Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20130500 Ver 1_Environmental Assessment_20130510US Armor Corps of Engineers Wilmington District F ► E l DETAILED PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MANTEO, OLD HOUSE CHANNEL, NC SECTION 204 BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL RESTORATION PROJECT Image source: http:// www. ncflsheiies .net/shellfish/recyclel.htm Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, as amended March 2013 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Contents ExecutiveSummary ............................................................................. ............................... 1 1.0 STUDY AUTHORITY AND BACKGROUND ..................... ............................... 3 2.0 STUDY GOAL, LOCATION, AND SCOPE .......................... ............................... 4 2.1 Study Goal ............................................................................. ............................... 4 2.2 Study Area Location .............................................................. ............................... 4 2.3 Study Scope & Process ......................................................... ............................... 7 3.0 PRIOR STUDIES, REPORTS, AND EXISTING PROJECTS .............................. 7 3.1 Prior Studies and Reports ...................................................... ............................... 7 3.2 Existing Projects .................................................................. ............................... 10 4.0 EXISTING AND PROJECTED FUTURE —WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS................................................................................... ............................... 13 4.1 General Environmental Setting ........................................... ............................... 13 4.1.1 Climate ........................................................................... .............................14 4.1.2 Tides, Currents and Sea Level Rise ............................. ............................... 15 4.1.4 Current Land Use in Project Area ................................ ............................... 19 4.2 Biotic Communities ............................................................. ............................... 20 4.2.1 Aquatic Habitats ........................................................... ............................... 20 4.2.2 Bird Islands .................................................................. ............................... 25 4.2.3 Wetlands ...................................................................... ............................... 26 4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................... ............................... 27 4.4 Benthic Resources ............................................................... ............................... 31 4.5 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Fisheries ........................... ............................... 32 4.6 Sediments ................................................................................. .............................35 4.7 Coastal Processes ................................................................... ............................... 36 4.8 Air Quality ............................................................................. ............................... 36 4.9 Socio- Economics and Recreation .......................................... ............................... 37 4.10 Cultural Resources ............................................................... ............................... 38 4.11 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Wastes .................... ............................... 38 4.12 Floodplains ............................................................................. .............................38 4.13 Other Environmental Considerations ................................... ............................... 39 5.0 PLAN FORMULATION AND ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION .......................... 39 i Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 5.1 Public Concern .................................................................... ............................... 39 5.2 Assessment of Problems, Opportunities, Objectives and Constraints ............... 40 5.2.1 Problems and Opportunities ......................................... ............................... 40 5.2.2 Planning Objectives ..................................................... ............................... 40 5.2.3 Planning Constraints ....................................................... ............................... 41 5.3 Potential Restoration Alternatives ....................................... ............................... 41 5.3.1 Description of Measures ................................................. ............................... 42 5.3.2 Preliminary Screening of Restoration Measures ............. ............................... 43 5.3.3 Final Array of Alternatives ............................................. ............................... 47 5.4 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................ ............................... 57 5.4.1 "Base Plan" Costs ........................................................... ............................... 57 5.4.2 Costs of Alternatives ....................................................... ............................... 58 5.4.3 Ecological Output Analysis of Alternatives ................ ............................... 58 5.4.4 Cost Effectiveness /Incremental Cost Analysis ............ ............................... 66 5.5 Screening of Alternative Plans ............................................ ............................... 71 5.6 Resource Significance ......................................................... ............................... 72 5.6.1 Institutional Significance ............................................. ............................... 72 5.6.2 Public Significance ...................................................... ............................... 74 5.6.3 Technical Significance ................................................. ............................... 75 5.7 The Ecosystem Restoration Plan ......................................... ............................... 76 5.7.1 Partnership Context ...................................................... ............................... 77 5.7.2 Reasonableness of Costs .............................................. ............................... 77 5.8 Plan Selection ...................................................................... ............................... 77 5.8.1 The NER/Preferred Plan .............................................. ............................... 77 5.8.2 NED /Optimum Tradeoff Plan ...................................... ............................... 77 5.8.3 Locally Preferred Plan ................................................. ............................... 78 5.8.4 Designation of the Tentatively - Selected Plan .............. ............................... 78 6.0 TENTATIVELY- SELECTED PLAN ................................... ............................... 78 6.1 Plan Description .................................................................. ............................... 78 6.2 Real Estate Requirements .................................................... ............................... 79 6.3 Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Considerations . ............................... 82 6..4 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan ......................... ............................... 82 6.5 Detailed Cost Estimate for Tentatively - Selected Plan .... ............................... 85 6.6 Cost Sharing ........................................................................ ............................... 85 11 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 7.0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............... ............................... 86 7.1 General Environmental Conditions ..................................... ............................... 86 7.1.1 Climate ........................................................................... .............................86 7.1.2 Tides, Currents, and Sea Level Rise ............................ ............................... 86 7.1.3 Water Quality ............................................................... ............................... 86 7.1.4 Current Land Use in Project Area ................................ ............................... 87 7.2 BIOTIC COMMUNITIES .................................................. ............................... 87 7.2.1 Aquatic Habitats ........................................................... ............................... 87 7.2.2 Bird Islands .................................................................. ............................... 88 7.2.3 Wetlands ...................................................................... ............................... 88 7.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................... ............................... 89 7.4 Benthic Resources ............................................................... ............................... 90 7.5 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Fisheries ........................ ............................... 90 7.6 Sediments ............................................................................ ............................... 92 7.7 Coastal Processes ................................................................ ............................... 92 7.8 Air Quality ........................................................................... ............................... 92 7.9 Socio- Economics and Recreation ........................................ ............................... 92 7.10 Cultural Resources ........................................................... ............................... 93 7.11 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Wastes .................... ............................... 93 7.12 Floodplains ...................................................................... ............................... 93 7.13 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................... ............................... 93 8.0 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATUTES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS .................................................................... ............................... 95 9.0 SUMMARY COORDINATION, PUBLIC VIEWS, AND COMMENTS .......... 97 9.1 Scoping Comments and Responses ..................................... ............................... 97 9.2 Stakeholder Meetings .......................................................... ............................... 97 10.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ................................................ ............................... 97 10.1 Non - Federal Responsibilities ................................................ ............................... 97 10.2 Federal Responsibilities ................................................... ............................... 98 10.3 Work -in -Kind .................................................................. ............................... 99 10.4 Project Partnership Agreement (PPA) ............................. ............................... 99 10.5 Sponsor Views ................................................................. ............................... 99 11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... ............................... 99 12.0 DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ....... ............................... 100 13.0 REFERENCES .................................................................... ............................... 100 iii Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project List of Tables Table 4.01 Pertinent Tide Data Table 4.02 Breakdown of Resource Coverage in Project Study Area based on Detailed Side -Scan Survey Table 4.03 Endangered and Threatened Species Occurring in Project Vicinity Table 4.04 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Species Present in Pamlico Sound, Dare County, North Carolina. Source: NMFS, Beaufort, North Carolina, October 1999 Table 4.05 Categories of Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern in Southeast States Table 5.01 First Array for Evaluation and Screening of Measures /Alternatives Table 5.02 Second Array for Evaluation and Screening of Measures /Alternatives Table 5.03 Final Array of Alternatives Table 5.04 Base Plan Costs for Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Table 5.05 Cost of Alternatives Table 5.06 HSI Variables to Assess Suitability for Oyster Larvae Table 5.07 HSI Variables to Assess Suitability for Adult Oysters Table 5.08 HSI Computations based on HEP Table 5.09 Oyster Areas and Outputs for Various Alternatives Table 5.10 Cost and Performance Summary for Plan Selection Table 5.11 Results of Incremental Cost Analysis Table 6.01 Real Estate Cost Estimate Table 6.02 Total Project Costs Table 6.03 Monitoring Cost Table 7.01 Summary of Environmental Impacts Table 8.01 Listing of Public Laws and Compliance Status List of Figures Figure 2.01 Project Study Area Figure 2.02 Project Study Area (Yellow Box) in Relation to Surrounding Project Vicinity Figure 3.01 Map Showing Proximity between Nearby NCDMF Oyster Sanctuaries and the Project Study Area Figure 4.01 General Environmental Setting Figure 4.02 Plot of Tide Levels Oregon Inlet Marina, NC — NOAA Website 1V Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Figure 4.03 Plot of Sea -Level -Rise 50 -Year Projections based upon Historical and Accelerated Rates Figure 4.04 Resources Mapped within Project Study Area along with Existing Disposal Islands (Sonar Survey Mapping, Duck Research Center, Side -scan Survey — July -Sept. 2009) Figure 4.05 Major Sessile Shellfish Habitat in Pamlico Sound Figure 5.01 Map of Site Selection Screening Process Figure 5.02 Typical Sheetpile & Stone Alternative Cross Section Figure 5.03 Typical Stone Alternative Cross Section Figure 5.04 Planning Set Cost and Output Figure 5.05 Planning Set Incremental Cost and Output Figure 5.06 Priority Areas for Oyster Restoration, as Recommended by the NCORSC Northern Workgroup (Includes Old House Channel) Figure 5.07 Volunteers Placing Oyster Shells in NC Waters to Create Reef Figure 6.01 Potential Staging Area Dare County Figure 6.02 Potential Staging Area Hyde County Figure 6.03 Estimated Project Costs Appendices APPENDIX A Scoping Comments and Responses APPENDIX B Sponsor Study Request APPENDIX C Design & Engineering APPENDIX D Cost Engineering APPENDIX E Geotechnical Engineering APPENDIX F Old House Channel Bathymetric and Side Scan Survey APPENDIX G ERDC Surface Sediment Analysis Report APPENDIX H SHPO Letter of Concurrence APPENDIX I Attribute Table of State Oyster Sanctuaries APPENDIX J Real Estate v Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project List of Acronyms AAHU Average Annual Habitat Unit AFP