75
0.07
0.36
0.26
136.95
99.70
230
4.00
0.06
0.14
0.10
137.09
99.80
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.97
2.69
2.47
2.06
1.57
1.24
0.28
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.92
0.26
0.85
-1.55
7.11

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 024 #3
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -16 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
S
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
131.87
Wash Weight (g):
108.36
Pan Retained (g):
0.99
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.03
Fines % ):
20 - 20.0
#230 - 18.6
Organics (% ):
2.30
Carbonates (% ):
32.90
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
1.06
0.80
1.06
0.80
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.86
0.65
1.92
1.45
4
-2.25
4.76
0.53
0.40
2.45
1.85
5
-2.00
4.00
0.94
0.71
3.39
2.56
7
-1.50
2.83
2.74
2.08
6.13
4.64
10
-1.00
2.00
4.41
3.34
10.54
7.98
14
-0.50
1.41
6.55
4.97
17.09
12.95
18
0.00
1.00
7.26
5.51
24.35
18.46
25
0.50
0.71
7.56
5.73
31.91
24.19
35
1.00
0.50
8.06
6.11
39.97
30.30
45
1.50
0.35
7.61
5.77
47.58
36.07
60
2.00
0.25
9.72
7.37
57.30
43.44
80
2.50
0.18
13.89
10.53
71.19
53.97
120
3.00
0.13
22.26
16.88
93.45
70.85
170
3.50
0.09
9.83
7.45
103.28
78.30
200
3.75
0.07
2.16
1.64
105.44
79.94
230
4.00
0.06
1.89
1.43
107.33
81.37
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
3.28
2.31
0.57
-0.22
-1.45
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.38
0.38
1.63
-0.68
2.61

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 025 #1
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -16 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
143.70
Wash Weight (g):
143.70
Pan Retained (g):
0.33
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.14
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.45
#230 - 0.36
organics (% ):
0.50
Carbonates ( %):
1 13.60
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.82
0.57
0.82
0.57
4
-2.25
4.76
0.48
0.33
1.30
0.90
5
-2.00
4.00
0.73
0.51
2.03
1.41
7
-1.50
2.83
1.62
1.13
3.65
2.54
10
-1.00
2.00
1.75
1.22
5.40
3.76
14
-0.50
1.41
2.61
1.82
8.01
5.58
18
0.00
1.00
4.16
2.89
12.17
8.47
25
0.50
0.71
6.32
4.40
18.49
12.87
35
1.00
0.50
12.54
8.73
31.03
21.60
45
1.50
0.35
20.62
14.35
51.65
35.95
60
2.00
0.25
29.74
20.70
81.39
56.65
80
2.50
0.18
37.56
26.14
118.95
82.79
120
3.00
0.13
20.44
14.22
139.39
97.01
170
3.50
0.09
3.29
2.29
142.68
99.30
200
3.75
0.07
0.36
0.25
143.04
99.55
230
4.00
0.06
0.13
0.09
143.17
99.64
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.93
2.54
2.35
1.84
1.12
0.68
-0.66
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.6
0.33
1.1
-1.38
5.35

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 025 #2
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -16 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
134.48
Wash Weight (g):
134.48
Pan Retained (g):
0.57
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.42
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.96
#230 - 0.83
organics (% ):
0.50
Carbonates ( %):
1 18.00
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.97
0.72
0.97
0.72
3.5
-2.50
5.66
1.32
0.98
2.29
1.70
4
-2.25
4.76
0.47
0.35
2.76
2.05
5
-2.00
4.00
0.16
0.12
2.92
2.17
7
-1.50
2.83
0.92
0.68
3.84
2.85
10
-1.00
2.00
1.49
1.11
5.33
3.96
14
-0.50
1.41
3.40
2.53
8.73
6.49
18
0.00
1.00
4.67
3.47
13.40
9.96
25
0.50
0.71
6.22
4.63
19.62
14.59
35
1.00
0.50
10.46
7.78
30.08
22.37
45
1.50
0.35
15.63
11.62
45.71
33.99
60
2.00
0.25
23.37
17.38
69.08
51.37
80
2.50
0.18
37.07
27.57
106.15
78.94
120
3.00
0.13
22.88
17.01
129.03
95.95
170
3.50
0.09
3.71
2.76
132.74
98.71
200
3.75
0.07
0.44
0.33
133.18
99.04
230
4.00
0.06
0.17
0.13
133.35
99.17
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.97
2.65
2.43
1.96
1.11
0.59
-0.79
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.61
0.33
1.21
-1.54
5.84

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 025 #3
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -16 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
143.91
Wash Weight (g):
143.91
Pan Retained (g):
0.11
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.04
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.15
#230 - 0.12
organics (% ):
0.90
Carbonates ( %):
1 19.20
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.35
0.24
0.35
0.24
3.5
-2.50
5.66
2.14
1.49
2.49
1.73
4
-2.25
4.76
0.09
0.06
2.58
1.79
5
-2.00
4.00
1.27
0.88
3.85
2.67
7
-1.50
2.83
1.22
0.85
5.07
3.52
10
-1.00
2.00
1.62
1.13
6.69
4.65
14
-0.50
1.41
2.91
2.02
9.60
6.67
18
0.00
1.00
3.89
2.70
13.49
9.37
25
0.50
0.71
5.28
3.67
18.77
13.04
35
1.00
0.50
8.31
5.77
27.08
18.81
45
1.50
0.35
14.36
9.98
41.44
28.79
60
2.00
0.25
34.78
24.17
76.22
52.96
80
2.50
0.18
42.31
29.40
118.53
82.36
120
3.00
0.13
22.51
15.64
141.04
98.00
170
3.50
0.09
2.49
1.73
143.53
99.73
200
3.75
0.07
0.17
0.12
143.70
99.85
230
4.00
0.06
0.04
0.03
143.74
99.88
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.90
2.55
2.37
1.94
1.31
0.76
-0.91
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.64
0.32
1.17
-1.79
6.54

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 025 #4
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -16 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SP -SM
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
109.67
Wash Weight (g):
102.55
Pan Retained (g):
0.16
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.00
Fines /o):
#20 - 6.97
#230 - 6.63
Organics (% ):
1.60
Carbonates (% ):
1 9.70
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4
-2.25
4.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5
-2.00
4.00
0.16
0.15
0.16
0.15
7
-1.50
2.83
0.41
0.37
0.57
0.52
10
-1.00
2.00
0.60
0.55
1.17
1.07
14
-0.50
1.41
0.96
0.88
2.13
1.95
18
0.00
1.00
0.99
0.90
3.12
2.85
25
0.50
0.71
0.97
0.88
4.09
3.73
35
1.00
0.50
1.38
1.26
5.47
4.99
45
1.50
0.35
1.76
1.60
7.23
6.59
60
2.00
0.25
4.27
3.89
11.50
10.48
80
2.50
0.18
26.80
24.44
38.30
34.92
120
3.00
0.13
49.05
44.73
87.35
79.65
170
3.50
0.09
12.95
11.81
100.30
91.46
200
3.75
0.07
1.72
1.57
102.02
93.03
230
4.00
0.06
0.37
0.34
102.39
93.37
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
3.18
2.95
2.67
2.30
2.11
1.00
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
2.47
0.18
0.8
-2.67
12.34

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 026 #1
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -16 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
134.35
Wash Weight (g):
134.35
Pan Retained (g):
0.31
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.13
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.47
#230 - 0.37
organics (% ):
0.60
Carbonates ( %):
1 12.70
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
4.50
3.35
4.50
3.35
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
4.50
3.35
3.5
-2.50
5.66
1.35
1.00
5.85
4.35
4
-2.25
4.76
0.88
0.66
6.73
5.01
5
-2.00
4.00
1.02
0.76
7.75
5.77
7
-1.50
2.83
2.37
1.76
10.12
7.53
10
-1.00
2.00
2.54
1.89
12.66
9.42
14
-0.50
1.41
3.97
2.95
16.63
12.37
18
0.00
1.00
4.58
3.41
21.21
15.78
25
0.50
0.71
5.48
4.08
26.69
19.86
35
1.00
0.50
7.86
5.85
34.55
25.71
45
1.50
0.35
10.25
7.63
44.80
33.34
60
2.00
0.25
16.94
12.61
61.74
45.95
80
2.50
0.18
39.66
29.52
101.40
75.47
120
3.00
0.13
27.28
20.31
128.68
95.78
170
3.50
0.09
4.60
3.42
133.28
99.20
200
3.75
0.07
0.45
0.33
133.73
99.53
230
4.00
0.06
0.13
0.10
133.86
99.63
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.98
2.71
2.49
2.07
0.94
0.03
-2.25
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.46
0.36
1.62
-1.64
5.22

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 026 #2
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -16 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
150.78
Wash Weight (g):
150.78
Pan Retained (g):
0.00
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.22
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.24
#230 - 0.21
organics (% ):
0.40
Carbonates ( %):
1 11.90
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.5
-2.50
5.66
1.03
0.68
1.03
0.68
4
-2.25
4.76
0.43
0.29
1.46
0.97
5
-2.00
4.00
0.35
0.23
1.81
1.20
7
-1.50
2.83
0.56
0.37
2.37
1.57
10
-1.00
2.00
1.16
0.77
3.53
2.34
14
-0.50
1.41
2.24
1.49
5.77
3.83
18
0.00
1.00
3.46
2.29
9.23
6.12
25
0.50
0.71
5.21
3.46
14.44
9.58
35
1.00
0.50
9.62
6.38
24.06
15.96
45
1.50
0.35
18.78
12.46
42.84
28.42
60
2.00
0.25
35.38
23.46
78.22
51.88
80
2.50
0.18
49.46
32.80
127.68
84.68
120
3.00
0.13
20.46
13.57
148.14
98.25
170
3.50
0.09
2.11
1.40
150.25
99.65
200
3.75
0.07
0.16
0.11
150.41
99.76
230
4.00
0.06
0.04
0.03
150.45
99.79
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.88
2.49
2.35
1.96
1.36
1.00
-0.24
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.72
0.30
0.97
-1.77
7.34

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 026 #3
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -16 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
S
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
143.91
Wash Weight (g):
115.38
Pan Retained (g):
0.63
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.10
Fines % ):
20 - 21.8
#230 - 20.3
Organics (% ):
1.50
Carbonates (% ):
10.70
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.33
0.23
0.33
0.23
4
-2.25
4.76
0.17
0.12
0.50
0.35
5
-2.00
4.00
0.35
0.24
0.85
0.59
7
-1.50
2.83
1.56
1.08
2.41
1.67
10
-1.00
2.00
3.50
2.43
5.91
4.10
14
-0.50
1.41
4.04
2.81
9.95
6.91
18
0.00
1.00
3.70
2.57
13.65
9.48
25
0.50
0.71
3.36
2.33
17.01
11.81
35
1.00
0.50
3.36
2.33
20.37
14.14
45
1.50
0.35
3.53
2.45
23.90
16.59
60
2.00
0.25
5.84
4.06
29.74
20.65
80
2.50
0.18
19.16
13.31
48.90
33.96
120
3.00
0.13
48.16
33.47
97.06
67.43
170
3.50
0.09
13.11
9.11
110.17
76.54
200
3.75
0.07
2.34
1.63
112.51
78.17
230
4.00
0.06
2.10
1.46
114.61
79.63
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
3.42
2.74
2.16
1.38
-0.84
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
2.09
0.23
1.33
-1.52
4.48

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 027 #1
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -17 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
143.02
Wash Weight (g):
143.02
Pan Retained (g):
0.01
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.18
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.20
#230 - 0.20
organics (% ):
0.50
Carbonates ( %):
1 16.70
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.34
0.24
0.34
0.24
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.19
0.13
0.53
0.37
4
-2.25
4.76
0.27
0.19
0.80
0.56
5
-2.00
4.00
0.30
0.21
1.10
0.77
7
-1.50
2.83
1.35
0.94
2.45
1.71
10
-1.00
2.00
2.60
1.82
5.05
3.53
14
-0.50
1.41
4.71
3.29
9.76
6.82
18
0.00
1.00
6.74
4.71
16.50
11.53
25
0.50
0.71
10.04
7.02
26.54
18.55
35
1.00
0.50
16.44
11.49
42.98
30.04
45
1.50
0.35
25.72
17.98
68.70
48.02
60
2.00
0.25
32.99
23.07
101.69
71.09
80
2.50
0.18
27.10
18.95
128.79
90.04
120
3.00
0.13
12.77
8.93
141.56
98.97
170
3.50
0.09
1.06
0.74
142.62
99.71
200
3.75
0.07
0.13
0.09
142.75
99.80
230
4.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
142.75
99.80
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.78
2.34
2.10
1.54
0.78
0.32
-0.78
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.34
0.40
1.06
-1.02
4.24

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 027 #2
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -17 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
145.82
Wash Weight (g):
145.82
Pan Retained (g):
0.02
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.32
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.38
#230 - 0.35
organics (% ):
0.50
Carbonates ( %):
1 12.00
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.60
0.41
0.60
0.41
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.05
0.03
0.65
0.44
4
-2.25
4.76
0.34
0.23
0.99
0.67
5
-2.00
4.00
0.25
0.17
1.24
0.84
7
-1.50
2.83
1.08
0.74
2.32
1.58
10
-1.00
2.00
1.62
1.11
3.94
2.69
14
-0.50
1.41
2.73
1.87
6.67
4.56
18
0.00
1.00
3.92
2.69
10.59
7.25
25
0.50
0.71
5.60
3.84
16.19
11.09
35
1.00
0.50
10.11
6.93
26.30
18.02
45
1.50
0.35
17.93
12.30
44.23
30.32
60
2.00
0.25
33.83
23.20
78.06
53.52
80
2.50
0.18
48.88
33.52
126.94
87.04
120
3.00
0.13
16.92
11.60
143.86
98.64
170
3.50
0.09
1.29
0.88
145.15
99.52
200
3.75
0.07
0.14
0.10
145.29
99.62
230
4.00
0.06
0.04
0.03
145.33
99.65
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.84
2.45
2.32
1.92
1.28
0.85
-0.42
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.66
0.32
1
-1.7
6.84

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 027 #3
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -17 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
143.58
Wash Weight (g):
143.58
Pan Retained (g):
0.35
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.17
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.49
#230 - 0.41
organics (% ):
0.50
Carbonates ( %):
1 11.80
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.14
0.10
0.14
0.10
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.08
0.06
0.22
0.16
4
-2.25
4.76
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.16
5
-2.00
4.00
0.20
0.14
0.42
0.30
7
-1.50
2.83
0.83
0.58
1.25
0.88
10
-1.00
2.00
0.91
0.63
2.16
1.51
14
-0.50
1.41
1.76
1.23
3.92
2.74
18
0.00
1.00
2.57
1.79
6.49
4.53
25
0.50
0.71
4.58
3.19
11.07
7.72
35
1.00
0.50
8.66
6.03
19.73
13.75
45
1.50
0.35
16.85
11.74
36.58
25.49
60
2.00
0.25
35.20
24.52
71.78
50.01
80
2.50
0.18
46.73
32.55
118.51
82.56
120
3.00
0.13
21.70
15.11
140.21
97.67
170
3.50
0.09
2.33
1.62
142.54
99.29
200
3.75
0.07
0.32
0.22
142.86
99.51
230
4.00
0.06
0.12
0.08
142.98
99.59
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.91
2.55
2.38
2.00
1.48
1.10
0.07
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.81
0.29
0.88
-1.56
6.8