Associate Filtered Press AIWW Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway APES Albemarle - Pamlico Estuary System APNEP Albemarle Pamlico National Estuary Program CAA Clean Air Act CAP Continuing Authorities Program CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHPP Coastal Habitat Protection Plan DMMP Dredged Material Management Plan DPR Detailed Project Report EA Environmental Assessment EBA Environmental Benefits Assessment EFH Essential Fish Habitat EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ER Engineering Regulation ERDC US Army Corps of Engineers — Engineering Research and Development Center FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FMC Fishery Management Councils HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular Concern HEP Habitat Evaluation Procedure HSI Habitat Suitability Index HTRW Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste HU Habitat Unit IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IWR -Plan Institute for Water Resources, cost - effectiveness /incremental cost analysis software LERRD Land, Easements, Rights -of -Way, Relocation, and Disposal Areas MHW Mean High Water MHHW Mean Higher High Water MLW Mean Low Water MLLW Mean Lower Low Water MSFCMA Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act MSL Mean Sea Level NCCF North Carolina Coastal Federation NCDCM North Carolina Division of Coastal Management V1 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources NCDMF North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation NCDWQ North Carolina Division of Water Quality NCORSC North Carolina Oyster Restoration Steering Committee NED National Economic Development NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NEPCC National Estuary Program Coastal Report NER National Ecosystem Restoration NEPCCR National Estuary Program Coastal Condition Report NFS Non - Federal Sponsor NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPS National Park Service NRC National Research Council OMRR &R Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement, and Rehabilitation ORM Organic Rich Mud O &M Operation and Maintenance PAHs Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons PPA Project Partnership Agreement PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls PED Planning, Engineering, and Design PL Public Law PNA Primary Nursery Area POC Point of Contact PPA Project Partnership Agreement PPR Preliminary Policy Report RSM Regional Sediment Management SA NC water classification: "Classified for commercial shellfish harvesting" SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation SIB NC water classification: "Classified for primary recreation" SC NC water classification: "Classified for aquatic life propagation /protection and secondary recreation" SAD South Atlantic Division, US Army Corps of Engineers SIP State Implementation Plan SOW Scope of Work vil Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project USACE US Army Corps of Engineers USACE -ERDC US Army Corps of Engineers — Engineering Research and Development Center USACE P &G US Army Corps of Engineers Principles and Guidelines US EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WRC /NCWRC North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission WRDA Water Resources Development Act Viii Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Draft Section 204 Feasibility Report & EA Manteo, Old House Channel, NC - Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Restoration Project Executive Summary This Section 204 Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment (EA) presents the findings regarding the Manteo, Old House Channel, NC - Beneficial Use of Dredged Material for Oyster Reef Restoration Project, and documents the plan formulation process and potential environmental effects associated with the implementation of oyster reef restoration alternatives for the proposed site. The geographic scope of this study consists of an approximately 17- square -mile Project Study Area, the center of which is located in northeastern North Carolina, within Pamlico Sound and Dare County, approximately 13 miles south - southeast of Manteo, NC and 4.5 miles southwest of Oregon Inlet. Range 2 of Old House Channel runs through the middle of this area, and is part of the Manteo (Shallowbag Bay) Federal Navigation Project. The overall goal of the Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 study is to improve oyster reef habitat that has been in historical decline in Pamlico Sound, through the beneficial use of dredged material from Old House Channel. In 2008 the State of North Carolina responded to indicators signaling potential further decline of the Pamlico system and its oyster populations by enacting new State coastal stormwater rules to protect and improve water quality. The State also requested the USACE (Corps) to investigate opportunities for oyster restoration in the Pamlico system, indicating a willingness and financial capability to execute a project partnership agreement (PPA) should a detailed project report be approved. This project would contribute to the State's oyster restoration goals in the northern Pamlico Sound in conjunction with the Corp's operational dredging and disposal needs for Old House Channel (Range 2). This report summarizes baseline existing conditions in the study area, as well as projected future conditions without the project. It also develops and discusses potential solutions as a guide to Federal and non - Federal involvement in the restoration project. This report provides a description and discussion of the likely array of alternative plans, including their benefits, costs, and environmental effects and outputs. This report also identifies, evaluates, and recommends a solution (the Tentatively - Selected Plan) that best meets the planning objectives of oyster habitat restoration and beneficial uses of dredged material within the study area. Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project The Tentatively - Selected Plan (oyster reef construction) involves use of dredged material from maintenance dredging of Old House Channel to restore habitat by building submerged sand islands to be topped with cultch for oyster reef restoration. Containment of sand for the submerged islands would be accomplished using stone. Based on the cost effectiveness /incremental cost analysis of these options, the best - buyplan would be a complex of four stone containment structures, each enclosing a 5.07 -acre reef. However, the best -buy plan has an estimated cost of $8,393,000 and would exceed the federal cost - share limit of the Section 204 authority of $5,000,000. The Tentatively - Selected Plan (TSP) is therefore the most cost - effective alternative with a federal cost within the cost -share limit. The TSP is composed of three stone containment structures, each enclosing a 5.07 -acre reef. The Total Project Cost for implementation of the TSP would be $7,217,000. The Federal cost -share is $4,850,000 (includes 100% of feasibility costs). The non - Federal cost of the TSP would be $2,367,000, which is 35% of the total Design & Implementation phase costs. The period of analysis used to compute costs is 50 years with a FY12 federal interest rate of 4.0 %. This Tentatively - Selected plan would provide restoration benefits of 32.3 average annual habitat units (AAHU) at an average annual cost of $329,429, which results in an average annual cost per AAHU of $10,199. The non - Federal sponsor fully supports the Tentatively - Selected Plan. 2 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 1411 11111] 9.11tly Y O 100 N 1111109.11 L1 111:A:111] 41(".Z1111► 11111 Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (WRDA 1992) — Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material, as amended by Section 2037 of WRDA 2007. According to Engineering Regulation (ER) 1105 -2 -100, paragraph F3.a, "the purpose of CAP is to implement projects of limited size, cost, scope, & complexity ". The Section 204 CAP authority authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to carry out projects for the protection, restoration, and creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including wetlands, in connection with dredging for construction, operation, or maintenance of an authorized navigation project. The Federal share of the costs for any one project may not exceed $5,000,000. There is an annual appropriation limit of $30,000,000 nationwide. Cost sharing for Section 204 projects is based on the increase in cost of the ecosystem restoration project compared to the cost of disposal of dredged material without the ecosystem restoration project. Only the increased cost above the cost of the disposal option that would have been implemented without ecosystem restoration (referred to as the Base Plan) is cost shared. The detailed project feasibility study is funded completely by the Federal government. If the proposal is approved for implementation, the non - Federal sponsor responsibilities in accordance with the project partnership agreement (PPA) include: (a) provide all lands, easements, rights of way, and dredged material disposal areas and perform all necessary relocations ( LERRD) necessary for the project; (b) participate in the project coordination team; (c) pay any cash contribution during construction necessary so that the total contribution of the non - Federal interest including value of LERRD will be 35 percent of the cost of the project; (c) pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, replacement, repair, and rehabilitation (OMRR &R) cost of the beneficial use project. The non - Federal sponsor shall receive credit for the value of in -kind contributions against the requirement for additional cash to bring the non - Federal share of the project to 35 percent in accordance with provisions of SEC.2003 of WRDA 2007. Total project costs are defined as the incremental amount above the costs for the existing dredging plan "base plan" (ER 1105 -2 -100 Appendix F, pg. F-37). In July of 2008, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers received a letter from the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, requesting the Corps to investigate opportunities for oyster restoration at Old House Channel, Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay, NC under the 204 authority. The letter also indicated a willingness and financial capability to execute a project partnership agreement (PPA) should a detailed project report be approved. In response to this letter, a Preliminary Policy Report (PPR) for this study was submitted to USACE SAD in July of 2008 and approved by SAD in August of Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 2008. The approved PPR established federal interest in further study of a Section 204 for Manteo, Old House Channel, NC. The results of this study are presented in this Detailed Project Report. 2.0 STUDY GOAL, LOCATION, AND SCOPE 2.1 Study Goal This study results from both a recognized decline of oyster reef habitat in coastal North Carolina and State efforts for oyster restoration in Pamlico Sound, NC (Street, 2005). The planning study goal is to recommend a cost - effective and environmentally -sound dredged material disposal option that will contribute to the State of North Carolina's oyster restoration goals in the northern Pamlico Sound in conjunction with the Corp's operational dredging and disposal needs for Old House Channel (Range 2). 2.2 Study Area Location The Study Area is the approximately 17 square -mile area identified in Figure 2.01, which was chosen based on its vicinity to State oyster restoration efforts, and identified dredged material disposal needs from Old House Channel (Range 2). The center of the Study Area is approximately 4.5 miles southwest of Oregon Inlet. Range 2 of Old House Channel runs through the middle of this area. The County impacted is Dare County, NC. The larger surrounding vicinity is Pamlico Sound, NC. A geographic representation of the Study Area within the larger area of the Sound is shown in Figure 2.02. Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Figure 2.01. Project Study Area Note: Positions are NC Sate Plane feet. NAD 1983. Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Figure 2.02. Project Study Area (Yellow Box) in Relation to Surrounding Project Vicinity Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Study Scope & Process In accordance with the preliminary policy report (PPR) approved by SAD in August 2008, this study investigates the beneficial use of dredged material from Old House Channel (Range 2) for oyster reef restoration. The report considers an array of alternatives, in addition to a No- Action alternative. This report documents the study results for the proposed Section 204 beneficial use of dredged material project at Manteo, Old House Channel, NC in the 3rd Congressional District, within Dare County, NC. The study has been conducted in accordance with feasibility study guidelines contained in the Planning Guidance Notebook (ER 1105 -2 -100) and other applicable USACE regulations and guidance. The purpose of this Detailed Project Report (DPR) and Environmental Assessment (EA) Study is to: • Discuss the identified problems, opportunities, and constraints • Document the project objectives • Describe existing and potential future conditions • Identify alternative means to achieve the project objectives • Analyze the feasibility, costs, benefits, and effects of alternatives • Recommend an alternative that best meets project objectives in a cost - effective manner This study will complete the plan formulation process, including the selection of a recommended plan. The level of detail shall be appropriate for the scope and complexity of the CAP study, and sufficient to proceed into detailed design and implementation. 3.0 PRIOR STUDIES, REPORTS, AND EXISTING PROJECTS 3.1 Prior Studies and Reports For the assessment of existing conditions and the forecasting of future without project conditions, the study team reviewed the following reports as part of this study: Engineer District, Wilmington, NC, "Supplement No. 1, Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay, North Carolina, Design Memorandum 2, General Design Memorandum Phase II," September 1983. 7 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project The report gives a project description and summary for the navigation project in Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay, which includes Old House Channel. Information includes channel width /depth, and dredging cycle. Manteo Shallowbag Bay Disposal Areas Summary Document. USACE- Wilmington District. 1997. This summary gives status updates (as of 1997) for the disposal areas of the Manteo Shallowbag Bay navigation project, including Wells & Parnell Islands within the Manteo 204 study area. Oyster Restoration and Protection Plan for North Carolina: A Blueprint For Action - Second Edition 2008 — 2012 This report, published by the North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF) in cooperation with various governmental, non - profit, and private organizations, is a five -year blueprint that outlines a series of goals, objectives, and specific actions that would need to be implemented to protect and restore oyster habitat and shellfish waters. This report also establishes priority areas for oyster restoration in Pamlico Sound. Now that a significant number of the objectives of the first action plan have been realized and new opportunities and challenges have presented themselves, a second edition of the Blueprint has been developed to establish a joint vision among the stakeholders for the next five years. The following goals, objectives and action items represent the second five year cycle of the Blueprint. 1) To restore and protect North Carolina's native oyster populations and habitat in an effort to restore North Carolina estuaries to robust, diverse, & resilient ecosystems; 2) To build broad public awareness & support for the value of oyster restoration, estuarine conservation and sustainable fisheries, and 3) To establish and work with a comprehensive coalition to build and maintain significant, demonstrable and meaningful progress towards oyster restoration in the next five years. The following summary of the NCDMF Sanctuary Program is quoted from (Eggelston et al. 2011) "The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries began the creation of a network of no -take oyster broodstock reserves in 1996 in an effort to enhance the oyster metapopulation in Pamlico Sound. A secondary goal was to create oyster reefs that would serve as EFH, and support recreational and commercial fisheries (NCDMF Stock Status Report 2010). These oyster restoration efforts were accelerated greatly in 2009 -2010 with funding via the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), which created 17 ha of oyster reefs in nine months (Pelle Holmlund, NC DMF, personal communication), compared to the previous 49 ha that had been created since 1996. With ARRA funding, new mounds were created during winter of 2009 and early spring 2010 with the addition of 191 and 144 mounds at Clam Shoal and Crab Hole, respectively (NCDMF 2010). As of 2011, a total of 10 brood stock sanctuaries have been established with footprints ranging in size from 1.86 ha to 19.30 ha N. Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project and with each reserve containing high - relief (2m) limestone marl mounds (NC DMF). Limestone riprap material used to create oyster broodstock reserves were colonized by oysters via natural settlement, and oyster densities have generally increased in these reserves 5 to 15 fold since 2006 (Puckett & Eggleston, in review). Street, M.W., A.S. Deaton, W.S. Chappell, and P.D. Mooreside. 2005. North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC. 656pp. In accordance with the North Carolina Fisheries Reform Act of 1997, the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP) was developed to protect habitats, including wetlands, spawning areas, threatened and endangered species habitat, primary and secondary nursery areas, shellfish beds, submerged aquatic vegetation, and Outstanding Resource Waters. The CHPP was written to 1) Document the ecological role and function of aquatic habitats for coastal fisheries. 2) Provide status and trends information on the quality and quantity of coastal fish habitat. 3) Describe and document threats to coastal fish habitat, including threats from both human activities and natural events. 4) Describe the current rules concerning each habitat. 5) Identify management needs. 6) Develop options for management action using the above information." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District, South Atlantic Division. 2009. Draft Interim Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the Neuse River Basin. This ongoing study is also investigating construction of high relief subtidal reefs in the Neuse River, a component of the Albemarle Pamlico National Estuary. This report contains useful information on oyster habitat requirements and potential construction methods, applicable to Old House Channel Section 204 study. Oyster Settlement and Reef Mapping in Pamlico Sound (July 2009) Ballance, E., Eggleston, D., Plaia, G., and Puckett, B. North Carolina Fishery Resource Grant Project. This report, the result of a NC Fishery Resource Grant Project, discusses the results of a large -scale field program whose overall goal was to provide data to aid the State of North Carolina in locating oyster broodstock sanctuaries in Pamlico Sound. This study identified live natural reefs in the project area. These reefs were mapped during Corps sidescan surveys and field verified by NCDMF as containing oysters of legal size for harvest. These sites are in open shellfish waters and subject to harvest. I Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Existing Projects Manteo (Shallowba_g) Bay Navigation Proiect. Maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay Project was initially authorized on June 25, 1910, with subsequent modifications to the authorization in 1940 and 1950. The project is located along the Outer Banks portion of Dare County, North Carolina, between Oregon Inlet, Roanoke Island, and Albemarle Sound. The navigation project provides for a channel 14 feet deep and 400 feet wide from the Atlantic Ocean through Oregon Inlet with connecting 12 foot channels, 100 feet wide, to Pamlico Sound, Wanchese, and a 10 feet deep and 100 feet wide, connecting the Manteo- Oregon Inlet Channel with Albemarle Sound. The project is maintained in three general areas: a) Interior Channels (which includes Old House Channel), b) Spit portion of Ocean bar, and c) Outer Ocean Bar. State of North Carolina's Oyster Sanctuary Program. The State has ten sanctuaries in the Albemarle - Pamlico Estuary System (APES), with one additional sanctuary in the planning stages (NCDMF website, 2009). The following two are within 0.6 and 2.3 miles of the Manteo 204 project study area, respectively (figure 3.01). Crab Hole Oyster Sanctuary. Established in 2003, this sanctuary is composed of 16,170 tons of riprap and covers approximately 30.5 acres. Its location is roughly 0.6 miles south -west of the project study area. Partners include the NC Division of Marine Fisheries, Division of Coastal Management, N.C. Department of Transportation, and The Nature Conservancy. Croatan Sound Oyster Sanctuary. Established in 1996, this sanctuary is composed of 1,800 tons of riprap, 4,000 bushels of oyster shells, 2,640 bushels of surf clam shells, and 4,000 bushels of limestone marl. The sanctuary covers approximately 7.7 acres and is located roughly 2.3 miles north of the project study area. Partners include the NC Division of Marine Fisheries and NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service. Festival Park, Roanoke Island, NC. Aquatic Habitat Restoration and Protection Proiect. This USACE ecosystem restoration project located in the vicinity of the potential project area included subtidal oyster reef construction. Constructed in 2004, this estuarine restoration project restored 5 acres of marsh, seagrass, oysters, and forest. This included the construction of a rock sill for erosion protection and structure comprised of 1,500 cubic yards of marl and 10,000 bushels of oysters along 1,330 feet of eroded shoreline. Partners included the NC Coastal Federation, NC Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, NC State University, NC Divisions of Water Resources and Marine Fisheries, and The Nature Conservancy. Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection, NC. Section 204 Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment (1999) USACE - Wilmington District. 10 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project This project includes creating and protecting marsh habitat at Wanchese Harbor adjacent to the channel from Oregon Inlet, Dare County, NC. Approximately 8 acres of estuarine creek and marsh area and a containment dike were constructed immediately north of the harbor area. Dredged material from the maintenance dredging of the navigation channel was pumped behind the dike, supplemented by dry trucked sand and graded to create the marsh and estuarine creek habitat .. This successfully completed ecosystem restoration project located in the vicinity of the potential project area included subtidal oyster reef construction and could provide a nearby reference site. Partners included the, NC Divisions of Water Resources and Marine Fisheries 11 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Wan hese ® NCDMF Oyster Sanctuary Disposal Area Navigation Channel nd Wells Isla �1 Existing State Oyster Sanctuaries In Close Proximity To Project Study Area Imagery Date: 20090319 Imagery © Digital Globe 2009 File 20100519 Manteo 204.mxd M u4 - e — — U't-,n y Corps 0 0.5 1 2 or Egeers s Miles Wilmington District Figure 3.01. Map Showing Proximity between Nearby NCDMF Oyster Sanctuaries and the Project Study Area 12 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 4.0 EXISTING AND PROJECTED FUTURE - WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS Each section will identify the existing conditions of the project area including the greater surrounding area that is within Pamlico Sound, as well as a future - without project conditions analysis based on the best available data regarding the projected conditions of the resources without the proposed project. Future - without project conditions analysis assumes that conditions will continue to trend in the direction that is indicated within studies and data available at this time. References to future conditions assume a fifty year projected timeline. txeiieval EnvivonmellLal SeLL111g Pamlico Sound is the second largest sound in the United States and the largest sound on North Carolina's East Coast. It is separated from the Atlantic Ocean by the narrow barrier islands of the Outer Banks. It is part of an interconnected set of estuaries that make up Albemarle Pamlico National Estuary, The Albemarle - Pamlico system represents one of North Carolina's key resource bases for commercial fishing, recreational fishing, and tourism (US EPA National Coastal Conditions Report III, 2008 website): http-//www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr3/downloads.htmI The Albemarle Pamlico National Estuary is fed by several major river basins: Pasquotank, Chowan, Roanoke, Tar - Pamlico, Neuse, and White Oak. It also includes seven sounds: Currituck, Albemarle, Roanoke, Croatan, Pamlico, Core and Bogue. Pamlico Sound extends 80 miles from Roanoke Island to Cedar Island and is about 15 -30 miles wide reaching depths up to 26 feet. It is connected to the Tar - Pamlico and Neuse -Trent rivers on the west side of the sound, and inlets provide resources from the ocean primarily through Ocracoke, Hatteras and Oregon Inlets (Figure 4.01). 13 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 0 • Inlet -A— River Basin Boundary Manteo 204- General Environmental Setting N c> -. W E o S INSET MAP n a I o� 0Wanchese 1 Oregon Inlet Pamlico Sound Figure 4.01. General Environmental Setting rle -Cho0n \) `�;.A Cu,n,urkSOUntl Alb//em''arl��e Sound Roanoke Sound Cmalan Sound Oregon Inlet S�ltna 1 Hatteras Inlel Fear h Ocracoke Inlet P-- Core Sound R�p Bague Sound �GO� 25 50 100 The project vicinity includes the northern Pamlico Sound, specifically sub - basins 03- 01 -56, 03- 01 -51, and 03- 01 -55. The Study Area is the 17 square -mile area located within the project vicinity (Figure 2.01). As stated in section 2.2, the Study Area was chosen based on proximity to both State oyster restoration efforts, and dredge material disposal needs at Old House Channel (Range 2). 4.1.1 Climate The Gulf Stream, which runs up the coast from the tropics at four miles per hour, moderates temperatures along the coast. Near Cape Hatteras the Gulf Stream, usually 12 to 15 miles from the coast, begins to move further offshore as it heads towards the British Isles. Coastal North Carolina enjoys moderate climates that are warmer than inland counterparts, with temperatures ranging typically from 50 degrees on average in January to 80 degrees on average in July. This is largely attributed to the consistently warmer waters of the Gulf Stream. However, the cold Labrador Current passes between the Gulf Stream and the North Carolina coast, often offsetting much of the warming effect the Gulf Stream might have on coastal temperatures. The meeting of the two opposing currents provides a high variability that often produces rough weather in the area. 14 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/climate/ncclimate.htmI Future - without project conditions. Climate along the coastline of the project area is dynamic and highly dependent on seasonal variations. Climate change is expected to have a localized impact on the project area by potentially increasing average water temperatures. An increase in average water temperaturemay have a direct impact on the average seasonal air temperatures of the greater Pamlico area. However, future conditions are not anticipated to exceed the tolerance levels of major resources over the period of analysis and should not have a significant impact on the future conditional analysis of other resources within Pamlico Sound or the immediate project area. 4.1.2 Tides, Currents and Sea Level Rise The nearest tide gauge to the Manteo, Old House Channel Project Study Area is located at the Oregon Inlet Fishing Center which lies north of the proposed project area. This site was used as a reference point for this project. Table 4.01 gives pertinent tide range data for Oregon Inlet and Pamlico Sound. It is expected that lunar tides in the project area would be comparable to those exhibited at the Oregon Inlet Marina gauge. http : / /tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov /data menu. shtml ?stn = 8652648 %20 Old %20House %20Channe1, %20NC &type = Bench %20Mark %20Data %20Sheets Table 4.01. Pertinent Tide Data PERTINENT TIDE DATA Tide Level Mean Higher High Water ( m.h.h.w.) Mean High Water (m.h.w.) Mean Low Water (m.l.w.) Mean Lower Low Water ( m.l.l.w.) *Mean Sea Levelm.l.l.w. is referenced to NAVD 88. M.I.Lw (ft) m.S.l. (ft) 0.90 +0.44 0.77 +0.31 0.13 -0.34 0.00 -0.46 The lunar tidal range between m.h.h.w. and m.l.l.w. is only 0.90 feet (Table 4.01). The Pamlico Sound wind and long fetch length cause wind to have a greater impact on tide levels than normal lunar tide cycles. Depending on the wind direction, on any given day the tides can be higher or lower than normal. The barrier islands of the Outer Banks also play a part in attenuating the tidal pull within Pamlico Sound. Currents tend to be stronger with closer proximity to Oregon Inlet (Appendix 1). Although the project area is several miles from the inlet with typically lower velocity current, the area is dynamic with impacts from frequent storms. Seven named tropical storms have made direct landfall on the 15 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project area in the last ten years, in addition to numerous nor'easters (www.nc- climate.ncsu.edu). Future - without project conditions. Since the project site is in relatively close proximity to the tide data collection site at Oregon Inlet Marina, sea level changes are estimated based upon this tide station, as presented in Figure 4.02. Based on the monthly mean sea level data from 1977 to 2006, the