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 027 #4
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -17 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
S
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
152.59
Wash Weight (g):
133.95
Pan Retained (g):
0.74
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.00
Fines % ):
20 - 13.4
#230 - 12.7
Organics (% ):
1.80
Carbonates (% ):
20.30
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.18
0.12
0.18
0.12
4
-2.25
4.76
0.43
0.28
0.61
0.40
5
-2.00
4.00
0.48
0.31
1.09
0.71
7
-1.50
2.83
2.00
1.31
3.09
2.02
10
-1.00
2.00
2.34
1.53
5.43
3.55
14
-0.50
1.41
2.85
1.87
8.28
5.42
18
0.00
1.00
2.26
1.48
10.54
6.90
25
0.50
0.71
2.05
1.34
12.59
8.24
35
1.00
0.50
2.36
1.55
14.95
9.79
45
1.50
0.35
2.90
1.90
17.85
11.69
60
2.00
0.25
6.53
4.28
24.38
15.97
80
2.50
0.18
39.09
25.62
63.47
41.59
120
3.00
0.13
52.80
34.60
116.27
76.19
170
3.50
0.09
13.57
8.89
129.84
85.08
200
3.75
0.07
2.22
1.45
132.06
86.53
230
4.00
0.06
1.15
0.75
133.21
87.28
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
3.44
2.98
2.62
2.18
2.00
-0.61
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
2.22
0.21
1.15
-2.12
7.34

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 028 #1
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -17 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
155.07
Wash Weight (g):
155.07
Pan Retained (g):
0.15
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.00
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.12
#230 - 0.09
organics (% ):
0.50
Carbonates ( %):
1 12.80
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.48
0.31
0.48
0.31
4
-2.25
4.76
0.43
0.28
0.91
0.59
5
-2.00
4.00
0.32
0.21
1.23
0.80
7
-1.50
2.83
0.85
0.55
2.08
1.35
10
-1.00
2.00
1.34
0.86
3.42
2.21
14
-0.50
1.41
2.04
1.32
5.46
3.53
18
0.00
1.00
2.76
1.78
8.22
5.31
25
0.50
0.71
4.40
2.84
12.62
8.15
35
1.00
0.50
7.23
4.66
19.85
12.81
45
1.50
0.35
13.63
8.79
33.48
21.60
60
2.00
0.25
34.42
22.20
67.90
43.80
80
2.50
0.18
57.64
37.17
125.54
80.97
120
3.00
0.13
26.81
17.29
152.35
98.26
170
3.50
0.09
2.36
1.52
154.71
99.78
200
3.75
0.07
0.16
0.10
154.87
99.88
230
4.00
0.06
0.05
0.03
154.92
99.91
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.91
2.59
2.42
2.08
1.58
1.18
-0.09
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.85
0.28
0.93
-1.93
7.91

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 028 #2
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -17 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
SW
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
155.35
Wash Weight (g):
155.35
Pan Retained (g):
0.22
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.01
Fines /o):
#20 - 0.25
#230 - 0.16
organics (% ):
0.50
Carbonates ( %):
1 13.40
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.31
0.20
0.31
0.20
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.00
0.00
0.31
0.20
4
-2.25
4.76
0.32
0.21
0.63
0.41
5
-2.00
4.00
0.50
0.32
1.13
0.73
7
-1.50
2.83
0.95
0.61
2.08
1.34
10
-1.00
2.00
1.25
0.80
3.33
2.14
14
-0.50
1.41
2.72
1.75
6.05
3.89
18
0.00
1.00
3.72
2.39
9.77
6.28
25
0.50
0.71
5.65
3.64
15.42
9.92
35
1.00
0.50
9.21
5.93
24.63
15.85
45
1.50
0.35
14.65
9.43
39.28
25.28
60
2.00
0.25
37.10
23.88
76.38
49.16
80
2.50
0.18
55.69
35.85
132.07
85.01
120
3.00
0.13
20.79
13.38
152.86
98.39
170
3.50
0.09
1.89
1.22
154.75
99.61
200
3.75
0.07
0.22
0.14
154.97
99.75
230
4.00
0.06
0.14
0.09
155.11
99.84
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
2.87
2.49
2.36
2.01
1.49
1.01
-0.27
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.76
0.30
0.95
-1.73
6.93

a
c7
Z
a
a
LU
W
LU
W
a
U
Granuarmd o Report
Depths and elevations based on measured values
I COASTAL TECH
Coastal Geology & Sediments Laboratory
715 North Drive Suite E
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Name: Carteret County
Sample Name: 028 #3
AnalAnalysis Date: 01 -17 -12
Y
Analyzed By: LA
Easting (ft):
Northing (ft):
Coordinate System:
Elevation (ft):
USCS:
S
Munsell:
Comments:
Dry Weight (g):
142.70
Wash Weight (g):
111.00
Pan Retained (g):
0.67
Sieve Loss (% ):
0.09
Fines % ):
20 - 23.3
#230 - 22.8
Organics (% ):
1.70
Carbonates (% ):
13.90
Shells
Sieve Number
Sieve Size
(Phi)
Sieve Size
(Millimeters)
Grams
Retained
% Weight
Retained
Cum. Grams
Retained
C. % Weight
Retained
3/4"
-4.25
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/8"
-4.00
16.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11/16"
-3.50
11.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5/16"
-3.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.5
-2.50
5.66
0.17
0.12
0.17
0.12
4
-2.25
4.76
0.33
0.23
0.50
0.35
5
-2.00
4.00
0.30
0.21
0.80
0.56
7
-1.50
2.83
1.09
0.76
1.89
1.32
10
-1.00
2.00
1.29
0.90
3.18
2.22
14
-0.50
1.41
2.36
1.65
5.54
3.87
18
0.00
1.00
3.54
2.48
9.08
6.35
25
0.50
0.71
4.85
3.40
13.93
9.75
35
1.00
0.50
6.31
4.42
20.24
14.17
45
1.50
0.35
7.67
5.37
27.91
19.54
60
2.00
0.25
13.42
9.40
41.33
28.94
80
2.50
0.18
34.72
24.33
76.05
53.27
120
3.00
0.13
26.49
18.56
102.54
71.83
170
3.50
0.09
5.74
4.02
108.28
75.85
200
3.75
0.07
1.14
0.80
109.42
76.65
230
4.00
0.06
0.78
0.55
110.20
77.20
Phi 5
Phi 16
Phi 25
Phi 50
Phi 75
Phi 84
Phi 95
3.39
2.43
1.79
1.17
-0.27
Moment
Mean Phi
Mean mm
Sorting
Skewness
Kurtosis
Statistics
1.89
0.27
1.13
-1.38
4.89

Core Penetration Graphs
ODMDS Core 18 - ODMDS Core 28
Prepared for:
hdh%
110FFATT & IVICHOL
Moffatt & Nichol
1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27609
Submitted by:
mine
A GARDLINE COMPANY
Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey, Inc.
155 Hudson Avenue
Norwood, NJ 07648
February 9, 2012

Penetration Graph for Core No. 018, Run 1
Date: 12/12/2011
Start Time: 11:49:17 AM
End Time: 11:51:10 AM
Comment:
0
JAn nA,
To al P netr tion: 20. 2 ft; Last lapsed T me: 7.25 sec.
1
2
3
4
5
D 6
e
P
t 7
h
8
i
n 9
F 10
e
e 11
t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Penetration: 20.02 ft
Recovery: 17.90 ft
W D. Corrected: 44.07 ft
W D. Raw: 43.69 ft
Easting: 2690367.29 Lat: 76 °42'16.3980" dW N
Northing: 332252.65 Long: 034 °38'27.5280" dN W
Coord. System: NCSPCS 83 Datum: NAVD 88
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
Time in Seconds

Penetration Graph for Core No. 019, Run 1
Date: 12/11/2011
Start Time: 9:31:30 AM
End Time: 9:38:56 AM
Comment:
0
Total Penetration: 10. 5 ft; Last F lap led T me: 70.7 sec
1
2
3
4
5
D 6
e
P
t 7
h
8
i
n 9
F 10
e
e 11
t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Penetration: 10.25 ft
Recovery: 8.50 ft
W D. Corrected: 36.08 ft
W D. Raw: 37.09 ft
Easting: 2691366.45 Lat: 76 °42'04.4460" dW N
Northing: 332250.27 Long: 034 °38'27.2760" dN W
Coord. System: NCSPCS 83 Datum: NAVD 88
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
Time in Seconds

Penetration Graph for Core No. 019, Run 2
Date: 12/11/2011
Start Time: 10:01:35 AM
End Time: 10:05:52 AM
Comment:
0
1
2
3
4
5
D 6
e
P
t 7
h
8
i
n 9
F 10
e
e 11
t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Penetration: 19.25 ft
Recovery: 15.00 ft
W D. Corrected: 36.09 ft
W D. Raw: 36.68 ft
Easting: 2691363.16 Lat: 76 °42'04.4880" dW N
Northing: 332243.67 Long: 034 °38'27.2100" dN W
Coord. System: NCSPCS 83 Datum: NAVD 88
Jel
Staft
Jel
Limi
8
Total
Penetration:
61
19.
5 ft;
Last
lap
ed T
me:
8.61
sec.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
Time in Seconds

Penetration Graph for Core No. 020, Run 1
Date: 12/11/2011
Start Time: 8:58:15 AM
End Time: 9:08:11 AM
Comment:
0
1
2
3
4
5
D 6
e
P
t 7
h
8
i
n 9
F 10
e
e 11
t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Penetration: 15.74 ft
Recovery: 13.83 ft
W D. Corrected: 36.43 ft
W D. Raw: 37.7 ft
Easting: 2692364.69 Lat: 76 °41'52.5000" dW N
Northing: 332250.35 Long: 034 °38'27.0480" dN W
Coord. System: NCSPCS 83 Datum: NAVD 88
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
Time in Seconds

Penetration Graph for Core No. 021, Run 1
Date: 12/11/2011
Start Time: 7:19:11 AM
End Time: 7:26:47 AM
Comment:
0
1
2
3
4
5
D 6
e
P
t 7
h
8
i
n 9
F 10
e
e 11
t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Penetration: 17.61 ft
Recovery: 15.92 ft
W D. Corrected: 37.05 ft
W D. Raw: 38.19 ft
Easting: 2693363.50 Lat: 76 °41'40.5480" dW N
Northing: 332249.29 Long: 034 °38'26.8080" dN W
Coord. System: NCSPCS 83 Datum: NAVD 88
D 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
Time in Seconds

Penetration Graph for Core No. 022, Run 1
Date: 12/10/2011
Start Time: 4:29:30 PM
End Time: 4:34:47 PM
Comment:
0
1
2
3
4
5
D 6
e
P
t 7
h
8
i
n 9
F 10
e
e 11
t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Penetration: 8.63 ft
Recovery: 6.83 ft
W D. Corrected: 36.80 ft
W D. Raw: 36.03 ft
Easting: 2694363.93 Lat: 76 °41'28.5780" dW N
Northing: 332252.81 Long: 034 °38'26.6160" dN W
Coord. System: NCSPCS 83 Datum: NAVD 88
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
Time in Seconds

Penetration Graph for Core No. 022, Run 2
Date: 12/10/2011
Start Time: 4:51:54 PM
End Time: 4:56:06 PM
Comment:
0
1
2
3
4
5
D 6
e
P
t 7
h
8
i
n 9
F 10
e
e 11
t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Penetration: 19.14 ft
Recovery: 14.00 ft
W D. Corrected: 32.74 ft
W D. Raw: 32.14 ft
Easting: 2694363.56 Lat: 76 °41'28.5840" dW N
Northing: 332253.70 Long: 034 °38'26.6220" dN W
Coord. System: NCSPCS 83 Datum: NAVD 88
Jel
Staft
Jel
Limi
8
Total
Penetration:
19.
4 ft;
Last
lap
ed T
me:
13.9
sec
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
Time in Seconds

Penetration Graph for Core No. 024, Run 1
Date: 12/12/2011
Start Time: 12:11:23 PM
End Time: 12:12:45 PM
Comment:
0
1
2
3
4
5
D 6
e
P
t 7
h
8
i
n 9
F 10
e
e 11
t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Penetration: 18.48 ft
Recovery: 13.75 ft
W D. Corrected: 49.27 ft
W D. Raw: 48.71 ft
Easting: 2690361.98 Lat: 76 °42'16.7400" dW N
Northing: 331252.24 Long: 034 °38'17.6400" dN W
Coord. System: NCSPCS 83 Datum: NAVD 88
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
Time in Seconds
Total
Penetration:
9.29
18.
8 ft-,
Last
Llaix
ed T
me:
9.29
sec.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
Time in Seconds

Penetration Graph for Core No. 025, Run 1
Date: 12/11/2011
Start Time: 10:31:03 AM
End Time: 10:37:27 AM
Comment:
0
Total P netr tion: 10. 4 ft; Last lap ed T me: 15.3 sec
1
2
3
4
5
D 6
e
P
t 7
h
8
i
n 9
F 10
e
e 11
t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Penetration: 10.14 ft
Recovery: 8.00 ft
W D. Corrected: 41.97 ft
W D. Raw: 42.10 ft
Easting: 2691364.49 Lat: 76 °42'04.7460" dW N
Northing: 331253.07 Long: 034 °38'17.4180" dN W
Coord. System: NCSPCS 83 Datum: NAVD 88
0 121.41
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
Time in Seconds

Penetration Graph for Core No. 025, Run 2
Date: 12/11/2011
Start Time: 10:55:21 AM
End Time: 10:59:00 AM
Comment:
0
1
2
3
4
5
D 6
e
P
t 7
h
8
i
n 9
F 10
e
e 11
t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Penetration: 19.99 ft
Recovery: 11.50 ft
W D. Corrected: 41.97 ft
W D. Raw: 39.39 ft
Easting: 2691367.19 Lat: 76 °42'04.7100" dW N
Northing: 331253.49 Long: 034 °38'17.4180" dN W
Coord. System: NCSPCS 83 Datum: NAVD 88
Jel
Staft
Jel
Limi
8
C)
9,CJ
Total
Penetration:
19.
9 ft;
Last
laP
ed T
me:
8.36
sec.
0 5 10
15
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 1
Time in Seconds
c

Penetration Graph for Core No. 026, Run 1
Date: 12/11/2011
Start Time: 8:31:53 AM
End Time: 8:33:17 AM
Comment:
0
T\--
lAn
IA I I-
A n-
To al P netr tion: 20.04 ft; Last lap ed T me: 2.12 sec.
1
2
3
4
5
D 6
e
P
t 7
h
8
i
n 9
F 10
e
e 11
t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Penetration: 20.04 ft
Recovery: 13.80 ft
W D. Corrected: 45.70 ft
W D. Raw: 47.10 ft
Easting: 2692365.13 Lat: 76 °41'52.7760" dW N
Northing: 331247.31 Long: 034 °38'17.1300" dN W
Coord. System: NCSPCS 83 Datum: NAVD 88
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
Time in Seconds