mean sea level trend is 2.82 millimeters /year, with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 1.76 mm /yr. This is equivalent to a change of about 0.47 feet in 50 years. The data set is a shorter than preferred tidal record, but trend is similar to other North Carolina coast sea level trends with longer tide records (Beaufort, NC — 2.57 mm /yr; Southport, NC — 2.08 mm /yr). http: / /tidesandcurrents. noaa. gov /sltrends /sltrends — station. shtm I ?stn id= 8652587 Oregon Inlet Marina, NC 0.15 Mean Sea Level Trend 8652587 Oregon Inlet Marina, North Carolina Oregon Inlet Marina, NC 2.82 +1 -1.76 mmlyr Data with the average seasonal Source: HOAA cycle removed Higher 95% confidence interval _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . Linear mean sea level trend Lower 95% confidence interval �,f11Ir'�7 I Fir ' ro - 0.151--------- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 190r c 1920.0 1930.0 194E I , 1950.0 1960.0 1 f' 1980.0 1990.0 2000.0 2010.0 Figure 4.02. Plot of Tide Levels Oregon Inlet Marina, NC - NOAA Website The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects accelerated global warming which leads to accelerated sea level rise. USACE guidance (EC 1165 -2 -211) requires consideration of these various accelerated sea level rise scenarios for water resources projects [Note: USACE guidance cited has expired, but alternative guidance has not yet been issued]. The sea level rise global scenarios evaluated include: 1) the historical rate of sea level rise — from 16 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project tide data above, 2) projections using the updated National Research Council (NRC) curve 1 — representing global eustatic sea -level rise of 0.5 meters (1.64 ft) in 125 years, and 3) projections based on NRC curve 3 — representing sea level rise of 1.5 meters (4.92 feet) in 125 years. Figure 4.03. Plot of Sea -Level -Rise 50 -Year Projections based upon Historical and Accelerated Rates The NRC curves 1 and 3 in Figure 4.03 above have been adjusted to account for local subsidence rates for the Oregon Inlet area. Curves 1 and 3 project an accelerated sea level rise of 0.87 feet and 2.2 feet over a period of 50 years, respectively. Potential sea level rise impacts on the preferred alternative are discussed in Section 7.1.2. 4.1.3 Water Quality The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) classifies the waters from Albemarle Sound to Pamlico Sound as SA. SA waters are tidal salt waters acceptable for shell fishing for market purposes; they are also protected for all class SC and Class SIB uses. SC and SIB uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, wildlife, as well as recreational activities including fishing and boating and other uses involving human body contact with water. 17 Oregon Inlet SLR Projections 2.50 — F Eustatic SLR Projection - Modified NRC Curve 3 Eustatic SLR Projection - Modified NRC Curve 1 2.00 Historical SLR Projection H U_ E 1.50 r_ 0 d -1.00 L loll a J y 0.50 0.00 00 N (O O 00 N (O N N M M M � � O LO 00 N LO LO (0 O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N O N O O O N N N Year Figure 4.03. Plot of Sea -Level -Rise 50 -Year Projections based upon Historical and Accelerated Rates The NRC curves 1 and 3 in Figure 4.03 above have been adjusted to account for local subsidence rates for the Oregon Inlet area. Curves 1 and 3 project an accelerated sea level rise of 0.87 feet and 2.2 feet over a period of 50 years, respectively. Potential sea level rise impacts on the preferred alternative are discussed in Section 7.1.2. 4.1.3 Water Quality The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) classifies the waters from Albemarle Sound to Pamlico Sound as SA. SA waters are tidal salt waters acceptable for shell fishing for market purposes; they are also protected for all class SC and Class SIB uses. SC and SIB uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, wildlife, as well as recreational activities including fishing and boating and other uses involving human body contact with water. 17 i — F Eustatic SLR Projection - Modified NRC Curve 3 Eustatic SLR Projection - Modified NRC Curve 1 Historical SLR Projection .r Figure 4.03. Plot of Sea -Level -Rise 50 -Year Projections based upon Historical and Accelerated Rates The NRC curves 1 and 3 in Figure 4.03 above have been adjusted to account for local subsidence rates for the Oregon Inlet area. Curves 1 and 3 project an accelerated sea level rise of 0.87 feet and 2.2 feet over a period of 50 years, respectively. Potential sea level rise impacts on the preferred alternative are discussed in Section 7.1.2. 4.1.3 Water Quality The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) classifies the waters from Albemarle Sound to Pamlico Sound as SA. SA waters are tidal salt waters acceptable for shell fishing for market purposes; they are also protected for all class SC and Class SIB uses. SC and SIB uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, wildlife, as well as recreational activities including fishing and boating and other uses involving human body contact with water. 17 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project The water quality of the open water of Pamlico Sound, including the project area located near Oregon Inlet, is considered good SA waters. In the Pasquotank Subbasins surrounding the project area, a small percentage of SA waters are considered impaired for shellfish harvesting. Out of approximately 395,230 acres of shellfish harvesting only 6,471 acres are impaired (1.64 %). There are no closed or impaired shell fishing areas in the immediate project vicinity. The nearest closed shell fishing areas are located in Stumpy Point Bay, a small area at the Oregon Inlet Marina, and the southern portion of Wanchese — all of which are over three miles away from the project site. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/Pasquotank2OO7.htm Water quality monitoring data collected periodically from the nearby sampling station at the Oregon Inlet Fishing Center collected by the North Carolina Shellfish Sanitation and Recreational Water Quality Section between 2006 and 2011, included both salinity and temperature data as. Water salinity in the project vicinity averages about 18 ppt. As an indicator species for this study, C. virginica (eastern oyster) has a salinity range in their geographical region from about 10 ppt to 28 -30 ppt. (Gunter and Geyer 1955, Gultsoff 1964, Loosanoff 1965, Eleuterius 1977, Wilson et al. 2005). Optimal salinities range from 10 to 20 ppt (Butler 1954, Eleuterius 1977). Temperature in the project vicinity averages about 63 degrees F. Temperature and latitude influences oyster growth, development, reproduction, and feeding activity (Shumway 1996), and temperature is a primary environmental variable affecting the development of larvae (Loosanoff and Davis 1963, Loosanoff 1965). The eastern oyster can tolerate a wide range of temperatures; as low as -1.7 °C (28.9 F) in New England to 36 °C (96.8 F) in Gulf of Mexico (Sellers et al. 1984). Optimal temperatures for growth, reproduction, and survival of adults (Cake 1983) and larvae range from 20 °C (68 F) to 30 °C (86F) (Loosanoff and Davis 1963). Few direct dischargers of toxic pollution to the sound are known, indicating that nonpoint sources of pollution are probably more significant. Potential nonpoint sources of pollutants include marinas, river basin discharge, solid and hazardous waste sites, and farming runoff. Fecal coli form bacteria continues to be the primary problem parameter. Seventeen marinas exist within the drainage basin, with the largest concentrations occurring at Hatteras, Ocracoke, and in Rose. The closest marinas to the project site are the Oregon Inlet Fishing Center and Wanchese Harbor located over 4 miles and 5 miles away, respectively. Future - without project conditions. Water quality in the Pamlico Sound will continue to be stressed by burgeoning population, farming, and increased tourism and potentially increasing point and nonpoint sources of pollutants. The National Estuary Program Coastal Condition Report (NEPCCR, 2007) has indicated that there have been some long term patterns that have developed in the past forty years that include both positive and negative indicators. Improvements include increased dissolved oxygen levels and decreased levels I: Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project of suspended solids. Negatively, increased levels of Chlorophyll a could indicate a trend toward eutrophication. The loss of oysters in the Pamlico Sound may have contributed to this trend (NEPCCR, 2007). Efforts by the state to develop a statewide oyster sanctuary program have the potential to reduce this trend as oysters provide ecosystem services such as water filtration which can reduce eutrophication. The overall conclusion of the Coastal Condition report indicated that the Pamlico system is in good health but that factors exist that may signal the potential for declining health of the system (NEPCCR, 2007). The year following the release of the 2007 NEPCCR, the State of North Carolina implemented new requirements mandating that the state's 20 coastal counties take steps to reduce pollutant -laden stormwater runoff — a major contributor to water quality degradation. In part, the newer rules require buffers and setbacks, address built -upon coverage, and broaden the array of on -site stormwater control and treatment methods for new or redevelopment projects. To view complete regulatory details, go to the NC Division of Water Quality website at: :/ /h2o. ehnr. state. nc. us /su /coastal. htm These rules are in part designed to offset impacts from continued growth in coastal development. 4.1.4 Current Land Use in Project ArP�: The Project Study Area is located in open -water with no land within several miles, excluding the man -made dredged disposal islands. However, the drainage sub - basins encompassing the greater project vicinity have an overall low population density with seasonal peaks during the summer tourist season. The numbers of individuals that move into the area remain low, limiting the impact that urban development has on the area. Of the basin's total land area, the Albemarle - Pamlico National Estuary program estimates that forests cover 33 %, wetlands, swamps, and marshes cover 28 %, agriculture comprises 25 %, and urban land accounts for under 1 percent. http: // h2o .enr.state.nc.us /nep /tarpamlico river basin.htm Future - without project conditions. Population pressures may stay low due to absence of large cities and the existence of large acreages of protected land surrounding Pamlico Sound. Future conditions are expected to remain relatively stable with minor fluctuations year to year and an overall minor increase in population pressures that should not result in any significant changes to the current condition of Pamlico Sound that would alter the overall health of the system (NEPCCR, 2007, pages 202 -211). 19 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 4.2 Biotic Communities 4.2.1 Aquatic Habitats Existing habitats include open water areas comprised primarily of sandy bottom, infrequent scattered oyster reefs, and sparse patches of seagrass. Resources are variable in Pamlico Sound and range from limited resources occurring in frequently dredged channel bottoms to complex and diverse communities occurring in stable grass beds. Table 4.02, based on survey data collected by the USACE between July and September, 2009 (Appendix 1 Survey SOW), indicates submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), oyster, and island resources within the Study Area. The State of North Carolina defines primary nursery areas as those areas in the estuarine system where initial post - larval development takes place. These areas are identified and monitored by annual trawl sampling by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF). No Primary Nursery is found in the Study Area. The nearest nursery area is upper Broad Creek located over 7 miles away. Resource Coverage in Study Area Material Type Area (sq mi) Coverage ( %) SAV 2.26 13 High backscatter /shells 0.2 1 Fine Sand 14.79 86 Project Area Totals: 17.25 100 Table 4.02. Breakdown of Resource Coverage in Project Study Area based on Detailed Side -Scan Survey 20 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Figure 4.04. Resources Mapped within Project Study Area along with Existing Disposal Islands (Sonar Survey Mapping, Duck Research Center, Side -Scan Survey — July -Sept. 2009). 21 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 4.2.1.1 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation SAV stabilizes shorelines by binding underwater sediment with their roots and rhizomes in shallow offshore regions, trapping suspended sediment, and baffling waves and currents. In addition, SAV modifies sediment quantity and quality. In doing this, SAV decreases underwater erosion and improves shoreline structure. Because of this, SAV is a critical part of the structural integrity of North Carolina's near shore environment. SAV also functions as important habitat for many fish and shellfish, including some of the most valuable commercial and recreational species. SAV is home to a diverse group of flora and fauna and is a valuable part of a healthy ecosystem (Street, Deaton, Chappell, & Mooreside, 2005). Albemarle Pamlico National Estuary Program (APNEP) reports on submerged aquatic vegetation in the Albemarle - Pamlico Estuarine system indicate that the most productive SAV habitats are in the shallow saline waters on the eastern side of Pamlico Sound. Eelgrass, shoal grass, and widgeon grass are common and often dominate these environments. Eighty percent (80 %) of the SAV is in southern and eastern Pamlico Sound. Western Pamlico Sound demonstrated a lack of SAV when compared with the eastern portion of the sound (APNEP). It is estimated that there are 200,000 acres of SAV in North Carolina, about as much habitat as there is salt marsh, and SAV comprises about 8.5 percent of the total estuarine bottom in the state (Street et al., 2005). http -/ /www. cop. noaa. gov /stressors /cl im atechange /current /slr /habitats. htm I A sidescan and multibeam survey was conducted in late summer of 2009 and indicated that 2.26 square -miles of SAV were found within the 17.25 square -mile survey area (i.e., 13% coverage) (see Table 4.02 and Figure 4.04 above). Future - without project conditions. Based on current trends and conditions it is anticipated that future conditions should continue to improve with natural fluctuations occurring during severe weather events such as droughts and hurricanes (NEPCC, 2007). Stronger regulations have promoted the reduction in nutrients in waters supporting SAV and a decrease in suspended solids and sediments, as well as dissolved solids that have trended downward since the late 1980's (Street et al., 2005). A continued downward trend of sediments and nutrients is expected to continue promoting continued improvements in water clarity, which creates more favorable conditions for many historic SAV beds. The effect of climate change on this habitat includes sea level rise that may increase sedimentation and water temperature, possibly changing species interactions. However, the degree of change that this variable would have on the habitat is unknown at this time. http -/ /www. cop. noaa. gov /stressors /cl im atechange /current /slr /habitats. htm I 22 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 4.2.1.2 Shell Bottoms The North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP) defines shell bottom habitat as estuarine intertidal or sub tidal bottom composed of shell surface concentrations of living or dead oysters, hard clams, or other shell fish with oyster reefs predominating. North Carolina managers consider this habitat critical to fisheries production. Oysters can tolerate extremes in salinity, temperature, turbidity, and low dissolved oxygen, but spawning success requires optimal water quality and good currents for dispersal. Primary producers on shell bottom include algae and organic films of bacteria and fungi which provide food for resident secondary communities of crabs, barnacles, clams, mussels, anemones, polychaetes, amphipods, hydroids, bryozoans, flatworms, mussels and sponges. These species become prey for finfish, shrimps, and blue crabs. Shell bottoms also provide hard, complex substrate to an abundance of plants and animals. Thus this habitat supports many resident and transient fish and invertebrates that are ecologically and economically important (Street et al., 2005). Shell bottom is an important refuge, spawning area, nursery, and foraging area for a diverse community. http -/ /www. cop. noaa. gov /stressors /cl im atechange /current /slr /habitats. htm I In the wind - driven Pamlico Sound system north of Cape Lookout, oyster reefs consist overwhelmingly of subtidal beds. In the Albemarle - Pamlico estuary, oysters are concentrated in the lower portion of Pamlico Sound tributaries, along the western shore of Pamlico Sound, and to a lesser extent behind the Outer Banks (Street et al., 2005). The status of the oyster fishery in North Carolina is "concern ". httiD-//www.ncdmf.net/stocks/index.htmI Oyster harvests in North Carolina have shown a decrease of 90% from historical landings (Ortega & Sutherland, 1992). Oysters are harvested from October to March with tongs, rakes, or by hand, in intertidal areas and shallow water along the coast. They are also caught by dredges in parts of the Pamlico Sound. NCDMF website htta: / /www.ncfisheries .net /shellfish /shellfish.htm Based on USACE survey data collected during the late summer of 2009, a low relief shell bottom habitat covering 0.20 square -miles is located within the 17.25 - square -mile surveyed area (i.e., 1 % coverage) (Table 4.02). NCDMF manages ten existing oyster sanctuaries located in estuarine waters from Dare to Carteret counties, with one in the planning stages. The project area is located in relative proximity to two of the oyster sanctuaries (see Figure 3.01). Croatan Sound Sanctuary, established in 1996, covers 7.7 acres and includes 23 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 1,800 tons of riprap, 4,000 bushels of oyster shells, 2,640 bushels of surf clam shells, and 4,000 bushels of limestone marl. This site is located about 2.3 miles north of the project area near Roanoke Island. Crab Hole Oyster Sanctuary, established in 2003, covers 30.5 acres. This sanctuary is located about 0.6 miles south -west of the potential project area and is comprised of 16,170 tons of riprap. The attributes of all 10 sanctuaries are shown Appendix I. Future - without project conditions. Shell bottom has been identified as a habitat of "concern" due to long -term decline primarily due to overharvesting and habitat disturbances (NCDMF website). Other factors contributing to oyster decline include pollution, particularly at river mouths and tidal creeks, and natural disease by parasites such as DERMO. Shell bottom declined throughout the 20th century with landings today at 10% of the historic quantities. However, sampling data shows DERMO (the oyster parasite responsible for disease in the past) has declined in recent years and commercial landings have shown some improvement (Street et al., 2005; NCDMF, 2008); however, habitat (shell bottom) availability is expected to remain a problem, as little generation of shell bottom has occurred within this period of oyster decline. Future conditions are unpredictable, as disease and human impacts may change radically over the next 50 years. However, it is expected that the habitat will remain stable or begin to gradually improve with continued interagency coordination and continued Federal /non - Federal partnerships directed at restoration of shell bottom. 4.2.1.3 Soft Bottom Soft bottom communities constitute the majority of aquatic habitat in Pamlico Sound. Highly transient communities of macro - invertebrates utilize the area as primary habitat. Seasonal disruptions of the soft bottom from major storms and hurricanes make the area a diverse high energy zone that constantly exhibits changes in its topography. These habitats are dynamic elements of the coastal landscape that change with shifting patterns of sediment deposition and erosion. Despite a lack of structure, these surface sediments support an abundance of microscopic plants and burrowing animals. North Carolina classifies soft bottom habitats as: un- vegetated shoreline, beaches, intertidal flats and sub tidal bottom in rivers creeks and sounds. The physical and chemical properties of soft bottom habitat affect the benthic organism that dwell there. The shoreline and soft bottom in the northern geologic province consist of four different types of sediment: sand, peat inorganic mud, and organic rich mud (ORM). ORM comprises about 70% of NC estuarine substrate and is concentrated in the central basins of sounds (Street et al., 2005). The southern estuarine system has soft bottom composed of sloped mudflats with extensive tidal channels supporting extensive saltwater marshes due to larger tide range. These large ranges are also found near the 20 inlets through the barrier islands. 24 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project One of the most important functions of soft bottom habitat is its enabling of foraging to several trophic levels due to high concentrations of organic matter transported to and produced on soft bottom. This habitat is utilized in this capacity by an abundance of diverse invertebrates, including herbivores, detritivores, and various fish as you move up the food chain. (Street et al., 2005). http- / /www. cop. noaa. gov /stressors /cl im atechange /current/slr /habitats. htm USACE surveys identified 14.79 square -miles of soft bottom in the 17.25- square- mile survey area (i.e. 86% coverage). Future - without project conditions. Inadequate data exists regarding the future conditions of the soft bottom habitat. As a dynamic habitat type that is highly resistant to any change in conditions it is anticipated that soft bottom will remain status quo with only minor changes occurring regarding the quantity of soft bottom relative to wetlands, SAV, and shell bottom that are much less stable habitats (Street, et al., 2005). 4.2.2 Bird Islands There are seven man -made sandy islands in the project vicinity that provide a large portion of the primary nesting habitat for colonial shorebird species. Species include brown pelicans, royal and sandwich terns, various species of gulls, and the American Oyster Catcher. These islands were originally built for and are commonly used as disposal through control of effluent islands that receive sandy material from the nearby navigation channel. These islands require an inflow of sediment to remain stable, but are limited in size to prevent predatory hazards that would be associated with a larger island. Two such Islands, Wells and Parnell, are located within the 17 square -mile project study area. They have exceeded their sand disposal capacity and are no longer available for disposal until they have receded back to a manageable size as appropriate for nesting bird islands. Future - without project conditions. Future conditions of the bird islands should remain similar to current conditions with cycles of sand placement on the island followed by the natural erosion of material. Without additional locations for placement of sand materials, navigational maintenance of the nearby channels would require the use of the islands increasingly beyond their approved size which could result in issues such as higher predation of the nesting birds and establishment of plant species that may restrict nesting (USACE -ERDC, 2008). These islands' suitability for nesting is monitored by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. While there are no current plans for additional bird islands, a dredged material management plan (DMMP) for the Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay Navigation Project is underway and includes considerations for construction of additional bird islands along the interior channels of the navigation project, including Old House Channel. 25 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project t.2.3 Wetlands The estuarine waters and wetlands of Pamlico- Albemarle Sound provide critical nursery areas for more than 75 species of fish and shellfish. Juvenile sea trout, flounder, blue crab, and shrimp, the most commonly fished species, all depend on estuarine wetlands for protection and food. Shrimp production, in particular, has been shown to be directly proportional to the acreage of vegetated wetlands in an estuary. The Clean Water Act and the state's Coastal Area Management Act have decreased the state's wetland loss rate, but coastal states such as North Carolina are still losing wetlands to development more rapidly than is occurring in inland states, particularly in the southeast United States. //www.nmfs.noaa.aov/habitat/habitatconservation/iDublications/ habitatconections /num2. htm Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, as defined by the Code of Federal Regulations (33 CFR 328.3). Wetlands have three essential characteristics: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Coastal wetlands that may occur in the project vicinity include salt marshes, bottomland hardwood swamps, fresh marshes, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and pocosins. With the exception of SAV as shown on figure 4.04, no vegetated wetlands are located within the 17 square -mile project vicinity. The closest nearby wetlands are tidal marshes found about 4 to 6 miles away. Future - without project conditions. According to Dahl (1990), by the mid - 1980s, North Carolina had lost up to 50 percent of its estimated original wetlands acreage. From 1998 to 2004, in the United States, wetland gains are estimated at 32,000 acres annually (Stedman and Dahl 2008). However, during that same period, coastal watersheds of the United States adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean experienced a net loss of 15,000 acres of estuarine intertidal and freshwater wetlands (Stedman and Dahl 2008). Estuarine emergent wetlands showed the greatest loss declining by about 1 percent on the Atlantic Ocean coast during the 6 -year period of analysis. According to Stedman and Dahl (2008), more than half of the U.S. population lives in coastal areas, and development was a major factor in the loss of coastal wetlands along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Rising sea level, subsidence, and erosion processes also contribute to coastal wetland loss (Stedman and Dahl 2008). 26 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species An updated list of Endangered and Threatened Species of plants and animals that are expected to occur in the vicinity of Pamlico Sound for the project area are listed inTable 4.03 which was obtained from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The actual occurrence of a species depends upon the availability of suitable habitat, the season of year relative to a species temperature tolerance, migratory habits, and other factors. 27 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Table 4.03. Endangered and Threatened Species Potentially Occurring in Project Vicinity Species Scientific name Federal Status Birds: 0 Piping plover Charadrius melodus 0 Roseate tern Sterna dougallii dougallii 0 0 Marine Mammals: Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus E� Finback whale Balaenoptera physalus E� Humpback whale Megaptera novaeang /iae E� North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis E� Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis E� Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus E� West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus E� 0 Reptiles: Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas 0 Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricate E� Kemp's ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii E� Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coniacea E� Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta 0 American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T (S /A) 0 Fishes: Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum E� Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus E� 0 0 0 T(S /A) = threatened due to similarity of appearance. A taxon that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with another listed species and is listed for its protection. Taxa Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project listed as T(S /A) are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. The species expected to occur in the project area are the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenseroxyrinchus), the multiple species of sea turtle that frequent the North Carolina coast as well as, the shore bird species of piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and roseate tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii that may use the bird islands. Whale species are not expected to occur within Pamlico Sound as whale species tend to stay off the coast of North Carolina and do not enter the sound. The project vicinity does not include habitat of the dune plant seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) and, therefore, this species would not be encountered. Manatee. There is no information available that would allow the prediction of West Indian Manatee's occurrence at any given site at any given time. It can only be assumed based on recorded sightings that the likelihood of it occurring in the area is low. Future - without project conditions. Based on an unpublished species profile for the West Indian manatee (specifically the Florida manatee) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a general trend appeared from 1993 to 2001 showing a population increase of manatees in Florida. As North Carolina does not have a resident population of manatees it is assumed that manatees spotted in North Carolina are transients from the south, most probably Florida. For this reason data gathered in Florida can be utilized to ascertain the future likelihood on manatee sightings. With increasing water temperatures and the gradual increase in population size, it can be expected the likelihood of an encountering a manatee will increase over time within the project area but should not increase to the degree that a