Penetration Graph for Core No. 027, Run 1
Date: 12/11/2011
Start Time: 8:04:51 AM
End Time: 8:09:14 AM
Comment:
0
1
2
3
4
5
D 6
e
P
t 7
h
8
i
n 9
F 10
e
e 11
t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Penetration: 19.42 ft
Recovery: 16.75 ft
W D. Corrected: 43.63 ft
W D. Raw: 45.06 ft
Easting: 2693366.30 Lat: 76 °41'40.7940" dW N
Northing: 331253.48 Long: 034 °38'16.9620" dN W
Coord. System: NCSPCS 83 Datum: NAVD 88
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
Time in Seconds
I
An
A nn
A
nn
Total
P
8.88
netr
tion:
19.
2 ft;
Last
lap
ed T
me:
8.88
sec.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
Time in Seconds

Penetration Graph for Core No. 028, Run 1
Date: 12/10/2011
Start Time: 3:58:57 PM
End Time: 4:08:00 PM
Comment:
0
1
2
3
4
5
D 6
e
P
t 7
h
8
i
n 9
F 10
e
e 11
t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Penetration: 19.99 ft
Recovery: 12.90 ft
W D. Corrected: 42.72 ft
W D. Raw: 41.51 ft
Easting: 2694358.58 Lat: 76 °41'28.9200" dW N
Northing: 331246.13 Long: 034 °38'16.6620" dN W
Coord. System: NCSPCS 83 Datum: NAVD 88
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
Time in Seconds

11CTT
EENO ®
1111M11 ®0
®NE 11
L v
1100E
Oo
�O
�O
00
111111 11EN
ON1111011 X00
111111TEDET 00
0
11E11111D11T
110 11 11E IN11ET 111111E
011111111011E
mdIIET
11 11E
TE111111
11EN 11E 11 IN IIET 110011011T
NE11 111I]E11 O
IN 11ET
00
O 0
0000 PROJECT AREA
NEO Oil
11 11NO11E11 O
O
0
0
ti
1111 E O
EE 1111 0 10 20
5 15 25
SCALE IN MILES
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY- MOFFATT & NICHOL
11111111EN / I ~�
111111TE11ET
1 0
7 M011EDE1111
2� 11Q11 4
i
s� _ N0000 0
___ o
OO ❑N❑ NC 1182
O �O�GE �i
?F NC 58 OTOONT® 000 0
- OM O$00 00
_,tE ON000 OEOOO MOT
m OOTyo0 OOOOEO MOOON
\ CEO M011EDE1111 II 11E111111O11T 1
Q NG 58 NOWN y 11 IT 11 111111110 11 Iq IN 000 11
BN�OOOO �� 0 011M1111 II M011EDE1111 OOAO'�600 1
F II
[]IT[] 11111111011
II N1111 ®11T ®N
110 11 11E 111111NNE11
O
m.T�T F •�l��s� Z I - II
FST O 11M11 11 [][NE I] II 1111 EE
11 ®110 111111 11 11E ❑ II 110011011T
V PROPOSED
BORROW SITE,
PROPOSED SEE SHEET 32
RENOURISHMENT,
SEE KEY MAPS ON
SHEET 2
❑T❑ ❑NT❑❑ O ❑E ❑N
0 2 4
1 3 5
SCALE IN MILES
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
LOCATION MAP
SHEET TI TLE-
VICINITY AND LOCATION MAP
SHEET
1
of-
48

EME❑❑❑❑ ®❑E
11
34
w
cc
O
cn
❑❑QPE❑ 00T 1] ❑ LOU-
IN ❑ ®N 11E 111111
NC 58
I
I
1101111E 1111111N11
• DRIVE
REED DRIVE Lu
Lu
Lu
Lu
Lu biu L mo
N NE I] IIN III
0 m m 0 m Luu -;L m
Lu
OCEAN VIEW ••
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
PROPOSED EMERALD ISLE WEST BEACH RENOURISHMENT LIMITS
w
w
[IT ❑❑ N T 1111 O❑ E❑ N
EMERALD ISLE WEST KEY MAP
S
U
> S
Lu
❑ O ❑ ❑ E ❑ O ❑ N ❑
CL
Lu
o
o°
v z a
>
o
Lu
CL
w
3
x )
o
w w w
z
o� �
a
Lu
O
Lu
¢
Lu
Q
U
Z
Z Q Z
w
W
3
a
O
a
U N N
O
O
LL
OUTRIGGER
w
W
W w
w
m
COURT
m
m
m m
m
m
m
m
OCEAN DRIVE
m
m
m w
m
I
I
1101111E 1111111N11
• DRIVE
REED DRIVE Lu
Lu
Lu
Lu
Lu biu L mo
N NE I] IIN III
0 m m 0 m Luu -;L m
Lu
OCEAN VIEW ••
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
PROPOSED EMERALD ISLE WEST BEACH RENOURISHMENT LIMITS
35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
PROPOSED EMERALD ISLE EAST BEACH RENOURISHMENT LIMITS
[IT ❑❑ N T 1111 O❑ E❑ N
EMERALD ISLE EAST KEY MAP
❑ O [1 [11 E ❑ N [10[1[]E ® ❑ ❑N❑
Lu
w
c0R-4� D
SALTER PATH ROAD
CORAL SHORES MARITIME PLACE
a
/s,_ O
�
Q
ARBORVITAE DRIVE
DOGWOOD CIRCLE
�j������������► ���i. ���wcc* Z�4��Z�Z�... �7�T�7�� ►T�7���Z�.�I�i�������������� pm romMom:! i!.. ���;. ��������������� ►�Ti.Ti���i��TiT��� sa������������������ ►�.����
WW FROZEN FIRMS A00#&*1
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
PROPOSED PINE KNOLL SHORES BEACH RENOURISHMENT LIMITS
PROJECT TITLE: CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
[IT ❑❑ N T 1111 O❑ E❑ N
PINE KNOLL SHORES KEY MAP
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
SHEET TI TLE-
KEY MAPS
0 1/8 1/4
SCALE IN MILES
❑❑QPE❑ ❑❑T❑ ❑
IN❑ ®N 11E 111111
0 1/8 1/4
SCALE IN MILES
111NE []NO[][] ❑❑O❑E❑
0 1/8 1/4
SCALE IN MILES
SHEET
2
OF
48
[IT ❑❑ N T 1111 O❑ E❑ N
EMERALD ISLE WEST KEY MAP
❑ O ❑ ❑ E ❑ O ❑ N ❑
Lu
Lu
w
w
w
w w w w w w
w w w
w
Lu
Lu
Lu
Lu
Lu
Lu
Lu
Lu Lu
w
w
w
w
w w w w w w
w w w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
W
W w
w
m
m
m
m
m m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m w
m
cc
~
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
m
m
2
2
y
F
F F F F
F F
F
2
2
2
2
2
2
m
G
N
F
O
m aD n VJ N R
r r r
(`') N r
r r
O
r
m
a~D
n
l~O
N
R
(`')
N r
a
N
N
N
N
N
r r r
❑O❑ ❑E ®❑ ❑N❑
EMERALD DRIVE
OCEAN DRIVE
12
114
1
1 1 1
1
19
120
21
I
35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
PROPOSED EMERALD ISLE EAST BEACH RENOURISHMENT LIMITS
[IT ❑❑ N T 1111 O❑ E❑ N
EMERALD ISLE EAST KEY MAP
❑ O [1 [11 E ❑ N [10[1[]E ® ❑ ❑N❑
Lu
w
c0R-4� D
SALTER PATH ROAD
CORAL SHORES MARITIME PLACE
a
/s,_ O
�
Q
ARBORVITAE DRIVE
DOGWOOD CIRCLE
�j������������► ���i. ���wcc* Z�4��Z�Z�... �7�T�7�� ►T�7���Z�.�I�i�������������� pm romMom:! i!.. ���;. ��������������� ►�Ti.Ti���i��TiT��� sa������������������ ►�.����
WW FROZEN FIRMS A00#&*1
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
PROPOSED PINE KNOLL SHORES BEACH RENOURISHMENT LIMITS
PROJECT TITLE: CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
[IT ❑❑ N T 1111 O❑ E❑ N
PINE KNOLL SHORES KEY MAP
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
SHEET TI TLE-
KEY MAPS
0 1/8 1/4
SCALE IN MILES
❑❑QPE❑ ❑❑T❑ ❑
IN❑ ®N 11E 111111
0 1/8 1/4
SCALE IN MILES
111NE []NO[][] ❑❑O❑E❑
0 1/8 1/4
SCALE IN MILES
SHEET
2
OF
48

L
Elf
wok XI �D� °� Iw
z
z
���� I �u I of w
of w r o
� f I � � - QI I I
v o _ _ - -� - -- o FSFTE SEN, � Q Q I
w I w z w a Q w w
o QI I o - S - - -- ST�QRU EDMUNDSON, I
_ J�-'��j Q � o ETUX DEANNA o CHENEY, COLEY, JACK P R
w Q _ - -I - - DAY, BRIAN K x I SPEARS, Q o I rr �- - EDWIN ASR - - - ~ ETAL
_- �ED€�TCM -� f - -L+9W- �-€T�7X �I -SOF�f VTJR o w -I
-o-- -�� MHOMASP -Iz GEORGE FO - o - REBtOfl - -�X CAROL JOHN �I ETAL FSLLS MAL�� °-} E�D�
JOHN M zAMES F Ej�X IT Klan _
T MNi�A o = MARIA -f� - - - M MRTHA B= oPERIES Q _ z�- - -_ L-7
o i HA — — ------------------------- - - - - -�
—-----------------------__-------------------------------
_----- ------ - - - - -- ----------------- - - - - -- BERM, EL +6.0
~
- - - -- _____ - -- 5 IW
— — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — W
----- - - - - -- _-- - - - - -_ - - - -= -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - - -- - - - - - -- _ ILd
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Ld
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
20:1 SLOPE U
� IQ
I RENOURISHMENT I
SLOPE LIMIT
EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1 — I
- T_
PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1
EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
— — PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7
EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5 -
_ — — — PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5 I
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
SHEET TI TL E.
EMERALD ISLE WEST RENOURISHMENT PLAN
1 OF 8
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
3
OF
48

I
PT PELLET BETZ, -- - - - - -- - - -- --
U w HATES, } BANK OF PELLET, HERBERT — — — — w ul
m — Q HANDDAKER, w w w PETER H SYLVESTER, SIEGEL, RQSERT CRERANA
W —a I C JAMES ETAL NEW YORK ETAL E'A�TR�S� � �I —I— LARRY � ETUX RICHARD J BROWNING, HENEH�_ FOPLSL� TEPd�� 0 �RG j S, BAG
�7 w Q TRUSTEE w -- -HENFi PATRICIA A ANTHONY J JR
Q =T� �� _� w THOMPSEN ETAL �_IR �—E�HX € FCC — FERGUS DAVID J DURHAM —E4— �77 TAL ��� +�
—�1— T LIBBY ETAL —IPkE —
w TRUSTEE
-� - _
M�_ - - - -- —_= - - - -_— - - - - -- `------------------------- - - - - -- Lo
�IW
U
w --
-=
W
J II-
UI--
QI
� - _ - - - - - -
- BERM, EL +6.0 W
~
- _ - - - -_ - - - - I Ld
-- - - - - -- - - __ - - - -- - - - - -- \ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - -- - - -- I2
-- -� = - -� = -_ - - - -- W
_- == -- - -= - -- -= -= - - - _= �'
-- --
20:1 SLOPE U
— � Q
/ / I
RENOURISHMENT
SLOPE LIMIT - - - - - - - - - - - - - I
EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1 - -
PROPOSED MHW,EL +1.1 ---------- - - - - -I
- - - EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
_ PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7
EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5
PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5
PROJECT TITLE.- CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM.t NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
SEE ISHEET 34
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DA TE.- FEBRUARY 2012
SHEET TITLE
EMERALD ISLE WEST RENOURISHMENT PLAN
20F8
0 100' 200'
i " =i 00'
SHEET
4
OF
48

-I- - -- ----- I - - --
NELSON, �MOORE,— I .TIM S, — CURRY, — DREW, ROACH, OSEPH, �-rLE BDTi
1 GOD WIN, — L �OS�PH L JR BRIAN C _I_ PETER —JASON L DAD Ja y B- 0'S�G` I ��OPNER P�
Q J GLADSTONE, �I YOUNG, MURRAY, I C �� 5 �}y ETUR'E �L - y�DRED�� �USTEE ETUX ETAL — — — — -
w MITCHELL, L t BOUNTY ETN — LT4� FRrRet A E I — — 4b'LB --R_ TUX EL I ETUX JENNY �C\ERINE ZHPRR_I— _= - -_ —I
�fi-- _ - - --
ETUX EILEEN ETAL _
ETUX ETAS D /B /A _ - - - -- �� _ - -- - - -_
-- - - - - -I -I -__� _ --- - -� - -- -� - -�� -- �— _ - -_ -------- - - - - --
BERM, EL +6.0 \
Lwd- - -0- — -- — — — — — — — - - - - - -- _ - - - -- / - - - -— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- - - - - -- - - -- -
W- ---o- - ---- - - -- - -- - -- _ - -- _ - - - - - -- - -_ -
-_ - - = - = == -= � =T _ - -- __
�- - -- -- - - -- - --
LLI
C) - - --
- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - --
— -10 —
EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1
- -'�- - - - '= PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1
EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7 -
EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5
- - - - - - PROPOSED MLW, Cl -2.5
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
11
SEE
SHEET 34
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
-- ----- - - - - -- . - - - --
---
- - - 20:1 SLOPE - -
_ ______ - -- _--- t- - - - - --
RENOURISHMENT
SLOPE LIMIT
SHEET TI TL E.
EMERALD ISLE WEST RENOURISHMENT PLAN
30F8
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
I~ Ld
Ld
== -IU)
Ld
U)
- 1z
J_
I
H
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHEET
5
OF
48

-- -- _ -_ - -- -_ -__ - _ -_ -_ -_
20 _��__ —__ - -_ ��- - - - - -- ----------------- - - - - -- 15 - -- —
— — — _ — _ — — — — — — — — -E7E —R R VET RES _
—Z — — _ —_ —_ —_ _ _ —_EMER� J.SLE
—PEBBE - -- = I--- - -_ - -- ----------------- - - - - -- _
=E�9RFS —IM2- _ _ -- __ _ _ - - - -- — BNT—EI4TER777 ESQ - -- -- — - --
_ — — —_ —_— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —10
d�TS9N5 H ----------- �---- - - - - -- �Q�E F�ERA - --
_ —�� — — - -- - - -- ------------- t------ - - - - -- ------------ - - - - -�
I
BERM, EL +6.0
Lf)-
L -- — — — — — — - --- - - - - -- - - - - --
— — - -0— — — — —
W = = —. — - — — --
�F -= - - -- - - - - -
Ld - --
J
0I
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
- - - _ 20:1 SLOPE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
- ---- ----- \-I
- EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
- - . - _ PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7
- EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5
PROPOSED MLW, Cl -2.5
12
SEE
SHEET 35
- -5 _
Ld
- - - - -- IJ
- - -- - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - - - - - --
I
RENOURISHMENT
SLOPE LIMIT
-\-- EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1 - - -
PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
SHEET TI TL E.
EMERALD ISLE WEST RENOURISHMENT PLAN
40F8
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
6
OF
48
------------
w
- - -
- - - -
- -
lLu
--�- --
--
- -5 _
Ld
- - - - -- IJ
- - -- - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - - - - - --
I
RENOURISHMENT
SLOPE LIMIT
-\-- EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1 - - -
PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
SHEET TI TL E.
EMERALD ISLE WEST RENOURISHMENT PLAN
40F8
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
6
OF
48