resident community of manatees would inhabit Pamlico Sound. http-//ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/01 1030. pdf Shortnose Sturgeon. The shortnose sturgeon range extends along the Atlantic seaboard from the Saint John River in New Brunswick, Canada to the Saint Johns River, Florida. Historical records indicate that shortnose sturgeon used to be abundant within Pamlico Sound but up until less than a decade ago, were thought to be extirpated from North Carolina. In 1998, NCDMF captured an adult shortnose sturgeon in Western Albemarle Sound providing evidence for the existence of a shortnose sturgeon population (NMFS, 1998). There is no breeding habitat available for the species in the project vicinity; however, adults may be encountered in the project area when the over - wintering population moves into the Roanoke /Chowan River Basin. Atlantic sturgeon. Ranges of the Atlantic sturgeon are similar to that of the shortnose sturgeon discussed above with the species' historic range including 29 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project major estuarine and riverine systems that spanned from Hamilton Inlet on the coast of Labrador to the Saint Johns River in Florida (Murawski and Pacheco, 1977; Smith and Clungston, 1997). Atlantic sturgeon were once abundant in many coastal rivers and estuaries in North Carolina. The largest historic Atlantic sturgeon fisheries occurred in the Cape Fear River and the Roanoke River /Albemarle Sound system where current spawning has been documented in both systems (ASSRT, 2007). Man -made structures, such as dams, have limited the species spawning habitat and ability to reproduce. The Atlantic sturgeon is listed as Endangered. Within the Federal Register dated February 6, 2012 (Volume 77, Number 24), NMFS issued a final determination to list the Carolina and South Atlantic distinct population segments (DPSs) of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. This final rule was made effective April 6, 2012. There are currently recovery programs in place for Atlantic sturgeon. As with the shortnose sturgeon, there is no breeding habitat available for the species in the project vicinity but adults may be encountered in the project area. Although it is unlikely species may occur in the project area, it is expected that the sturgeon are mobile enough that they will not be restricted from moving outside of the project vicinity. Future - Without Project Conditions. Man -made structures that restrict the spawning of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon will continue to keep populations at a low level. Data is unclear regarding the locations and distributions of either populations within Pamlico Sound so population trends and other tools used to determine the health and status of a population are unavailable at this time. It is anticipated that continued recovery programs and the active removal of many un- natural structures that currently block spawning grounds for the shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon will continue to bolster the native populations and may promote the growth of the native populations, increasing the chances of an encounter. http : / /www.nmfs.noaa.gov /pr /pdfs /recovery /sturgeon shortnose.pdf Sea Turtles. Sea turtle species commonly associated with the North Carolina coast have been known to traverse through Oregon Inlet and into Pamlico Sound. The loggerhead and green sea turtle are considered to be the only species to nest on the beaches nearest the project area. However, the leatherback, hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley sea turtle have been documented within or on the adjacent beaches of Pamlico Sound. While these species may occur within the project area, it is unlikely that sea turtles will be encountered due to the time of year that construction phase work would be proposed and the mobility of sea turtles to move outside of project range. Future — Without Project Conditions. Population trends from NOAA and analyses of historic and recent abundance indicate that extensive population declines have occurred over the past 100 years with an overall decline in mature females nesting. In particular from 1998, after seeing an upward trend in nests since 1989, populations of nesting turtles dropped 43 %. Mitigation of hazards 30 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project that are suspected of contributing to the decline of turtles including predation by foxes, coastal trawling impacts, and more strict dredging requirements should contribute to continuity of the various species. However, limited data makes a determination on the future of the species difficult. It is expected that populations may slow in their decline and, in some cases begin to recover, but will not recover to the point of de- listing during the 50 year period of interest. http: / /www.nmfs.noaa.gov /pr /species /turtles/ Birds. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and roseate tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii) are fairly common along the North Carolina Coast. Both species are considered shorebirds that nest in low numbers along the area beaches and bird islands. Potential nesting habitat is located outside of the 17 square -mile survey area and species will not be in direct contact with the proposed project. Future — Without Project Conditions. Populations are expected to stay status quo during the 50 year study period with little change from their current "Threatened or Endangered Status ". Mortality of adults during migration and major storm events along with occasional predation will continue to occur. Occasional shifting of nesting locations may occur but populations should remain in the general vicinity. 4.4 Benthic Resourcep Benthic resources in the Northern Pamlico Sound are variable, from limited resources occurring in frequently dredged channel bottoms to complex and diverse assemblages occurring in stable grass bed areas. Ecologically and economically important benthic species known from the project area include blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus), shrimps (Penaeus spp.), clams ( Mercenaria mercenaria), and oysters (Crassostrea virginica). The Southeast Coast Benthic Index rated the benthic condition of the Albemarle - Pamlico Estuarine Complex as fair with 65 percent of the area rated in good condition, and sixteen (16 %) percent of the area rated poor. None of the poor location are in the project area; the majority are in the Neuse Estuary. Degraded areas were often associated with adverse water and sediment quality (NEPCC, 2007). Future - Without Project Conditions. Future conditions in the project vicinity are expected to remain stable with an overall quality rating of fair. There is no data indicating a change in this condition. 31 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 4.5 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Fisheries The 1996 Congressional amendments to the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) (PL 94 -265) set forth new requirements for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), regional fishery management councils (FMC), and other federal agencies to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat. These amendments established procedures for the identification of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and a requirement for interagency coordination to further the conservation of federally managed fisheries. The project area may include species that are managed by, or are of particular interest to the Mid and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, as well as the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. The NMFS Southeast Region is the point of contact (POC) for EFH for this project. Table 4.04 lists, by life stages, the 14 fish species which may occur in Pamlico Sound and which are managed under MSFCMA. These fish species and habitats require special consideration to promote their viability and sustainability. The potential impacts of the proposed project on these fish and habitats are discussed in Section 7.5. 32 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Essential Fish Habitat Species, Pamlico Sound Dare County, NC EFH Fish Species Life Stage Present EFH Fish Species Life Stage Present Bluefish E L J A Black Sea Bass L J A Summer Flounder L J A Spiny Dogfish E L J A Gag Grouper J Brown Shrimp E L J A Gray Snapper J Pink Shrimp E L J A Cobia E L J A White Shrimp E L J A King Mackerel J A Sandbar Shark J A Spanish Mackerel J A Sheepshead J A Life Stages E =Eggs; L= Larval; J= Juvenile; A =Adult Table 4.04. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Species Present in Pamlico Sound, Dare County, North Carolina. Source: NMFS, Beaufort, North Carolina, October 1999. The Fishery Management Plan Amendments of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council identify a number of categories of Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, which are listed in Table 4.05. While all 26 of these habitat categories occur in waters of the southeastern United States, many are absent from the Pamlico Sound Estuary. Those absent include estuarine scrub /shrub mangroves which require a more tropical environment and several areas that are geographically removed from the project area including: Hoyt Hills located in the Blake Plateau area in water 450 -600 meters deep, Cape Fear Sandy Shoals also known as Frying Pan Shoals, Big Rock and Ten - Fathom Ledge located off Cape Lookout, Hatteras Sandy Shoals, New River, and Bogue Sound. In addition, the Pamlico Sound does not include marine (ocean) areas or state - designated areas of importance for managed species (primary nursery areas). Areas found in the Pamlico Sound include: estuarine water column, aquatic beds, estuarine emergent wetlands, oyster reefs and shellbanks, palustrine forested wetlands, seagrass (submerged aquatic vegetation). 33 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project The 17 square -mile project study area includes estuarine water column, aquatic beds, oyster reefs and shellbanks, and seagrass (submerged aquatic vegetation). Table 4.05. Caterries of Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern in Southeast States . ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT GEOGRAPHICALLY DEFINED HABITAT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Estuarine Areas Area — Wide Aquatic Beds Estuarine Emergent Wetlands Estuarine Scrub / Shrub Mangroves Estuarine Water Column Intertidal Flats Oyster Reefs & Shell Banks Palustrine Emergent & Forested Wetlands Seagrass Marine Areas Artificial / Manmade Reefs Coral & Coral Reefs Live / Hard Bottoms Sargassum Marine Water Column Council- designated Artificial Reef Special Management Zones Hermatypic (reef - forming) Coral Habitat & Reefs Hard Bottoms Hoyt Hills Sargassum Habitat State - designated Areas of Importance of Managed Species Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) North Carolina Big Rock Bogue Sound Capes Fear, Lookout, & Hatteras (sandy shoals) New River The Ten Fathom Ledge The Point Areas shown are identified in Fishery Management Plan Amendments of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and are included in Essential Fish Habitat: New Marine Fish Habitat Mandate for Federal Agencies. February 1999. (Tables 6 and 7). Overall, based on the fish tissue contaminants index, the Albemarle - Pamlico Estuarine Complex is rated good to fair. Ten percent of the stations sampled exceeded the risk -based EPA Advisory guidance values and were rated poor. 34 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Twenty percent of stations were rated fair and seventy percent were rated good with the only contaminants measured being total PAHs and total PCBs. Future - Without Project Conditions. Declining stocks of local populations of fish that include; Atlantic croaker, Atlantic sturgeon, eastern oyster, red drum, striped bass, summer flounder, weakfish, and herring are apparent in downward trends of commercial landings despite improvements in fishing methodologies and gear. It is expected that without better management practices that manage overfishing and habitat loss this trend may continue (NEPCC, 2007). 4.6 sediments The assessment of the existing condition of sediment in the Project Study Area is based largely on vibracore sampling by the USACE during the feasibility study. These boring samples were then analyzed by Terracon Inc. The results of the laboratory testing of these samples are presented on the grain size analysis sheets, summarized in the boring logs, and provided in Table E -2 in Appendix E. In general, the materials encountered in the northern portion of Old House Channel, Range 2 consist of fine sand (SP) and fine sand with silt (SP -SM) with composite percent silt content at less than 10 %. The materials encountered in the southern portion of Old House Channel, Range 2 generally consists of fine sand (SP), fine sand with silt (SP -SM), silty fine sand (SM), and elastic silt with sand (MH). The material encountered in the potential placement areas ranges from fine sand (SP) in some areas, to fine sand with silt (SP -SM), silty fine sand (SM), and elastic silt with sand (MH). Future - Without Project Conditions. The distribution of bottom sediments is not expected to have any significant change over time. Suspended solids have trended downward over the last 30 years with spikes occurring during major storm events. Conditions at the project area are not expected to vary greatly outside of those storm events. The sediment quality index that evaluates toxicity, contaminants, and carbon determined that the Albemarle - Pamlico Estuarine complex is rated good to fair with two sampling sites near the project rated good. The overall condition rating was distributed as 93% good and seven percent rated poor. These evaluations are not anticipated to drastically change in the foreseeable future (NEPCC, 2007). 