- - - THE CASH COW LLC
I I I I
I I I I
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — �— — — — — — — — — — — — _ — -
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —I— — — — + — — — — — — — — — — —
�- - — _ — _ 1- 5 MOkOipL - -- PR PEALR e e
l ES - r Qc1— nC�HP T&— D_v ' 1
E— 0777
- -
-
— I
i5KV1'CT I— B�VF�K— — +TAE — —Lt's
SLANpE �ENS1 RFS — — — CAB€- -EMMAk 7 PTOPTRTESTC — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — —
EM9LQ 1SLEJ1� + — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — j o CA BBELL,TALtGi� —� -� 12 I
�ROT�R & 7 STERS LLC — — —I — vv RAI`SD7 �bER+E{ S - - J
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -1 — — — — — — �C— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
— — - — — — — — — — — �- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
CO
Lu
T —
W r=
U)
Ld
Z I
J
BERM, EL +6.0
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — -
- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — / — — — — — — — — —
--------------
— - -- - - - - -- - -- -- -- -- - - - --
-- - - - - -- --a)- -
------------------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - - \
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
13
SEE
SHEET 35
- EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5
PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
IF IF — — — — — — co
— — — — — — — — — — --- — — I L I J
Ld
— —20:1 SLOPE -- —_ — —�
U)
- -.- - - -.- - a
-5 I Z
J
- -- -_ - - - - - - -_ - - -J� RENOURISHMENT Q
SLOPE LIMIT I
I
I
-- �EXISTING MHW,EL +1.1 ---- - - - - --
PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1 I
- EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7
SHEET TI TL E.
EMERALD ISLE WEST RENOURISHMENT PLAN
50F8
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
I
SHEET
7
Of-
48

SOUND OF THE SEA I I I I I
ICONDO 2 ASSOC
— — -h — — + -- — — -- — — — -- — — — —
-- _6UV6iiFES7AiNC - -- _ _- - -_ - - -- - - -- - -- - - - - -- - -IT - -- -- ____
— — — — — �6UND F TI IE LQONS� — LSE_!0LM_ON — StH iw�S �B — TERRY D— �E�ITTbt� AMAK , -- - - - - — - - - - - — ETAL COONS L ddtL1@RANDS JOSEPH McEt��FT, — SEA OATS -R STRL N7 CRY I HARD J — S7-AL FOR— �V MEMT C�4SLL9yOJ NV S� C��9pp _
— — — — — — — — — — — — — -� — — — — — J AUSTIN IV EMTX�TACP4�RC,A�� —ETUX ff� BEt t�D- �CCAST_A71D - DF v D - GR9llPG -� N2LESLIRS�L
---- -- TH RSA — - YNd�STQRSCLL- — — — L- — — — i€S SRS -N_C— -
- — — — — — — — — — — — —I— -
- BERM, EL +6.0 - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
----- - - - - -- - _-- - -�� --
i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
— — — — — — — — — — —
_ _ -- -- -- - -- -- - - -_ --- - - - - - -
W - - - - - - -- - _ - - - - --
I W - _ - - _ - _ - 20:1 SLOPE - - -
(n� - -- - - - -� _
I - -- -- - -. . — . — . — . --
zr- - _ - - - _ - - -- iz
J _ J
RENOURISHMENT I Q
SLOPE LIMIT
_------ - - - - -- EXISTING MHW,EL +1.1
I - - - - -" - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - --
PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1 -- I
-10 _
I EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7 I
IPROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7
- - - -- - - 14 _
- - EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5
I SEE - - - - -- --- - - - - -- I
SHEET 36 PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
SHEET TI TL E.
EMERALD ISLE WEST RENOURISHMENT PLAN
60F8
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
8
Of-
48

I I I I I I I I O I I I I I I I I
I I f f I I I w W I I I I I
LF
MOLDTHAN, WW THE BANK
15 FLAMINGO I BRAD Y, —� SGkI� L JOHN Ht HR07 E E� –8E— -� EVERETTE, NTGOMERY, I �D
�3Rr –I
ZORNER, SERENITY NOWDERSON CONDO JOHNSTON, BELLE C e�ARVINLE Q –�FBT H ETT�_— �A —
CREVISTON, AND �– SCOTT R NVESTMENTS FA —I Q — �— _ +EhP�LLSO f _� 15 I
ACAIR –A— — — ELLW-�ONDO_ L STEVEN E — OWNF�r I – €T7tt — —EL-� — –T —�E J – — —LCD S d�TEE� ESJ ETUX
A�DEBSO� _ _�IIX C7 COL _� ��– — — — +– —_ �_ —�4 —I _ J-
�� _ �TAL = = OWNERS_ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ——NN —'~Z - -_— — — N10E — —R OS€�� —I 11711th, –
— — —r — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — � - --- - --- -- -�_
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
I – –
-_ -- - - - - -- BERM, EL +6.0
W- - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - -
W- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 -
Lu
Ld I -- - - -- -- -- - - --
U)
I- -- - _ - _
Ld
Z I — 5 —
I- - - - - - - - - - -
----- - - - - --
I
- - - - -
— —10 4-
11
I 5
F--- - - - - -- SEE
- SHEET 36
I
PROJECT TITLE: CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
- - - - -- SLOPE
Ld
- -- -- Ld
i)
Ld
. __ W
U)
_ —5
'--- EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1
PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1
- EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7
� EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5
PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
lz
U
lQ
---- T�- - -_ -- _ :2
RENOURISHMENT - -
SLOPE LIMIT I
SHEET TI TL E.
EMERALD ISLE WEST RENOURISHMENT PLAN
70F8
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
9
OF
48

it I I _ I II i ___
15
BIRCH, � — — — — — PARER —
i HOLDINGS %
I ROBERT M I VAUUE' (HAMILTON, I SM OT, �� OC E �I MIRON, — �4WJJ.�Y — LUDWIG ` I
DONALD H ETUX �— �` FARRINGTOA�COLEBROOK STOCKDALE, I TAYLOR, 1
�ELLA S RICHARD C H WAK Rnf II BRUCE L LEONARD B�F� SAM aLi� B �R 1 ELIZABETH I RIGGS, / / ROBERTi �I PTS ETALTI` LLC —
_ — — — — �ER�Y ETUX I ETUX ETAL ETUX ELOISE TT ? G�XSWOLD,TAL — — — GOLE,— K+HE,— (-
ETUX GWE�� - -E-`� ATH E��ERf7 ETU _ ARN AYMOND — ORG �—J2�1 — RICHARD B _
— — (\BETTY I I — — — �'� _ — — — — — — —_ L _ �TtX E�� — _ — — — — — — ETIJZSUZANNE
mi-
_ - -- —"— —1-
—_ — — — — — — — -- — — — -- — —�— -- - — — — — — 10 __
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
OBI - - -5 —BERM, EL +6.0 - - - - - --
-.L
LIJI - - -- — — — — - -- - - - -- __ - -- - - -- ---------- - - - - -- __
-- ____ -- - - - - -- ____
7` — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
W
— - — - — — - — - — — — - - — — — - — - — -
- - -- — 20:1SLOPE — -- — - - -- _ /
5 — /- -- — — — — — — — — — —
QI - - - --
/ RENOURISHMENT
SLOPE LIMIT
EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1
IPROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1
— — — —
—\— EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
IPROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7
16 EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5
I — —10 SEE — —
SHEET 37
I _ PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
SHEET TI TL E.
EMERALD ISLE WEST RENOURISHMENT PLAN
80F8
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
10
OF
48

i I i i I
� I II II I I I I Qw I
i
i BLUEWATERj / EPSON, BTE w
N STE d�€TUX �� TES JARRICK INC JARRICK INC w
LE IN STEPHANIE ~� LLC �I U Q
�I SALA, 15 0� W —
ANTHONY J — < _
MARKNE ETAL I Q TRABEVERLY z — _ ❑ z
I�SALVO
PIER POINTE PROPERTIES LLC POINT EAST
o PROPERTIES LLC
7Q w_ ❑ ~
~� �� �� �a_ J w ❑ Ln
-- ooJ
_ ____
z I
- --
o
u� a_ — — 15 -- -- — — — — — -- — — — — — — -- \ — — —/ — — / —� — —_ — — — 1 — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - {�At RB ASSOrA LLC -
- TDlBA.Ll — — — — — — — N
— — — T — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
MARK E ETAL ----------------- - - - - -- - - --
-I DISALVO 10 ��I PTEF- POII�wASNR OW�ENASSN— �NER- P�T�TEN_STE�_ _ 10_
— — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
—I OWNERS A�2 - -S - -- - -- I�
— - -- - -- BTF ETAL PRE ASSO- CATFS- LC-------------------------------- - - - - --
— — —
— — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
wl '^
— — — — V J
- - _B
ERM, EL +6.0
W
— W
----- - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ = - -_- _-- - = - - =- = -- -- _ -- - - _ _ _ 0 -
- - -- _ == = -- -_- _ - -_ -_- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - -� -- - _ - - - -_ �W
-�� - -- - ------------ - - - - -. --
- - -
_ - -- - - - - -- -_ -= - - - -_ -= - - --------------------- - - - - -- _� -� -- - -�_- 2
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
-- 1
I------ - - - - -- - -- -- EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1
_--_ -- - -- -- --- - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1
I
EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7 � I
- ` RENOURISHMENT
PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7 SLOPE LIMIT
EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5 I
PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5
- - - -
\
N. I
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
SHEET TI TLE-
EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHMENT PLAN
1 OF 11
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
11
OF
48

Q
O ❑E ❑N ❑❑EEE _
_T
71_�
I a
WELKER, RICHARD C
JORDAN, , DOROTHY A
— — — CHARLES M D BSA KATHLEEN
Q — — — GIA_E'LE -k
— — — — — o WALTER D SIR LER, MOORE,
ETUX ANGELA ALAN S ETUX
- _ I SHONELL__
� _ DEBRA
g— — 15
g <— —9CE N 2E OCEAN REE OCEAN REFE— �DEIE SAN REF w w °L CAR — �L— DIUGUID, OCEAp R.ELF -
- 15 V�4paAENTE4E�MENT DEVELOPMENT LO PMENT I� j COASTAL COASTAL 1llLL 9A # —� DEVELOPMENT — — — — -
- 0— — — —C9— C� — ° _ — — — r—PA?9 ERT€t —PRA€ tTTE� ETUX ETAL �O €T44_ — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
—I— — — — 1-- — — — _ _L — �— — - -- — — — — — — — — 10— —
_ — - - _
------ - - - - -- IKi
W- - -- - - -T -- - - -�— - - -- — _ w
_ - - -- -BERM, EL +6.0
U) — _ _ — — _ _ �
— — — — — — — — — — _
5 — _ - -- — -- - -- - -- - - - -- ------ - - - - -- — — - -- _ _ I
LLl -- — — - -
Z
—5
_
� I
I
I 35
SEE - - - - --
SHEET 38
— -T_— -- —
— - --
-- - -- -- 20.iSLOPE - -- _ - - - -- - - - - - -- J
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I
MEW!+®
- - - - - - — — — — — — — \
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1
PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1
EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7
— -- EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5
- PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
RENOURISHMENT I
SLOPE LIMIT
SHEET TI TL E.
EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHMENT PLAN
20F11
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
12
OF
48

I O ❑E ❑N ❑❑111E - -- - -- I
i
H I
W
�_-------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - -- -- -� - - -_ ALMOST 01 BRANCH,
W CUMMINGS, MIDDLETON,� HEAVEN
CAMP, P0TTS, GARDNER, DM TRUST I MAYER, I I BRICE, I - GEORGE EMERALD ISLE - - DAVID W JR
CLATH ERINE � ETUX LETAL �TLX E MAR MARIAN LLC - - �AYE RM ETAL� BREDWARD � MARYTC X � RICHARD E- � ETUXAEUR � �E�- CHRISTA B I�ttE � - - CtC LEE,
- - - - - - - - - - -TAB - - - - - - - - - - __LL ILLLAEL �- - - - S�MFl1- Z__t
-� NGCHOLASRBER � ttE� -� OATS
�- ETAL - --
I f=HELLE 15 1 'H12 D I
T T T -� - - I- - - - -- - - 1- - _ _ _ �_ 1 -
\ \ - -- - -- - - ---------- - - - - -- - -- - -- ---- -� - -_- - -- -- � - -_-
- - -.� 10 _ _ _ - - - - - -- - -- - - - ------ -+ - - -I
- -- - - - - - - - - -- - -1- - - - - - - - - -I- - - - - - -
- - - - -
_ ____ -BERM, EL +6.0 -- - -� - --
J - - � - - - -- � -- � -
w
l -------- - - - - -- — - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- _ _- - - - - -- \ -- — — — — — — — w
cn� = - -- — ------ ---- -- - - -- _ - - -_�� -- U) ° _ _— =— - -_ - -- _ - - - -_ -- - -_ - -- — - - -- ----------- - - -_ —_ - - -_ - -- w
_ \
�- -- -
20:1 SLOPE - - - - - - - - I
=I �i _ - - -- -- - - / - - - - - -- I=
�
QI- -- - - - - - -�
- - - - - --
I
\ - - --
- - - - - - - - - - / - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -
RENOURISHMENT
/ \ \ \_ - _ _ SLOPE LIMIT
EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1
1 -
PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1 _
ISEE
SHEET 38
I -10 -
EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7
_ - - -- - - --
EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5
PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
37 _
SEE
SHEET 39
SHEET TI TL E.
EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHMENT PLAN
30F11
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
13
OF
48

— \ O ❑E [IN ❑ ❑EIIE
IN
W 10 —L—
— / ❑ MINES, _ — THEAVENER,_ I— — — _ — —I �USTI
IT-
IWARRINGTON, _ — — -- u1�B�&N� -�I CTARD, KCDS_PB
PAUL, — _ _ �ARt€S — RUBY S ETAL MY ETUX�L+E�ECC CHOSY,
EVANKO, EDWARDS, BENTLEY WILLIAM /TR
�EYUX BEVE�RL ETUX � — — —
PETER J RENE E _ — — 7 / � BERT F 15
�'Tfi� E�ANKO HEAVENER, — ETAL DUBOIS GOLD-A, TRU777E
_DANIEL E — — TITUS, — — —
I DANI v�C- iECL -� WOJNO, GALL ARD , PAUL ETAL BAKLEY, a {� FR CHTEN CHTT
CHRISTOPHER I MARK A ETAL ROBERT N
IETAL I I I LEONARD DUFFY I I ETUX RUTH WI — — — — — — — — — — —
---------- - - - - -- - - - - --
--- —� - -- - -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - - -- ------------- - - - - -�
--------- - - - - --
BERM,EL +6.0 --------------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
w- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -. - -a _. - -__- - -- - -_ --
LLI
wl-- - - -_ -- - -
LU
= I --------------
— —
U
QI _
LI - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PROJECT TITLE: CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
20:1 SLOPE
EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1
PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1
EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7 - -
EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5
PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5 -
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
Lo
IW Llj
- - -- _ - v _
Ld
- -_ — - -- -- -- �I(Lfd
-�Z
U
I
RENOURISHMENT
SLOPE LIMIT I
I
- - - - - - - - - - - - I
38
SEE
SHEET 39
SHEET TI TL E.
EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHMENT PLAN
40F11
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
14
OF
48

d -SE` ❑N ❑❑ Ell
E� / -- / -- -- - - - - -
HEDGES, wa TER o
�r
MORRIS, T THE JOSEPH �J N L
W _ T -- — — — NK MCDUFFIE, CHARLES B H SICA REV �PUE, RAY, TbY 4LNGELA�
- eOTLAND, _ PANDURy AWES ETH A \ BUCKHO D, M A — DANIELLE ETUX ETAL DOUGLASS� UST JOHN j MICHAEL T
RLFF A VIEWS LLC JAMES P-
PR02€R�S _� > TTHEWS /
JEWEL — _ _ — — — _ K �++ ETAL — — ETUX _ — — TL
— — — t —
tj�I�LAUGRTD_ETL1� JODI FRS J� — O = ��. — — 'r — — — J_ ELK —r
CH �7sttd — — — _ ___ T EN ET GOD 15 1
—I ZENSAL — —I — — —_ —r fUX —A�
— — — 15— — _ _ — — _ —_ —_ _ —_— — —_— — — — — — -- — — _— — —
— — — - - —
T — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ _— — — --------
— -
-�_-_— _ - - - -- — -- _____ —__ ____ --------
--------------------- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — --- —
—BERM, EL +8.0
--------------------
U)�_ -- - - - -T _ - --
IF — — — — — — — — — —
Z
J I
U
Q�------ - - - - -- - - - - - --
r --
� J
1
-1
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
31
SEE
SHEET 40
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
— — - 20:1 SLOPE —
RENOURISHMENT
SLOPE LIMIT
EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1
PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1
EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7
— EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5 — — — —
PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5
SHEET TI TL E.
EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHMENT PLAN
50F11
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
Ld
_ W
lu)
ILd
Ld
U)
ILLI
Z
J
l 1--
i
i
SHEET
15
of-
48

10 �_ — SWITZER, I I
— ❑ VERANDA I I HUDSON, — cn FREDERICK LI WORSLEY, ❑ COX,
WILL 7S _ — —I— — — — — — — — — — — _ — RANCKOWIAK, m MARK G, ETUX LORI _
�— _ — JOHN F 11 WILLIAM
PEGGY M — — �P6PER�1� BERNARD A MARK M HUNT, ETUX JUDITH
THOMPSON, — HIRT, BOBER, LLC ELLMO, �] w — — — _ _ g$N�D, SAMUEL
JOHN B AFFOURTIT, FR °n" FTC= _ ��� HOWARd T
_ HARRY M WILLIAM J r"� U ALISON M JARMAN
i ANDRE, THOMAS ETUX ETUX ETUX ❑ = — — — ❑I
i JAMES J BARBARA DUNN, VICTORIA WENDY J — — — — _ _ — \
ETAL DANIEL I 10
ETUX —
_ _
\�
10_ — — — — —
- - -- — _______ - - - - - -- BERM, EL +8.0 —- - - --
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - -
— — — — -
- — — — — — — — — — — — —
W 0_- . - -
- = _ - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- � W
_ - - - -- - _ - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- - - -� - 2
U) - - - - -- — - - -- — — - -- — — - - - -- _ — �, — - �cn
20:1 SLOPE — v�
W - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - -- - - - - W
LLI
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I-- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- — — — — — — — — - -- --------- �RENOURISHMENT - - - - -- - - -�_
U U
Q I SLOPE LIMIT I Q
I I
I — — — — — — — — — > — — — — — — — — I
I----- - - - - -- 40
SEE
- - - - -- SHEET40
I
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1
— — — — — — — — — — — — -- I
— — PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1 I
EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7 v
PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7
EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5 41
PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5 — — — _ SEE I
-- - - - - -- SHEET41
I
SHEET TI TL E.
EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHMENT PLAN
60F11
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
16
OF
48

W
Lli
LIJ
Z
J
MBROSE,
(1
A�I _
�IEP�1E LP JARRETT, MARTIN, - W
ETUX 1- — 'L � Q- — GERKENS, W �- =L_ � GOCHENOUR, + — — —
ROMEO, ETUX L::'HIH-A4_ , ROBERT L GERKEDTS ❑ SHOEBOX LE�4RE, R�SFR - 94R� — — HARDING,
- C1k48ERL_ TLLDNL S RJR ROBERT R - �RQ2ERSLS BOULTER, DOUGLAS A HARRIS, ❑ SYNDIE ETVIR — — ��- MARILYN
CATHY C ETUX �F� — ALEDA LEE, SIEE HARRIS,
ETUX €fit X-Pk�R ❑ LL STEVE�H� BRENDA H BRIAN_ —
ELLEN M BRENDA ETAL BILLY R KING -p THE L LP LJ
BRENDA L AND C I r — — SEC�PD6- ROBERT J LAWRENCE
PAPP LLC I ❑I ASSO INC - -- - - - -I-
I I I 1- -L
-------------------------------- - BERM, EL +8.0 — ------ - - - - -- --------------------
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — � �
=f
U
al
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
SLOPE
-
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
RENOURISHMENT
SLOPE LIMIT
EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1
BED MHW, EL +1.1
EL -0.7
_7—
--------------
co
_} W
Ld
-1U)
- - -- ILd
U)
Li
I�
IJ
U
IQ
I
I
- - - - -.
I
42 I SEE
SHEET 41 — —
I
SHEET TI TL E.
EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHMENT PLAN
70F11
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
17
OF
48
-------
----- __
-------
------- ----
=f
U
al
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
SLOPE
-
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
RENOURISHMENT
SLOPE LIMIT
EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1
BED MHW, EL +1.1
EL -0.7
_7—
--------------
co
_} W
Ld
-1U)
- - -- ILd
U)
Li
I�
IJ
U
IQ
I
I
- - - - -.
I
42 I SEE
SHEET 41 — —
I
SHEET TI TL E.
EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHMENT PLAN
70F11
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
17
OF
48

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
W - - -- _— - -� - -- SMEUK —� - -- �HtttPs X------- ��I--- - - - - -�
W JOHNSON_ _ — 4ES — — — BAZEMORE, �1�4AA� — ~UGENE A — � � —_ — — —
_ PROP W JOHN B ETUX ROGERS STUBER,
w — __=7 — = MAAS, — -3'T_ X -
- _ — — — THOMAS R JR WENDY L ETUX CAROL �UB2H&€Y, W CHARLES W
CD � ORINDROD, — — — — — — U E� DORIS IT — — — — — — — — —I
m ^^^���q� — XUX CHERYL BERT�I ,AAA CHARLES W
WILD S, BL BFE G - ETUX
EDNA Ali JOSEPH JR I SMITH, —7- — — — +- — — BARRY ETUX CHARLOTTE
— - — — M — — — — — — — — -�' — — — -r — — — — — —
ETAL — — — —
ETUX ANITA �---- -I - - -- I� �-- -- — I I - - -- I I ---- - ---I-
10
F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Z�j
- -- -- --- - - - - -- _BERM, EL +6.0 ------- - - - - --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
— -50—
- - -
_ _ _ — — — �
- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -,
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - 20:1 SLOPE
- - - - -
- - -
Ld
Ld
ul I - -- ...-- ...
-..- �.
Ld
Ld
U
�
\
I
Ld
Z- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
—
-i I
U
�I
Q
L--------------
I-------
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
—
-
-
- 0o--
-- - - --
- - - - -__
- - 20:1 SLOPE
- - - - -
- - -
/- '- - - --
-------------- -
43
SEE
SHEET 42 -
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
RENOURISHMENT
SLOPE LIMIT
- - - - - - - - � EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1 -
PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1
- - - - - - - EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7 - - - --
PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7 - - - - --
- - - --
IXISTING MLW, EL -2.5
- - PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5 - - - - -
SHEET TI TL E.
EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHMENT PLAN
80F11
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
0)
ILlj
LIJ
ILIJ
Llj
(n
LLI
i
i
i
SHEET
18
OF
48

- - - - - - - - - - - - —_�- -L— —�— L- - - - - - - - - - -
R2CH�RBsOM- - - -� - - - _ S_E;7+7 5,—
-�- - - - r- - - - - - - - - -=et yt - -_- �$�T°S _ �' KERhV£`W l w _I_ - o_
EIE�+A- - - - I�ON M - BMX -�TA� � � TA,L-- @RILE 15 BROTHERS EIS - - -
I- w HITSON, MILLS, p-o= 9S9- - - - - - EOgq =S` _ - _ A� -J -_ �M _ �RT�ERSHIP ETAL - - - �T��AEL N
z BRUCE L PAPP, _ - - KIRK D ETU �R1IPEPSE�- _ _ �UX�IS — SCITSH� - - -- - - _ _ - - _ - - - - Y a - _
Q -1 - CIE aOKtdP- Ti
TRUSTEE KING, -- - - - - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - - - - �w PAOLONI, Q z
- SHERIDAN \ �- - - - - - -- - - �- - - T- - -I I— - z Dk+lEt R- - J �-
- rt" - - - -F -77A7-- - � -- � ��R - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - -- -I- - - - - - - T -- - =Q SAL 10 w
— -- - - - - -- — — - BERM, EL +6.0 -----------------------------
-- -- — — — — /--- — — — — -- — — - -- — — — — — -- — — — - -�- —
co
—_ - -- — O
— — — — — — — - --
----- -- _1
-.— - - -- . - - - -. — — -------------------------------------- - - - - -- I—
U)r - -- — — — - - -- —\
— — — — — — — — -- - -_ — — 201 SLOPE —lid
Ld
W — - -- - - - -- — — - -_ -- ILLd
U) _ _ U)
-- - - - - - - - - - --
- - - - -1 bi
Z RENOURISHMENT Z
= I — — — — — SLOPE LIMIT I =
— — — — — — — —
�I /--- - - - - -- — I<
I / — — — — — — — — — I
l
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- I
-------------- ------------------- -
-10 EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1 —
--------------
------ - - - - - - -- --
PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1
- — — — — — — — — — — EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
— — — — — — — — — —
— — — PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7 I
r___ -_ _ _- - _- - - - - -- _ - - -_ -- — — — -
- — — — — 44 EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5
I SEE PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5 I
SHEET 42
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
SHEET TI TL E.
EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHMENT PLAN
90F11
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
19
OF
48

H — 115 GRIFFIS — I I CHOATE, - -- - -- —��— -- -� - - -T
sTVART, — BUTLER, J LEN, � � — — — — —
WiI JOHN G ETUX SHERRON I�B JR W PAUL L ETUX IAMARESH,_ _ Q_ — — t C� =ETAL = r ETUX SUSAN CHERYL L AMAR Ti — ARREN, ASH, aT# AB _ -� J _ �-_ - _- - -- - -- EK W W ETUX LINDA G— L'ROLYN W FIUPOVICH, CURTIS R ANDREW R
STEWART C ° w ° w HONEYCUTT ❑ BTRORHERUX WELLS, FLUX PRIYA KENNETH MICHAELCC�A ❑ — CTS — o J
L — _ �RUSIE� — — — Tll� SlIS _LL — — KAIFlF� yV a
- -� s���--- - - -r-T I_ — ISFIRLE --- - - - - -- -- —I -- --�-
�7 jai ��' - -- - -- - -- - -- - - -I __ ----------- - -it^� - X �-- - 1 - - - - ++
Y
--77- W -
-- - - - - -- - BERM, EL +6.0 --------------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -- -- — — — — — — -- — — — — - _ -- —
O)
i
W -
W�
ul
Z I
J I
U
QI
I4
SEE _- - - - - -.
SHEET 43
I
- - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-. -- . - - _ -- - - - - = -- -- _ -= -��N
- -- - - - - -- -5
4-A _\ — -
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
- -� —
W
20:1 SLOPE
W
W
U)
- - - - - - - y - - - -
---------------
W
RENOURISHMENT I Z
SLOPE LIMIT J
IQ
- - - ---------
I
EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1 -- - - - - -_ I
PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1 - - - - - -
_ - - -\--- EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7
�- EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5 46 - I
PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5 SEE
_ SHEET 43
I
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
SHEET TI TL E.
EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHMENT PLAN
10 OF 11
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
20
OF
48

- _
— — — — — — �E+I— — — — — — — — — — — — S9B€�<, = �— S�Y�IlUBT��� PEARCY, HACKS LSOfd� _ '� OCEAN CON�1L
w NORRIS, — AEI iT� — — AHB €4 — 77c— � T� I� RR� FRED E JR LLC_ __ pCLIAM J
yr A ARCF�E MARY A FTAL� �O I LE— tR Bi L �� S _ SERA, _ 1CHURCH, �=,T7S
ROBERT NDARS —tLE E JOHN EifX= — —z �—X —o� T9� k —E� ETUX� __��ICffiAR�S —�— — _ _I LACY— — — — — 1
AEBARA� _ -m7R' -F, — — _ � 7X €K++F I— Lg�GERS — I �o
— — — ! — _— — — — —IP— ARTHUR — L — — — MASHrtr —T — — — _ �� Q�1 _ _ _
_ —
— —
----- - - - - -T ------------ - - -� -- w�T -- —� — — —� -- - - -� - -- - -- - -- ��
-- BERM, EL +8.0 - --- - - - - -- - - -- _ -------- - - - - -- --------------------------------
- - - - /- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
r_-- - _ - - -- = - ; ----- - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- - - - - - --
-0-
1-- - - RENOURISHMENT - - - - - - - - - - - - - __ - - - - - - - -
--- - - - - --
W SLOPE LIMIT `----------------------
-5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
U)
Ld I
U)
•I
Ld
ZI
JI
U
--------------- - - - - --
- - - - - - - - - - - - --
EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1 --- - - - - --
_ PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1
EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7
I EXISTING MLW_ EL .25
PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
SHEET TI TL E.
EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHMENT PLAN
11 OF 11
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
21
OF
48