35 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 1.7 Coastal Processes The Project Study Area is located near Oregon Inlet in a highly dynamic area subject to external forces including wind, waves, and tides. The predominant winds occur from the northeast and the southwest which is typical of the entire coast of North Carolina. Winds play an important role in the tides. Fluctuation of the water level as a result of wind action is a common and daily occurrence. Water levels are determined primarily by the speed, direction, and duration of surface winds. Astronomical tides play a small role in the water level due to the distance from Oregon Inlet and the buffering provided by the barrier islands. Waves in the Project Study Area are affected more by winds than by the ocean swell entering the sound through Oregon Inlet. The area is dynamic with impacts from frequent storms. Seven named tropical storms have made direct landfall on the area in the last ten years, in addition to nor'easters (www.nc- climate.ncsu.edu). Future - Without Project Conditions. Existing coastal processes within the project area are not expected to change. The external forces of wind, waves and tides will continue to impact the project area. Water levels will continue to be impacted primarily by wind with minor impacts resulting from astronomical tides (for Sea Level Rise see analysis in Section 4.1.3) 1.8 Air Quality The Washington Regional Office of the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources has air quality jurisdiction for the project area. The ambient air quality for Dare County has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and this county is designated as an attainment area. The State of North Carolina does have a State Implementation Plan ( "SIP ") approved or promulgated under Section 110 of the CAA. However, for the following reasons, a conformity determination is not required: a. 40 CFR 93.153 (b), "For federal actions not covered by paragraph (a) of this section, a conformity determination is required for each pollutant where the total of direct and indirect emissions in a nonattainment or maintenance area caused by a federal action would equal or exceed any of the rates in paragraphs (b) (1) or (2) of this section." Dare County has been designated by the State of North Carolina as an attainment area. b. The direct and indirect emissions from the project would fall below the prescribed minimum levels (58 Fed Reg. 93.153(c )(1)) and, therefore, no conformity determination would be required. c. The ambient air quality for Dare County has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area. 36 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Future - Without Project Conditions. Air quality is not expected to decline in the future. Recent results of air quality testing (ozone and particle pollution) by the NC Division of Air Quality have indicated a decrease in high exceedance days in North Carolina showing that air quality may be improving over time http: / /dag.state.nc.us /news /pr /2010 /ozone forecasts 03312010.shtml Dredging operations that release minimal levels of emissions in the project area will continue on a regular dredge cycle to maintain navigation routes. .jocio- Economics and Recreation Recreational and commercial fisherman use the Pamlico Sound extensively for fisheries and shellfish resources, making up a large percentage of North Carolinas' total revenue for fisheries. The Sound is especially known for its blue crab and oyster resources. Commercial fishing practices in the basin include pound nets, long haul seines, shrimp and crab trawls, crab pots, and sink gill nets. Shellfish (including crabs, oysters, and bay scallops) are taken by tonging, raking, bull raking, hand harvesting, and dredging. Tourism in the counties surrounding Pamlico Sound relies on maintaining a high level of support from fishing tournaments and the influx of boaters that utilize the many marinas within Pamlico Sound. The Project Study Area is popular for fishing due to its vicinity to Oregon Inlet and its containment of a variety of habitats. Sidescan data has indicated SAV, oyster reefs, shoals, and deep water habitats, which attract fish and fisherman to the area (Figure 4.04). Navigational support to marinas and vessels providing goods and supplies, as well as bolstering the local, recreational, and tourism markets in the surrounding area reinforces the need for navigation channels and the constant maintenance that is required to keep the channels open. Providing alternative methods for placement of material that has been removed from these navigational channels is crucial to maintaining the economic stability of the surrounding area that relies heavily on access to the waterways. Future - Without Project Conditions. Activities that contribute to the socio- economics of the greater community in the surrounding project area are closely tied to commercial fishing and recreational vessel access and passage. Safe and viable vessel passage is expected to remain a critical component of the area's socio- economic structure. This requires that navigation channels remain open; therefore, channel maintenance requirements are not expected to change significantly in the future. 37 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 1.10 Cultural Resources The study area is located in Pamlico Sound within the Outer Banks of North Carolina, and specifically, the Oregon Inlet vicinity. The inlet was created by a storm in September 1846 that pushed water over Bodie Island (Angley, 1985). Oregon Inlet remained unimproved, save lighthouse constructions and Civil War fortifications, and migrated approximately a mile south, before channel dredging was begun in 1910 to link Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay to the inlet (Angley, 1985). Historical research has identified the loss of ninety vessels in the vicinity of Oregon Inlet (Tidewater Atlantic Research, 1992). Despite the large number of sunken vessels in the vicinity, there are no known recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area (North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office. Letter to Corps of Engineers 18 June 2009). The Corps of Engineers will consult with North Carolina Office of Archaeology's Underwater Archaeology Branch when specific construction areas are identified. Future - Without Project Conditions. No known recorded archaeological sites are within the proposed project area (North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office. Letter to Corps of Engineers 18 June 2009). Therefore, there would be no effect or change from existing conditions that would affect cultural resources. However, there is always the possibility that an unknown cultural resource will be identified in the future. 4.11 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Wastes The project area under consideration is not located in or near an industrial site or dump. If hazardous and toxic wastes are identified in the area, response plans and remedial actions will be conducted as appropriate. Future - Without Project Conditions. Waste sites are not expected to be discovered in the future. 4.12 Floodplains The Pamlico Sound proposed project area is not located within a floodplain. It is submerged. Future - Without Project Conditions. Future conditions analysis suggests that the project area will not become a floodplain. M. Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 4.13 Other Environmental Considerations The following environmental factors have been considered based on existing and future conditions and due to the unlikely circumstance that they will change or be impacted were excluded from further analysis: aesthetics, noise, and geology. 5.0 PLAN FORMULATION AND ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION This section discusses problems, opportunities, restoration objectives and constraints within the study. Based on these problems, opportunities, objectives and constraints, a series of restoration alternatives have been developed. 5.1 Public Concern Input was received through coordination with the sponsor, coordination with other agencies, and public distribution of the project scoping letter. A discussion on public involvement is included in Section 9.0 of this report. The public concerns that are related to the establishment of planning objectives and planning constraints are: 1. The State of North Carolina has indicated concern for the historical loss of oyster reef habitat in Pamlico Sound. 2. Both state and Federal resource agencies have expressed a desire to restore a self- sustaining network of oyster reef habitat in Pamlico Sound. The Sponsor, the State of North Carolina, has indicated a desire for beneficial use of the sediments at Old House Channel for oyster reef restoration. 3. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) has expressed the preference for a maximum island size limit for Wells and Parnell disposal islands, which are located along Old House Channel. These disposal islands also serve as bird sanctuaries. Due to frequent dredging needs in the vicinity of these islands, both sites currently are at or exceed established limits. The WRC has asked that both sites be used on a less frequent 2 -3 year disposal cycle to allow time for natural erosion to reduce the size of the islands, minimizing the potential for establishment of avian predators (US ERDC, 2008). 39 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 5.2 Assessment of Problems, Opportunities, Objectives and Constraints 5.2.1 Problems and Opportunities This section describes the public concerns in the context of problems and opportunities that can be addressed through water and related land resource management. Solving these problems and opportunities provides basis for motivating & allocating the partners' pooled resources (Planning Manual, pg. 78). The problem identified in this CAP Section 204 study is a historic loss of oyster reef habitat in Pamlico Sound, NC. 1) Due to the importance of oysters as a keystone species in estuarine ecosystem health (Street et al., 2005; Peterson et al., 2003; NCDMF, 2009) and their sharp decline in population in North Carolina from historic levels (Ortega & Sutherland, 1992), the State of North Carolina has made oyster restoration a high priority as expressed in the Blue Ribbon Report (Frankenberg, 1995). Due to historic overharvesting, destruction of habitat, pollution and disease, oyster landings are estimated to be only ten percent of what they were just over a century ago (Ortega & Sutherland, 1992). According to NCDMF 2001 a, the primary cause of initial oyster reef decline and degradation in Pamlico Sound was the introduction and use over time of the "oyster dredge" as a harvesting practice. First introduced in 1889, the practice of oyster dredging involves a boat pulling a large rake along the sea floor (particularly over oyster reefs), bringing up the oysters in it's path. Oyster dredging is still in practice today, but with restrictions. A decline in oyster habitat from historical levels in the Pamlico Sound is viewed as a concern by both public and private entities. 2) There are opportunities in the study area to restore oyster reef habitat. This would contribute to local, state, and national goals of restoring the oyster population in North Carolina waters. Successful establishment of oyster reefs in the project vicinity has been demonstrated by the State of North Carolina (see Section 3.2). 3) There is an opportunity to alleviate strain on Wells, Parnell and MN Disposal Islands along Old House Channel (Range 2) by providing an alternative disposal location. These disposal islands are also managed as bird nesting islands, through control of effluent discharge practices. 5.L.L rlanning Uojectives These planning objectives reflect the problems and opportunities and represent desired positive changes in the without project conditions. The planning objectives are: ,i Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 1. Contribute to State network of self- sustaining oyster reefs in Albemarle - Pamlico National Estuary as described by the NCORSC's Oyster Restoration and Protection Plan. 2. Increase acreage of oyster reefs in Pamlico Sound, NC by 5 to 20 acres. This range is considered appropriate based on anticipated dredged material volumes. 3. Divert dredged material from Wells, Parnell and /or MN disposal islands. 5.2.3 Planning Constraints Study- specific constraints that will guide formulation and screening of alternatives include: a. Avoid disturbing existing high value areas (site construction & pipe placement) Site construction and related activities must avoid existing SA V, shell bottoms, and cultural resources. This risk is being minimized through a detailed survey of the project study area. b. Avoid conflicting with other area fisheries such as crab trawling This risk is being minimized through coordination with local field experts & NCDMF as a liaison to the fishing community. c. Avoid sand quality that is inappropriate for beneficial use, and sediment material inappropriate for foundational support. The risk is being minimized through geotechnical vibracore sampling. d. Avoid alternatives requiring mitigation. e. Prohibited from removing material directly from Wells and Parnell Disposal Islands for construction material (source: SAD CAP Processes and Procedures, pg.11). f. Sufficient water depth required to contain submerged oyster reef with a 7feet navigation clearance (Based on State of North Carolina policy). 5.3 Potential Restoration Alternatives This section describes the Alternative development for a beneficial use of dredged material project at Old House Channel. A number of general measures were identified that would meet one or more of the planning objectives. These 41 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project measures underwent a preliminary screening process. The retained measures were evaluated and then further developed into alternatives. 5.3.1 Description of Measures A management measure is a feature or activity at a site, which addresses one or more of the planning objectives. A variety of measures were considered, some of which were found to be infeasible due to technical, economic, or environmental constraints. Each measure was assessed and a determination made regarding whether it should be retained in the formulation of alternative plans. The descriptions and results of the evaluations of the measures considered in this study are presented below, and described afterwards: 1. NO ACTION 2. Beach Placement on Cape Hatteras National Seashore or Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge 3. Additional Bird Island Creation 4. Marsh Protection 5. Oyster Reef Construction No Action. The USACE is required to consider the option of "No Action" as one of the alternatives in order to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). No Action assumes that no project would be implemented by the Federal Government to achieve planning objectives. No Action, which is also referred to as the "Without Project Conditions ", forms the basis from which all other alternative plans are measured. Under the No- Action plan, the USACE would do no restoration efforts at Old House Channel, and the base plan for managing dredged material would remain in place. State efforts to meet Local, State, & National goals for oyster restoration in Pamlico Sound would be expected to continue, but without restoration in the identified area of need of Old House Channel. Strain on Wells & Parnell disposal islands, as well as disposal island MN would continue without any alleviation from an alternative disposal option. 2. Beach Placement on Cape Hatteras National Seashore or Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. This measure would require pumping dredged material from Old House Channel to the closest beach (roughly 5 miles away) for shoreline placement. This would divert material from Wells and Parnell disposal islands. The National Parks Service (NPS) is responsible for Cape Hatteras National Seashore, which is north of Oregon Inlet. The NPS has stated that it is highly unlikely that they would permit the deposition of dredged spoils on the National Seashore property at this location. The USFWS is responsible for Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, south of Oregon Inlet. Dredged material from Oregon Inlet is already being deposited on Pea Island as part of dredging operations. 