I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I
I I
_ _ _
_ _ _ — — T4�L
4E
LUN
= — �/� ROBERT�9— RICHARD +
— — — — — — —TAFT, w +ETUX MARILYN C C C ETUX CHERYL
— — +TT-- --cc�� R€�Oh-- A EtS AiCES -
- — BA�9�A —�N — J UCY CTOC�C +fihSR�tS�6�— tUeS— �TfLA1�� _— — — — — — — —
_ _I —o � DAVID M
TRUSTEE T —
— � ------------- - - - - --
I
II I
t =_ — i-- - - - - -20 — - -- —
Ln
—EIEA60Pd-F,- R ACFr �ti ET= NS— FZEFiCH 10
— =77 7— SOC
c�� ETUX EUXABETH — MASTER ASSN — - - - - - - _ _ _ _ =1
-- - - - -}- BERM, EL +6.0
i \
-------------------------------------- �---- - - - - --
- -= - - - - -- - - -= — - _ = -- — = - - - -- -- - - - - -= -- -
---------------------------------------- - - - -�- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1
PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1 _
EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
- - -
PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7
EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5
- - - - - - - - PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- - --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - --
- - - -�
- - --�- - - s —
(n
SHEET 44
I
-5
I
20:1 SLOPE
_
U
la
RENOURISHMENT
SLOPE LIMIT
I
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- - --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - --
- - - -�
- - -- -- SEE ---
- - - - -�
SHEET 44
I
PROJECT TITLE: CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
SHEET TI TL E.
PINE KNOLL SHORES RENOURISHMENT PLAN
1 OF 10
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
22
OF
48

N
W
W
U)
Lli
W
U)
Z
J
U
Q
15 - — eE—Risue= -- -- -- — - -=— - -- = -- - _ —� — —d� tt— �_ - - - - - - - - -- — — -- - - - - - - - - - -- - C— — — — - -_— _ —
— — - - - - -_ —4
= _ _ _I— —— — — BF9CL111S�€9�k — — —
_ - -- '— v - -- - - - -_ -- - - -- -DER —A OC -- — - �fiE AS�CC— _ XSE A G� -- _ G/6�dE HO%7E7WHEFt� - -- SOERSASA C —
-- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- �- - - -- / J— - - - - -�
- - - - - i BERM, EL +6.0 I -_T I ,
- - - - -
/
- - - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - --
_______
-- ___ — —_
- - - - - --
- - - - - --
_5
- 20:1 SLOPE -
I
-
- -----
--------------
I------ - - - - --
-----------
v
I
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
\_\_ EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1
PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1
EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7
EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5
PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
IF
-- — — — — — — —
_ ___.— - —. —.-
--- — — — — — — —
RENOURISHMENT
SLOPE LIMIT
_ N
-__ -- Iw
-- _- W
- (n
Ld
Ld
(n
-- IZ
_ IJ
I�
I
62 I
SEE I
SHEET 44
I
SHEET TI TL E.
PINE KNOLL SHORES RENOURISHMENT PLAN
2OF10
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
23
OF
48

I
I I I
I
_ I - - - - -- - - - -�
I ----= - - - - - - - - - - -_ - _ - - - - -- _ _ ---- - - - - -_ _ -- ��- �-- _ -_ - - -_ -_ ______�_ - - - -I
- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- -- �-- - - - - -- �- - - - - -- - 8�9SJN RER6ki -
- - - - _
�- - - - - - - - - - S�ACSNS REACH _
MASTER�OC- 10
�- 10 - _M7= � - - - - -- - -- --------------- - - - - -- - -�
CORAL SHQBE� nMESNEF.S- - - -
_ � - 1�llESTSCS2SSDC�N� r-- - - - - - _ BEACONSSEAGH- - - rt - - - - � - - S - - - - - CJ.ASIGPFRJ.�CS/B,_/,4- - - - -I- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
� I ----- - - - - -- SASTER ASSOC I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- BERM, EL +6.0 - - - - -
I
I
M- - - _ ___ - - -- - - - - - -- - Lo
N- - - - - -- - -5 -- — - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - -� �_ - - -- - - - - - -- -IN
wr_ __� -- -__ - - - -- - ____ _ _��` -- -- - - -- =�W
_ — - - - _ - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — — — — — _
— ___ = _ � ___ —_ — _ —_ = = = — = -- = = — = -- =—�cn
w — - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- - -- — _ - - - - -_ -- - -_ - -- -- _ - - - -- — = =_ —= _ = -- — = - -= = = w
w -5 _ - - - -_ - -- _ -IW
cri = - - - = - - - 20:i SLOPE - - \ — — — -5� — _ (�
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I• — • — • — • — • — • — • — • — —
w I -- --- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - Iz
Z
- - -- - - - - -- - - - -- -IJ
------ - - - - -- U
~ -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - -IQ
I RENOURISHMENT I
EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1 SLOPE LIMIT
--------- - - - - -- - - - - -- -- PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1 ------------------
IEXISTING MTL, EL -0.7 I
I------ - - - - -- PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7 _ I
- - - - - - - - _ EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5
PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5 - -- - - -- -_ _ - --
----------- - - - - -- - 63
— -10 SEE
SHEET 45
I I
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
SHEET TI TLE.
PINE KNOLL SHORES RENOURISHMENT PLAN
3OF10
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
24
OF
48

I I I I
I ,
I I
I I I I
—_ - -- _ _ _ - -_ _ -- - - -I - -I --
�MAS E� 9SSQ� _ — _ _ — gMASTTE�RS ASSOC
— — — — $ Ei2�OPd -1 �6SEPF T HOER E—DQ�KATHRYN
— — — —
— — — —
BERM, EL
I �
CN- - - - - - - -- -- _ _ ----- - - - - --
W
Ld — = --
(n T -T�- - - — -
W
ZI - - - -- —
U
I I I I
I I I I I
—DODGT — - - -- - - -- - --
GARY — MOTAPARTHY
�R9P_EBSIES_ TDDISON_ — •�NA-TW4A4_
JOVONNA H — LLC DAVID D ETA � T APrtt - -0�AP1L — �-
- - - -I. - - -- -- ---- --- -- _IEUSTFF__
I
- - - -- - - - - -- �-
- - - - -- - - - - --
-- - — -_ --
20:1 SLOPE - �-
EXISTING MHW
RENOURISHMENT
EL +1.1 SLOPE LIMIT
PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1
Y EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
- PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7
- EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5
PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
------------
-64- --
SEE
SHEET 45
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
N
W
— W
U)
_ W
— —_— —Id
Ld
--- - - - - -- lz
IJ
U
------------
z� I
SHEET TI TL E.
PINE KNOLL SHORES RENOURISHMENT PLAN
4OF10
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
25
OF
48

I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I i I I
I i I I I I I I
I
--- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - -- L == _ —- _ - -_ _ — _- - - - - -- t _ -
-— MCCANN— — — —
MIMS_CAROL A E�dl �- — — {-;{ y — BARNETT REAL BRIAN C KOPELMAN, RIVES, vr�
@BEN.D4i�RbPER TES �4C —I — �IIX�AL — J— — C9P�N€ — — ONES —ABBE — J- �UBDQLLGL — — �� }- 1�2E CASE
R'BBE� �- - - -- EFFE�SON7 —t-- „ --- �Ak4S, -- I
— — — — — — I — WALLACE J BRENDA S — — — — — — — JOE — — i — ALAN — � w LLC
- - - - Emu `uNDe � - - - r - BERM, EL +6.0 -
5
I I I
N r
H
W -
U
W
cn — -
Z
J I
U
--co
I –10
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
^-- -- — =_ — —� -- -- - - - - --
- - - -- - - - - - -- -- - - - - --
— = — — — — — — — — — — — -
- - 20:1 SLOPE
EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1
PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1
\-- EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7
- EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5
PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5
— — — —
RENOURISHMENT
SLOPE LIMIT
IF– –
- - - - - - - - CV
- - ILd
_ W
—� W
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - �W
Ld
- - - -- ----- - - - - -- U)
Ld
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - lz
IJ
U
I
I
- - -
----------
I
I
65 I
SEE ISHEET 46
I
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
SHEET TI TL E.
PINE KNOLL SHORES RENOURISHMENT PLAN
5OF10
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
26
OF
48

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
I I I I I w
w
- -- _ I<
- I�� �-
�s r� �T - - _ --- 15 - - -I
rnu — L
BEST, w HARRIS, w — — — _ —
_ — — BLACKFORD,w JOSEPH B JR� HARRIS, — e + —S - _
�— — —GASP— Y —
�LH = B RYAN, �RADE�ftD-t OSY �� HARRIS,SE STUS w AWSENSE SJ 'cr t — _�I CAMPBELL, — — ETUX D B A ANNON D _ — JO ANS w �Ttf S+AV4PA — — BAS�G— — r �AA4�5� K� t-
TQ� P — — — L — — �- — —� — — — — — — — — w N WAYN� L m E 7X Pk LtS - 770:F CSS BOLS ETUX -
�'—� = -- - - - -1= BERM, EL +6.0
sAeS - --
-
CO - -
I co
N----- - - - - - --
_ _- - - - -- _ ___ WL- - Iw - - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- - - W
_ _ Ld
U)�_ -z- — o - I�
W- -- s - - - - -- — — — — — — — - - - - -- — — _ _ _ — — U)
- - - -- _ _ _ _ — �LLI
I ---�� - - - -- — — - -- -- 20:1SLOPE - -- — _ —�— —� Ld
ZE- ----- - - - -- - - -- _ - - - -- ------------------------------------ IZ
r- - - - -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - -_ 1=
Q- - - - - - -- - - - -- —10
- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- -- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - --I ------------ - - - - -- - - - -_
EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1 RENOURISHMENT
I - - - - -- - - - -- SLOPE LIMIT I
I— — — — — — PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1 I
EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
I PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7 I
IEXISTING MLW, EL -2.5 I
IPROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5 I
------ - - - - --
I SEE I
----- - - - - -- SHEET46
I I
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
SHEET TI TL E.
PINE KNOLL SHORES RENOURISHMENT PLAN
6OF10
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
27
OF
48

oJ
I Elf o
TowN of -, °r� —= ~_ + - -� - --
-PINE KNOLL SHORES Q J-_ �- �-� -o - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �_�_�_- - -
__ - - - - -- __
- -- -- -SEA£ WOK- PK�E3hD76tl��R�ISS�C- --- - - - - --
- - _ - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - -
-
GllE QR-E= UB-=0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
— —
- — — — — — —
U)�
W- -- _ -- _�_ - -_- —_ -- - - _- _ - �____ .
(n _ =- =- - - - - - - -- - - -- ------- - - - - --
m: — --- - - - - --
QI
I �
67
- - - -- SEE
SHEET 47
I-- — — — — — — — — — —
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
N- - — — — —
- — — — — — —_ — _— _ —_ —_ —_ —_— — — — — —
W
- - -- �W Lu
—20:1 SLOPE — 7_11
=1 LLI
— — Z
IJ
-- - - - - -- - U
EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1 RENOURISHMENT
— — _ SLOPE LIMIT
�— — — PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1
EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
– — — — — — — — PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7
EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5
PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
SHEET TI TL E.
PINE KNOLL SHORES RENOURISHMENT PLAN
7OF10
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
28
OF
48

••
I-
LIJ
U)
W
Z
J
U
H
I I I
I � __ II
_-- - - - - -- __ — _-- - - - - -- --- - -_ - -_ � KERR, BANKS D I -- - - - - -- �------ - - - - --
- -_- _ - _-- _-- _ - -�_ -_ _ - - - -- - -- - � � -- � -__ __ -_ - -_ _ - - ____ -- .I
15� rrmLrn°r_ rtrtmlSBe — — — — — t =�
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - _ _ _ _ GENESIS CONDO HM OWNERS ASSOC — — — — GERTES �6Nia h#� e dNC� S= &558E=
— — — — — — — —
— — — — — —
— — Vili4L�R A —o— 1'dC17770E E — — CAS€441 ; 144S9S�AI101� — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — •
_ _ _ _SUN BAY PROPERTIES_ _ _ _ � — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —I
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ — — — — — — — — — — — 1
-- -- ��BERM,EL +6.0 - - - - -- ---- - - - - --
— — — — —
— — — — — — —
— — — — — — —
— — — — — —
— — — — — — —
— — —
_
- - = -- - __-
= = =_ --
- - - - - --
_
_� — — — — —
= = -- -
—
- - -- --
_ _
_ _ _
=_= ==
- - - - - --
-- --
_
_ _ _ _
--
— "20:1SLOPE -- -
- -- �—
k - = - -
—
- - - --
___ -__-
= -� =
- - - - - --
- --
/ - -- —
- - - - --
— — -
F— — — — — —
— — — — — — —
— — — — — — —
J_ _ _ _
_
PROJECT TITLE: CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY." MOFFATT & NICHOL
' EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1
PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1
RENOURISHMENT
SLOPE LIMIT
O
r)
- -- Ld
�_ - -1U)
—( — I Ld
U)
-�- _ I Z
- I=
U
— — — — — — — — EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7 -10
PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7 - — — — -
— — — — — _ EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5 _ -
68 PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5
SEE "
SHEET 47
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
SHEET TI TLE-
PINE KNOLL SHORES RENOURISHMENT PLAN
8OF10
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
29
OF
48

I I I I
I I I
I � I
I � I
I I I I I I
I I
I I I
I I I i I I I
_ --------------------
- - - -= 15- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- ----- - -_ - -- _ -- ---- - -_- -- --
- - - ITt- tER+�AeEI+ewlE�wlv€�= -- -_- -_ -_- -_ - - - - -- - - - - � - J- - --
- - - - - - - - - _ _- _- - - - - _- - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ - - -
----------- - - - - -- - - - - -- = =J�011= Cl�IlVIUFS�S�= � - - -�\ - -- - --
_ _SKINNER, �� PARRI
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �JNTKT TT TASSDC- - - - - - - - - - - - GARLAND F -R - yRIC - CFA
_T �� "" _SONDRA SUE -I �
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - _ -i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TlTCGTTEN
-- — =BERM, EL +6.0 — --
04 re)
- - -
W -- - - - - - --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \ W
_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - -
\ \ 2
- - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - -- - -= -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- = =- = -- \ \---- - - -I(n
Ld
W - _ - - - - =- - = = - - -- - T. -- - - — - _- -- - _ - -_ _ - - - - -� o - -_- �W
- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - — -�. _ (n
I�— -- — — — — — - _ -- - - - -- - - - - -- - — - - - - - - - - - - -_ - -- \ _ -
W — — 2T0:- 1SLOPE
_ — — _ — �- - - - -. J - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - — T
J \ — — — —
W
_ ____ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
\ H
-10 -
- - -- ------ - - - - -- - - -- - - -- -�
r
EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1 RENOURISHMENT
I — — — I
SLOPE LIMIT \
_ PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1
_
EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
I_ PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7 I
-- - -- ----- - - - - -f
EXISTING MLW,EL -2.5
SEE PROPOSED MLW, EL -2.5 70
I SEE
SHEET 48 I
SHEET 48
I I
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
SHEET TI TL E.
PINE KNOLL SHORES RENOURISHMENT PLAN
9OF10
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
SHEET
30
OF
48

DOE] El 000 ❑III]EIEE
I
- -- --=- -- - - -- --- -- - -- -- - - -- - - - -- - -- I
--------- I - - - -- --- -� - - --
-OY€+
13 F4 HJOHN A� — — — — — I— — — — — t — — — — F — — — — — I— — — — — — — — —
KIE H— D R JR -- -- —r — — — — — -
- JCL G R— — — —If_ — —
ETUX CATHERINE ETAL FUGOU A6Po C� — �FHllBSL _ — — —
—
BERM, EL +6.0 - - - JAMES c JR VICTOR JR cARONER, _ _ OWENS, _ - � - - Y - - - P�+E,- -
- - - -
Q — — — — —I — — — — — — — — — — �REdERiCC� MARK W JR MRtES�RREH+S SAM9LLHLFRANCIS — YJL =1R— Rb�ERLS— —I — WHITE, L ROGERS,
— — — — — — — — — — —I— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ETAL _ETAL F_� EDD K ILT lv7a 77177- J7MIE7R-7 — — — — —I— — — — — — — — — —F — TRUST PARK — �U DBRCHF � — SR�A�N
7-7 — /-- — — — — — —I— — — -- 7 — -- :E� — — — — — — --
W— — — — — — — — — — �— — — — — — — — — — — — — - - — — — — — — — — — — - - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _
cri------ - - -- ----------------------------------------------------------
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
- RENOURISHMENT _
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-- - - -- SLOPE LIMIT -- _ - - -- _ _
Z/ - - - -- - - - - - - --
JI- - - - -- - - - - --
� - -, - - -- - --
Q- - - - - --
< - - - - - --
EXISTING MHW, EL +1.1
PROPOSED MHW, EL +1.1
-�-- EXISTING MTL, EL -0.7
PROPOSED MTL, EL -0.7
EXISTING MLW, EL -2.5
....,POSED MLW, EL -2.5
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
SHEET TI TL E.
PINE KNOLL SHORES RENOURISHMENT PLAN
10 OF 10
0 100' 200'
1" =100'
- -10
SHEET
31
OF
48

1
I ( I
I I 1
I 1
\ I
\
1
\ I
/ 1
/
/
I
MO ❑E ❑E❑❑ []:IF[]
❑ m_ ❑❑
,
A
I
I
1
I
I
\
_
BORROW AREA
DREDGE DOWN TC
NAVD WITH 2'
1 1
I \
I ,
/
I
l
I,
� \ 1
� - I
I
R ,�5 -�\ I MO❑E❑E❑❑] 61T❑
❑❑0❑0❑E❑ ❑0❑ ❑0❑ ❑ ❑E❑
1100111][N❑TET❑❑ ❑E
POINT
NORTHING
EASTING
A
332550.96
2689868.87
B
332630.61
2693337.87
C
331756.97
2694861.09
D
330745.34
2694856.17
E
330752.97
2689859.35
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
�\ I
I /
❑E ❑EN❑
� PROPOSED BORROW AREA CONTROL POINT
A
2011 VIBRACORE LOCATION
®o (SEE ATTACHMENT 1 FOR DATA SUMMARY)
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
❑❑❑ ❑O ❑N ❑LiLjLi I
❑❑❑NNE
,� ....................
B
I 1
1 C '
....................... I
I I �
I
I , I
I , 1
I
i I 1
/ I
I I �
I I
NOTED
BATHYMETRICAL CONTOURS SHOWN BASED ON
MULTIBEAM SURVEYS PERFORMED BY
GEODYNAMICS IN 2011 FOR ODMDS AND 2009
FOR BEAUFORT INLET.
2. BORROW AREA COORDINATES ARE NC STATE
PLANE, NAD 1983 (FEET).
SHEET TI TLE-
BORROW AREA SITE PLAN
•00 000
1 000,
SHEET
32
OF
48

SECTION A -A
p
n_ ..MHW, EL +1.1 MTL, EL -0.7
.............. _ ..MLW,.EL- 2.5....
y ..MHW, EL +1.1
..............
MTL, EL -0.7
— ..MLW,.EL- 2.5....
p
co
co
Z co
Z 00
co
Z ao
co
Z 00
OD -20
............................
Z 00
O 0 -20
............................ ...............................................................................................
20 O D
...............................
20 O o
s
WH -40----
. ......... p ............................. ............................... p ............... ...............................
-40 W H
s
a
> z
EXISTING GRADE 0
0 —
- -- --
a z
LUW -40
o:
....� .............
.. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. 1111 .. .. .. . M... CC
`
..�.�.�
..............................
-40 LU W
�
—
m......�.�
- -
. p . . . .. . . ..
W W
— — — — — — —
J LU
- - --
W W
LL
-�_
J W
W W
LL
—
— — _
W W
-60
-60
0 1000 2000
3000 4000
5000 6000
7000
8000
9000 10000
DISTANCE WEST TO EAST (FEET)
p
n_ ..MHW, EL +1.1 MTL, EL -0.7
.............. _ ..MLW,.EL- 2.5....
p
y MHW, EL +1.1
. . . . . .. . . .. . . .. .
_ MTL, EL - 07 ..MLW,.EL- 2.5....
p
co
Z co
Z 00
�_
............................� .............................................................................................. ...............................
co
Z 00
OD -20
............................
..............................................................................................
as
...............................
20 O D
> Z
EXISTING GRADE
Z
WH -40----
. ......... p ............................. ............................... p ............... ...............................
-40 W H
Z
m m --rte -- _r — ����
— - -
W W
U-
- -- --
Z
EXISTING GRADE
¢
�
WH 40
. . .. . . .. . . .. . . ..
p
. p . . . .. . . ..
. . ..: . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .
-40 W H
J LU
5000 6000
7000 8000
-
-�_
J W
W W
—
—
—
— — _
W W
-60
-60
0 1000
2000
3000 4000
5000 6000
7000
8000
9000 10000
DISTANCE WEST TO EAST (FEET)
SECTION C -C
p
n_ ..MHW, EL +1.1 MTL, EL -0.7
.............. _ ..MLW,.EL- 2.5....
p
co
�_
co
Z 00
Z 00
OD -20 .
............................� .............................................................................................. ...............................
20 O D
as
0 0
as
> Z
EXISTING GRADE
Z
WH -40----
. ......... p ............................. ............................... p ............... ...............................
-40 W H
J W
W LU
m m --rte -- _r — ����
— - -
W W
U-
- -- --
LL
-60
-60
0 1000 2000
3000 4000
5000 6000
7000 8000
9000 10000
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
DISTANCE WEST TO EAST (FEET)
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
NOTE
TYPICAL EXCAVATION DEPTH VIA HOPPER DREDGE
WILL BE 3 FEET PER PASS (INCOMPLETE CUTS).
SHEET TI TLE.-
BORROW AREA TYPICAL SECTIONS
SHEET
33
OF
48

TRANSECT10
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
20 + ............................................................ ............................... + 20
BERM EL +6.0
BERM WIDTH --- 89' co
c EXISTING GRADE BASE FILL @ --- 48.6 CY /FT co
Q10 .................. ..................................... ............................... 10 Q
Z \ Z
LU \ W
LL LL
0 : \ \ : 20 n MHW, EL +1.1 O
H \ �1 H
Q0 ........................... \ :............ .................. 0 Q
MLW, EL -2.5 W
J \ J
W \ W
-10 ............................................. ...................... ...--...... -10
-20
0 100 200 300
DISTANCE (FEET)
r PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
TRANSECT 11
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
20 + ............................................................ ............................... + 20
BERM EL +6.0
BERM WIDTH 71'
co oo EXISTING GRADE BASE FILL @ T 33.7 CY /FT : : co
c
Q10 \ .........:.......... ....:...............:.............. .:...............:............. 10 Q
Z �\ Z
LU W
Lu
Lu
LL — — \ LL
Z \ Z
20 1 = MHW, EL +1.1 O O
Hp . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . MTL EL.- 0:7. .. . . .. . . .. . . p H —
W \ �7 MLW, EL -2.5 W
J \ — J
W \ W
20 -20 1
400 500 600 0
F_
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
20
100 200 300 400 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
SHEET TI TLE.-
EMERALD ISLE WEST RENOURISHMENT CROSS SECTIONS
TRANSECTS 10 AND 11
SHEET
34
OF
48

TRANSECT 12
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
TRANSECT 13
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
20
............................................................ ...............................
20 20
............................................................ ...............................
20
\
\
EXISTING GRADE
\ :BERM EL +6.0
BERM WIDTH --- 56'
� EXISTING GRADE BERM EL +6.0
BERM WIDTH --- 67'
co co
co
\ BASE FILL @ --- 3:1.1 CY /FT
ao ao
: BASE FILL @ 24.9 CY /FT
co
Q10
.....\ ...................................................... ...............................
\
10 Q Q 10
.........�.�..:............. ................................ ...............................
10 a
Z
Z Z
Z
\
F_ F_
\
F_
W
W W
W
LWL
_
LL LL
LL
\
Z
\
\
Q
20 MHW EL +1.1
�]
\
O O
\ : 20 0 MHW, EL +1.1
O
a °
.......................... �......... ...................:...�..
1 MTL EL - 0.7............
0 H H 0
a a
.... ..........� 1 ..... ....: MTL EL - 0.7............
.........................:. \ �..
0 H
a
>
\ — MLW, EL -2.5
> >
\ — , .5
MLW EL -2
>
W
J
\ =
\
J J
=
J
W
W W
W
1
_10i
............................. ............................... ........................ —1
-10 _10i
............................. ............................... .............................
-10
-20
0 100 200 300
DISTANCE (FEET)
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
20 -20 1
400 500 600 0
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
20
100 200 300 400 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
SHEET TI TLE-
EMERALD ISLE WEST RENOURISHMENT CROSS SECTIONS
TRANSECTS 12 AND 13
SHEET
35
OF
48

TRANSECT14
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
TRANSECT 15
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
-20
0 100 200 300
DISTANCE (FEET)
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
20 -20 1
400 500 600 0
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
20
100 200 300 400 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
SHEET TI TLE-
EMERALD ISLE WEST RENOURISHMENT CROSS SECTIONS
TRANSECTS 14 AND 15
SHEET
36
OF
48
20
............................................................ ...............................
20
20
............................................................ ...............................
20
EXISTING GRADE
BERM EL +6.0:
BERM EL +:6.0
00
EXISTING GRADE BERM WIDTH 58'
co
co
BERM WIDTH --- 60'
co
^
BASE FILL @ n 20.3 CY /FT :
co
co
: BASE FILL @ 18.8 CY /FT :
co
N
Q10
....................:...............:.............. .:...............:.............
Q
Q
10
Q
Z
Z
Z
Z
H
\ :
F_
F_
\
F_
W
W
W
W
LWL
\
LWL
LWL
LWL
\
0
: \ 20 : MHW, EL +1.1
Z
O
Z
O
\ :20 0 MHW, EL +1.1
Z
O
Q
0
�:1 -
.............................. ..... .. . . ..................�.. MTL,EL- 0:7.............
0
F_
0
\ �1 =
.............. ...................... .�...... .......... ....�..MTL, EL- U.7............
0
F_
\
a
a
\
W
\ — :MLW, EL -2.5
W
W
\:� MLW, EL -2.5
W
J
\ —
J
J
—
J
W
\\
W
W
1
W
10
............................................................ ...............................
10
-20
0 100 200 300
DISTANCE (FEET)
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
20 -20 1
400 500 600 0
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
20
100 200 300 400 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
SHEET TI TLE-
EMERALD ISLE WEST RENOURISHMENT CROSS SECTIONS
TRANSECTS 14 AND 15
SHEET
36
OF
48

TRANSECT16
30 ---r .............................................................................................. --r— 30
20 .. ........................................................................................... 20
-Z
BERM EL +6.0
EXISTING GRADE BERM WIDTH 65'
co co
co BASE FILL @ —:36.8 CY/FT co
>
< 10 -- --------- \ ... ......... ..... .. 10 < .
.
.
.......................................................... >
--
Z z
F_ F_
LU Lu
LL Lu LLu L
Z z
20 MHW: EL +1.1
0 0
F_ 0 . . ................................. ......... . ........ ......... MTL, EL -0.7 .............. 0 F_
MLW, EL -2.5 >
_j _j
Lu Lu
-10 .. ........................................................................................... -10
-20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 —r -20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
PROJECT TITLE: CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST-IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM.- NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY- MOFFATT& NICHOL
0-
PREPARED FOR.- CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
SHEET T1 TL E. -
EMERALD ISLE WEST RENOURISHMENT CROSS SECTIONS
TRANSECT16
SHEET
37
OF
48

TRANSECT35
30 ---r .............................................................................................. --r— 30
20 ..
...........................................................................................
20
20
EXISTING GRADE
'
co
BERM WIDTH — 39'
BERM EL +6;0
co
co
BASE FILL @ — 35.9 CYIFT:
BERM WIDTH — 45'
co
co
BASE FILL @: — 36.7 CYIFT
co
< 10 --
------------- ...........................................................................
10
<
>
< 10 --
--------- ........... .............................................................
. . . . --
10 >
<
Z
z
F_
Lu
F_
Lu
Lu
LL
Lu
LL
LLu L
LLu L
Z
z
0
\ :20 MHW, EL +1.1
26 1 mHW, EL +1.1
0
0 —
— -----------------------------
..... MTL, EL -0.7 ............
0 F_
V
MLW, EL -2.5
>
_j
MLW, EL -2.5
_j
Lu
Lu
Lu
Lu
-10
...........................................................................................
-10
-20
0 100 200 300
DISTANCE (FEET)
PROJECT TITLE: CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST-IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM.- NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY- MOFFATT& NICHOL
TRANSECT36
30 ---r .............................................................................................. --r— 30
20 . .
...........................................................................................
20
EXISTING GRADE
BERM EL +6.0
co
BERM WIDTH — 39'
co
co
BASE FILL @ — 35.9 CYIFT:
co
>
>
< 10 --
------------- ...........................................................................
10
<
Z
z
F_
F_
LU
Lu
Lu
LL
Lu
LL
Z
z
O
\ :20 MHW, EL +1.1
0
0 . .
IN
.................................... ....... ........ ......... ... MTL EL- 0.7............ __o
F_
V
>
MLW, EL -2.5
>
_j
_j
Lu
Lu
_10i
............................. ............................... ........................... —1-10
-20 -20 1
400 500 600 0
0-
PREPARED FOR.- CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
-20
100 200 300 400 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
SHEET T1 TL E. -
EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHMENT CROSS SECTIONS
TRANSECTS 35 AND 36
SHEET
38
OF
48

TRANSECT 37
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
20 + ............................................................ ............................... + 20
EXISTING GRADE BERM EL +6.0
BERM WIDTH --- 53' co
co : : BASE FILL @ --- 30.4 CY /FT : : co
Q10 ....... ..................................................... ............................... 10 Q
Z Z
H F_
W W
LLLL \ LWL
Z \ zo MHWEL +1.1 Z
O O
\ 1 ,
Q 0 . . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .�. . . .. . . .. . . .... .. . . .. :.V
..MTL;EL- 0.7:............. 0 Q
> — n MLW, EL -2.5 W
J \ = J
W W
-10 ............................................................ ............................... -10
-20
0 100 200 300
DISTANCE (FEET)
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
TRANSECT 38
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
20 ............................................................ ............................... 20
EXISTING GRADE
BERM EL +6.0
BERM WIDTH --- 36' co
co : BASE FILL @ --- 28.3 CY /FT : : co
Qlo__ ......................................................... ............................... 10 Q
Z Z
LU \ W
LL
Lu
LWL
0 \ zo : 0 MHW, EL +1.1 O
Q0 ........................... �1........................... 0.. MTL,EL- 0:7............ 0 Q
MLW, EL -2.5 W
W \ \ W
\
10 ............................................... ............................... 4_10
20 -20 1
400 500 600 0
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
20
100 200 300 400 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
SHEET TI TLE-
EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHMENT CROSS SECTIONS
TRANSECTS 37 AND 38
SHEET
39
OF
48

TRANSECT 39
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
20 ............................................................ ............................... 20
BERM W
EXISTING GRADE I TH
BERM WIDTH 48' co
co co ` : : BASE FILL @ : 34.5 CY /FT : : co
Q10 � .......:......... .....:...............:.............. .:...............:............. 10 Q
Z Z
LU W
LW L
L WL
Z \ Z
O zo 17 MHVI/, EL +1.1 O
............. \.......... 1 — F_
MLW, EL -2.5 W
J — J
W W
-10 ............................................................ ............................... 10
-20 -20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
30
20
co
co
0
Q 10
Z
H
W
W
LL
Z
O
H 0
W
J
W
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
-10
TRANSECT 40
-20 1
0
100 200 300 400 500
DISTANCE (FEET)
SHEET TI TL E. `
EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHMENT CROSS SECTIONS
TRANSECTS 39 AND 40
30
20
co
co
0
10 Q
Z
H
W
W
LL
Z
O
0 H
W
J
W
-10
I -20
6100
SHEET
40
OF
48

TRANSECT 41
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
TRANSECT 42
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
-20
0 100 200 300
DISTANCE (FEET)
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
20 -20 1
400 500 600 0
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
20
100 200 300 400 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
SHEET TI TLE-
EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHMENT CROSS SECTIONS
TRANSECTS 41 AND 42
SHEET
41
OF
48
20
............................................................ ...............................
20
20
............................................................
...............................
20
EXISTING GRADE
BERM EL +6.0
` BERM EL +6.0
^
co
BERM WIDTH --- 37':
EXISTING GRADE
co
co
BERM WIDTH 37'
^
co
co
BASE FILL @ --- 22.0 CY /FT
co
co
BASE FILL @ --- 37.6 CY /FT : :
co
Q10
\ ........:.............................................. ...............................
10
Q
Q
10
.........\
............ ................................ ...............................
10
Q
Z
\
Z
Z
\
Z
LU
\
W
W
W
\
LWL
\
LWL
LWL
LWL
Z
Z
Z
Z
O
\ zo 0 MHW, tL +1.1
O
O
\ : +1.1
zo MHW O EL
O
Q
0
. ....... .1 ......................�.. MTL, EL- 0:7................
0
a
a
0
.................. \....... ....... :.. V. MTL; EL- 0.7............
0
Q
W
: : \ MLW, EL -2.5
W
W
: : \ : : :MLW, EL -2.5
W
W
\ —
W
W
—
W
\
-20
0 100 200 300
DISTANCE (FEET)
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
20 -20 1
400 500 600 0
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
20
100 200 300 400 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
SHEET TI TLE-
EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHMENT CROSS SECTIONS
TRANSECTS 41 AND 42
SHEET
41
OF
48

TRANSECT 43
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
TRANSECT 44
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
-20
0 100 200 300
DISTANCE (FEET)
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
20 -20 1
400 500 600 0
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
20
100 200 300 400 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
SHEET TI TLE-
EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHMENT CROSS SECTIONS
TRANSECTS 43 AND 44
SHEET
42
OF
48
20
............................................................
...............................
20
20
............................................................ ...............................
20
EXISTING GRADE
\.�
EXISTING:GRADE BERM EL +6.0
BERM EL +6.0
BERM WIDTH --- 42'
\ BERM WIDTH --- 60'
co
co
BASE FILL @ --- 25.7 CY /FT
co
co
BASE FILL @ 38.3 CY /FT
co
D
D
D
D
Q1p
\ . . .. . . ..
Q
Q
1p
..\ ..:............ ..: ............... :............... :............... :.............
10
Q
Z
\
Z
Z
Z
\
W
W
W
\
W
L WL
W
LL
W
LL
\
W
LL
Z
\
�
:
\
\
O
\ zo 0
MHW,:EL +1.1
O
O
20
\ n MHW, EL +1.1
O
_
1 _
MTL EL.- 0:7 ..............
p
H
H
p
1
..............: \........... . ....... ..... MTL €L- 0:7............
p
H
W
:
MLW, EL -2.5
W
MLW, EL -2.5
W
J
\
—
J
J
—
J
W
W
W
W
-20
0 100 200 300
DISTANCE (FEET)
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
20 -20 1
400 500 600 0
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
20
100 200 300 400 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
SHEET TI TLE-
EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHMENT CROSS SECTIONS
TRANSECTS 43 AND 44
SHEET
42
OF
48

TRANSECT 45
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
20 + ............................................................ ............................... + 20
BERM EL +6.0
BERM WIDTH --- 41': co
co EXISTING GRADE BASE FILL @ --- 24.7 CY /FT : co
o / p
Q10 `� ................ ....................................... ............................... 10 Q
Z \ Z
LU W
LWL LWL
Z
O : \ 20 �] MHW, EL +1.1 O
H 1 H
W , MLW, E.L. -2.5 W
J = J
W W
-10 ............................. :............................... :............................. -10
-20
0 100 200 300
DISTANCE (FEET)
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
TRANSECT 46
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
20 + ............................................................ ............................... + 20
EXISTING GRADE BERM EL +6.0
BERM WIDTH --- 35' co
co : : BASE FILL @ --- 36.9 CY /FT : co
1
Q10 ......... -- .............................................. ............................... 10 Q
Z Z
W W
LWL \ LWL
Z \: Z
O \ 20 �] MHW, EL +1.1 O
Q 0 :...............:.. \\......... .............. :...�..MTL,EL- 0.7............ 0 Q
MLW, EL -2.5 W
W \ \ W
-10 ............................. :............................... :............................. . -10
20 -20 1
400 500 600 0
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
20
100 200 300 400 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
SHEET TI TLE-
EMERALD ISLE EAST RENOURISHMENT CROSS SECTIONS
TRANSECTS 45 AND 46
SHEET
43
OF
48

TRANSECT 61
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
20 + ............................................................ ............................... + 20
TRANSECT 62
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
20 + ............................................................ ............................... + 20
-20
0 100 200 300
DISTANCE (FEET)
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
20 -20 1
400 500 600 0
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
20
100 200 300 400 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
SHEET TI TLE-
PINE KNOLL SHORES RENOURISHMENT CROSS SECTIONS
TRANSECTS 61 AND 62
SHEET
44
OF
48
BERM EL +6.0
BERM EL +6.0
co
EXISTING GRADE BERM WIDTH --- 37'
: BASE FILL @ --- 26.5 CY /FT
co co
co co
EXISTING:GRADE BERM WIDTH --- 44':
: BASE FILL @ --- 26.6 CY /FT
co
a 10
. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .
\
10 > a 10
\. . .. . . .. :
10 >
a
z
z z
\
z
\
F_ F_
\
F_
LU
` _
w w
w
—
` �
�
LL �
_
LL
0
\
\
20 MHW, EL +1.1
O p
z0 MHW, EL +1.1
p
a0
:...............: \...... :............... ��...MTL;EL 0.7...............
0 a a 0
:...............: \ ..... .......:...............:. �...MTL;EL. -0.7.............
0 a
W
\ - n MLW, EL -2.5
W W
\ n MLW, EL -2.5
W
J
\ —
J J
\ —
J
W
\
W W
\
W
-20
0 100 200 300
DISTANCE (FEET)
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
20 -20 1
400 500 600 0
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
20
100 200 300 400 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
SHEET TI TLE-
PINE KNOLL SHORES RENOURISHMENT CROSS SECTIONS
TRANSECTS 61 AND 62
SHEET
44
OF
48

TRANSECT 63
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
20 + ............................................................ ............................... + 20
EXISTING GRADE BERM EL +6.0
BERM WIDTH - --:38' co
co : : BASE FILL @ --- 21.4 CY /FT : : co
p � p
Q10 .... ........:...............:.............................. ............................... 10 Q
Z \ Z
LU W
W W
LL LL
Z Z
O 20 MHW; EL +1.1 O
\ �1
W \ MLW, EL -2.5 W
J \ — J
W W
-10 ............................................................ ............................... -10
-20 -20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
TRANSECT 64
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
20 + ............................................................ ............................... + 20
EXISTING GRADE BERM EL +6.0
\ BERM WIDTH 41' co
co co : BASE FILL @ 22.1 CY /FT : : co
p \ p
Q10 ........\ .................................................. ............................... 10 Q
Z \ Z
LU \ W
LW L
L WL
Z Z
O 20 MHW, EL +1.1 O
�1 = —
Q0 ....... ............................... ... ....... - .......�.. MTL;EL- 0:7............ 0 Q
MLW, EL -2.5 W
J = J
W W
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
-10 ........................................... ............................... ............... -10
-20 -20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
SHEET TI TLE-
PINE KNOLL SHORES RENOURISHMENT CROSS SECTIONS
TRANSECTS 63 AND 64
SHEET
45
OF
48

TRANSECT 65
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
20 1 . ............................................................ ............................... + 20
1 BERM EL +6.0 : 1
BERM WIDTH 50'
co co co
EXISTING GRADE : BASE FILL @ 34.8 CY /FT : : co
Q10 ..................................................... ............................... 10 Q
Z Z
LU W
W W
LL LL
Z Z
O zo MHW, EL +1.1 O
1
Q0 :...............:.. ..................-... ..:...�..MTL,EL- 0.7............ 0 Q
MLW, EL -2.5 W
J = J
W W
-10 ....................................... ............................... .................. -10
-20 20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
PROJECT TITLE. CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
TRANSECT 66
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
20 + ............................................................ ............................... + 20
\� EXISTING GRADE BERM EL +6.0
BERM WIDTH 28' co
co co : : BASE FILL @ --- 29.2 CY /FT : co
................. ..................................... ............................... 10 Q
Z Z
LU :� W
W W
LL LL
Z \ �
: zo MHV, EL +1.1 Z
O 17
O
.. : . .. . . .. . . ..�Q p . . .. . . .. . . � MTL;EL.- 0:!............. 0 Q
MLW, EL -2.5 W
J — J
W W
10 -- .................. 10
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: FEBRUARY 2012
-20 -20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
SHEET TI TLE-
PINE KNOLL SHORES RENOURISHMENT CROSS SECTIONS
TRANSECTS 65 AND 66
SHEET
46
OF
48

TRANSECT 67
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
20 + ............................................................ ............................... + 20
EXISTING GRADE BERM EL +6.0
BERM WIDTH --- 41' co
co \ : BASE FILL @ --- 32.2 CY /FT : co
Q 10 \ Q
Z
Z
F_ \ F_
LU W
LW L
L WL
O \ 20 1 MHW, EL +1.1 O
Q0 ................. .......... \.:...... ............... ........ MTL;EL- 0:7............... 0 Q
W MLW, EL -2.5 W
J = J
W W
-10 .............................. ............................... .... ...................... -10
-20
0 100 200 300
DISTANCE (FEET)
PROJECT TITLE.- CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST -IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM: NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY.- MOFFATT & NICHOL
TRANSECT 68
30 ---r . ............................................................ ............................... T 30
20 + ............................................................ ............................... + 20
EXISTING GRADE :BERM EL +6.0
:BERM WIDTH --- 30'
00 00 \ : :BASE FILL @ --- 22:0 CY /FT : co
Q10 ..................................................... ............................... 10 Q
Z Z
H \ H
LU W
LWL ` — \ LWL
0 \ 20 : MHW, EL +1.1 O
- ..............: \..... 1 - F_
W \ MLW, EL -2.5 W
J \ — J
W W
-10 10
20 -20 1
400 500 600 0
PREPARED FOR: CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE..- FEBRUARY 2012
20
100 200 300 400 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
SHEET TI TLE-
PINE KNOLL SHORES RENOURISHMENT CROSS SECTIONS
TRANSECTS 67 AND 68
SHEET
47
OF
48

TRANSECT69
30 ---r .............................................................................................. --r— 30
-20
0 100 200 300
DISTANCE (FEET)
PROJECT TITLE.- CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST-IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM.- NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY- MOFFATT& NICHOL
TRANSECT70
30 ---r .............................................................................................. --r— 30
20 1 ........................................................................................... 1 20
20
............................................................................................
20
co
BERM WIDTH 31'
BERM EL +6.0
co
0
co
EXISTING GRADE BERM WIDTH:— 44'
co
co
10 .
BASE FILL @ 40.0 CYIFT
co
z
z
>
10
..............................................................................
10
<
Z
Lu
LL Lu
z
F_
Z
F_
LU
20 MHW, EL +1.1
0
Lu
LL Lu
..... . ............ MTL,.EL-0;7 ............
0
LLu L
LL
_j
_j
0
20 MHW, EL +1.1
Lu
0
0 .
. ............................. ...... ... MTL� EL-47 ...........
..... .............
0
MLW,EL-2.5
Lu
Lu
-10
............................................... -_: ...... ...........
. .............. :
-20
0 100 200 300
DISTANCE (FEET)
PROJECT TITLE.- CARTERET COUNTY,
EMERALD ISLE & PINE KNOLL SHORES
POST-IRENE RENOURISHMENT PROJECT
DA TUM.- NAVD 88 (FT)
PREPARED BY- MOFFATT& NICHOL
TRANSECT70
30 ---r .............................................................................................. --r— 30
20 1 ........................................................................................... 1 20
-10 i ........................................................................................... i -10
-20 -20 1
400 500 600 0
0-
PREPARED FOR.- CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE.- FEBRUARY 2012
-20
100 200 300 400 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
SHEET T1 TL E. -
PINE KNOLL SHORES RENOURISHMENT CROSS SECTIONS
TRANSECTS 69 AND 70
SHEET
48
OF
48
EXISTING GRADE
BERM EL +6.0:
co
BERM WIDTH 31'
co
co
BASE FILL @ 14.4 CY/FT
co
10 .
. ........ ..........................................................................
10 Q
z
z
F_
F_
LU
Lu
LL Lu
LLu L
Z
z
0
20 MHW, EL +1.1
0
0 .
. .............................
..... . ............ MTL,.EL-0;7 ............
0
MLW, EL -2.5
_j
_j
Lu
Lu
-10 i ........................................................................................... i -10
-20 -20 1
400 500 600 0
0-
PREPARED FOR.- CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE.- FEBRUARY 2012
-20
100 200 300 400 500 600
DISTANCE (FEET)
SHEET T1 TL E. -
PINE KNOLL SHORES RENOURISHMENT CROSS SECTIONS
TRANSECTS 69 AND 70
SHEET
48
OF
48