42 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Further negotiation with the USFWS would be needed to gain permission to place material from the interior channels of the Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay navigation project, which includes Old House Channel (Range 2). 3. Additional Bird Island Creation. Dredged material from Old House Channel could be used to create another disposal island that could also be used as additional bird habitat. Two existing bird islands (Wells & Parnell islands) already exist in the project area. A separate Dredged Material Management Plan study is currently investigating the creation of additional bird islands. However, this conversion of aquatic to terrestrial habitat would not address identified oyster restoration needs. 4. Marsh Protection. Dredged material could be used to protect marsh, similar to the USACE project constructed at Festival Park near Manteo. However, the nearest shoreline is approximately 5 miles away, and there has been no documented need of marsh protection in the vicinity. 5. Oyster Reef Construction. Dredged material from maintenance dredging of Old House Channel could be used to build submerged sand islands to be topped with cultch for oyster reefs, with various reef configurations being considered. Configurations could include placing sand in submerged enclosures where good oyster growing conditions are found near the navigation channel and where submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) or other significant resources do not exist. 5.3.2 Preliminary Screening of Restoration Measures Two rounds of preliminary screenings were used before a final array of alternatives was moved forward to detailed analysis and evaluation. Costs and benefits are not computed at this preliminary screening stage. Conclusions of the screening pertain to this Section 204 Study and related objectives and oyster reef restoration, and do not preclude other viable options of dredged material disposal which may be identified for the larger Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay Dredging Project. Preliminary Screening —Round 1. All of the measures under consideration were initially screened based on a number of factors including contribution to planning objectives, technical feasibility, economic feasibility, environmental acceptability, and mitigation requirements. Based on these factors, determinations were made regarding which measures to proceed forward with to the second round of screening. This preliminary screening process is summarized in Table 5.01. 43 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Table 5.01 First Array for Evaluation and Screening of Measures /Alternatives. One or more carried forward to Second Array, Table 5.02 M Possible Measures Planning Objectives Planning Constraints Carried Forward Contributeto State network of Increase acreage of oyster reefs in Divert dredged material from Avoid alternatives Technically feasible Environmentally acceptable Economically feasible Violates Authority self- sustaining oyster reefs in Pamlico Sound, NC by 5 to 20 acres Wells & Parnell disposal islands. requiring mitigation APES as described iby NORSC's (source: June 17, 1994 Oyster Restoration and Protection Planning Division Plan Summary Report) Does not contribute to planning Does not contribute to planning Does not contribute to planning No Action objectives objectives objectives N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A YES his wolqWntribute to a Would not increase oyster reef Would provide alternative No known mitigation Pumping distance far (5 a Hatteras Nationa' Pumping distance (5 miles) Does not violate Network of self- sustaining oyster acreage in Pamlico Sound. disposal option to Well's & required. miles), but still technically re looks unfavorably a . far, but disposal method authority. NO (does not address reefs. Parnell Islands. feasible. reline disposal. Pea requires no additional identified Beach placement nd already receiving sa construction materials. problem /pumping m Oregon Inlet. distance /national seashore restrictions) This would not contribute to a Would not increase oyster reef Would provide alternative Conversion of aquatic Bird islands have already While creating bird nesting Island creation would be Does not violate Network of self- sustaining oyster acreage in Pamlico Sound. disposal option to Well's & to terrestrial habitat been constructed and are habitat, island creation also very economically authority. reefs. Parnell Islands. would require technically feasible. removes aquatic habitat. efficient. mitigation (June 17, This has resulted in the NO (does not address 1994 Planning Division request by NCDMF for identified Bird island creation Summary Report) mitigation for estuarine problem /requires bottom raised above high mitigation) water. Although a hard - structure feature Acreage of oysters created, if any7 Would provide alternative No known mitigation This has been It is environmentally Economic feasibility would Does not violate in marsh protection could support would not meet the planning disposal option to Well's & required. accomplished at Festival acceptable to protect partly depend on pumping authority. some oyster growth, the amount objective of 5 to 20 acres. Parnell Islands, although Park. threatened marsh & distance to the nearest would not constitute contribution quantities are unknown. wetlands. marsh that needed NO (does not address to described reef network. protection. However, identified problem/ no Marsh protection there are no documented identified need in needs in the project project vicinity) vicinity. Creation of one to several oyster YLS The use of dredged material from Would be considered There are viable methods Oysters are considered a Oyster reef construction Does not violate reefs in identified area would Old House Channel (Range 2) for an enhancement of for submerged oyster reef keystone species in the can be achieved within the authority. contribute to network as the creation of oyster reefs would aquatic habitat and contruction using dredged aquatic ecosystem. Their Authority's cost limits. YES (addresses both described by NORSC. alleviate strain on Well's & would not require material. decline has been identified problem and Oyster reef Parnell Islands for one to two mitigation. g documented, and opportunity/ does not construction dredging cycles. restoration is seen as a violate any planning priority by multiple constraints) agencies. Carried Forward Eliminated Fully Meets Obj /Constraint Partially Meets Obj /Constraint Does Not Meet Obj /Constraint M Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Preliminary Screening — Round 2. Based on the first round of preliminary screening, oyster reef construction was carried forward to a second array of measures for evaluation and screening. As shown in Table 5.02, various configurations and methodologies of oyster reef construction were considered and screened based on the same criteria used in the first round of preliminary screening. A traditional rock reef such as the State has used was screened out because it does not use dredged material as required by the 204 Authority. Uncontained sand mounds were screened out as an option due to concerns of dredged material migration after placement from currents in the area, particularly during significant storm events such as Nor'easters and tropical activity. There is also opposition to unconfined disposal from resource agencies. Sandbag reef alternatives were also screened out due to uncertainty regarding the feasibility of placement and filling of sandbags in deep water. Both stone contained and sheetpile & stone contained reefs were carried forward for detailed design and evaluation. Mi Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Table 5.02 Second Array for Evaluation and Screening of Measures /Alternatives. One or more carried forward to detailed design and evaluation. Ell Possible Measures Planning Objectives Planning Constraints VARIOUS OYSTER REEF Contribute to State network of Increase acreage of Divert dredged material Avoid alternatives Technically feasible Environmentally acceptable Economically Violates Authority Carried Forward CONFIGURATIONS: self - sustaining oyster reefs in oyster reefs in Pamlico from Wells & Parnell requiring mitigation feasible APES as described iby NORSC's Sound, NC by 5 to 20 Disposal Islands. Oyster Restoration and acres Protection Plan Would contribute to reef Increased cost may No use of LI -edged No known mitigation State has demonstrated Oysters are considered a keystone Use of more rocks network. limit buildable acreage material. required. technical feasibility. species in the aquatic ecosystem. would increase costs NO (Violation of to less than 5 acres. Their decline has been when considering 1W Authority because Traditional Rock Reef documented, and restoration is cost limits under an "all rock" reef seen as a priority by multiple this authority. would not use agencies. dredged material) Sand -Based Reefs: Instability of reefs due to Instability of reefs due Dredged material would No known mitigation Due to uncontainment and Issues with Environmental Least costly Does not violate NO (Instability due uncontainment and currents to uncontainment and be disposed of in oyster required. currents, sand would not stay Acceptability due to the alternative due to authority. to uncontainment could jeopardize currents could reef core for 1 to 2 in place to cultch. uncontained nature of the reef. the lack of a rock would jeopardize Uncontained sand mounds establishment of oysters. jeopardize dredging cycles. Agencies could consider this containment integrity & (Unarmored) establishment of method simply "unconfined structure. effectiveness. oysters. dumping" of dredged material. Environmental NCDMF has asked that created acceptability reefs be contained. questionable) Would contribute to reef Likely to increase Dredged material would No known mitigation Significant technical Oysters are considered a keystone Shorter life Does not violate NO (technical network . oyster acreage to meet be disposed of in oyster required. challenges to properly placing species in the aquatic ecosystem. expectancy authority. challenge of Contained sand mounds objective. reef care for 1 to 2 submerged sandbags as reef Their decline has been increases life cycle submerged sandbag (Sand Bags) dredging cycles. containment. Longevity documented, and restoration is O &M costs if placement; issues issues with containment. seen as a priority by multiple containment is with longevity of agencies. maintained. containment) Would contribute to reef Likely to increase Dredged material would No known mitigation Reef configuration Oysters are considered a keystone This is an Does not violate network. oyster acreage to meet be disposed of in oyster required. technically feasible. species in the aquatic ecosystem. economically authority. Contained sand mounds objective. reef core for 1 to 2 Their decline has been feasible alternative. (Stone) dredging cycles. documented, and restaration is YES seen as a priority by multiple agencies. Would contribute to reef Likely to increase Dredged material would No known mitigation Reef configuration Same as sandbag & stone This is an Does not violate network. oyster acreage to meet be disposed of in oyster required. technically feasible; however, alternatives immediately above. economically authority. Contained sand mounds objective. reef core for 1 to 2 there is increased challenge feasible alternative. (Sheetpile & Stone) dredging cycles. anticipated with driving YES sheetpile evenly. Does not contribute to Does not contribute to Does not contribute to NO ACTION planning objectives p g 1 planning objectives p g 1 planning objectives p g 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A YES F1Carried Forward 1:1 Eliminated 1:1 Fully Meets Obj /Constraint Partially Meets Obj /Constraint 1:1 Does Not Meet Obj /Constraint Ell Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project � 3.3 Final Array of Alternatives With those management measures or plans that survived the above screening process, a final array of alternatives was formulated. Based on the initial screenings, the measures or plans that will be carried forward include no- action, as well as two sand - based oyster reef construction methodologies: stone containment, and sheetpile and stone containment. For each construction methodology, various sizes and configurations were developed as alternatives. The largest reef sizes /configurations were designed to contain approximately all of the anticipated dredged material from one dredging cycle along Old House Channel (Range 2) (i.e. roughly 180,000 cubic yards (cy)). The estimated dredging cycle volume is based on the average pay quantity (209,000 cy) removed from Old House Channel (Range 2) for the most recent 3 dredging contracts. It was assumed that during dredging of 209,000 cy of material there would be 15% losses with only 177,650 cy ending up in the containment area. In addition, arrays of smaller reef sizes /configurations were also developed for consideration. Each of the final plans will utilize dredged material form Old House Channel (Range 2) for oyster reef restoration. Any excess material not utilized in reef construction would be pumped to one of the nearby disposal islands. OLD HOUSE CHANNEL (RANGE 2) DREDGING VOLUMES Dredging Cycles Prior to 2012 Source: USA CE Wilmington District Navigation Branch Dredging Records Year Months Quantity, cubic yards 2004 April - July 230,671 2006 March - May 176,815 2008-2009 October 2008 - January 2009 219,304 Site Selection The following steps were undertaken to identify an appropriate placement site for oyster reef placement. This is illustrated in Figure 5.01. Step 1: An initial 17- square -mile project study area was chosen based on its vicinity to State oyster restoration efforts, and identified dredged material disposal needs from Old House Channel (Range 2). 47 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Step 2: A bathymetric and multi -beam sidescan sonar survey of the project study area was conducted by the USACE -ERDC field research facility at Duck, N.C. to map existing resources and topography of the area (USACE -ERDC, 2009). Step 3: To identify an appropriate placement site for submerged oyster reef construction, several screening criteria were used: 1. Avoid disturbing existing high value areas ( wetlands, SAVs, or existing shellbottom) 2. Water depth must be sufficient enough to allow 7 feet navigation clearance above reef top (based on State of NC Policy). 3. Avoid conflict with other area fisheries, such as crab trawling 4. Placement site must contain enough sand to support the reef structure Using the data collected from the ERDC boat survey, screening criteria were applied using GIS mapping. The specific criteria used for the initial screening of potential placement areas were: a. Eliminate areas with existing SAV b. Eliminate areas with existing shellbottom c. Eliminate areas with depth shallower than 11 feet Step 4: A vibracore drilling plan to analyze sediment characteristics was developed for the remaining area that passed the initial screening phase. However, the slough in the North East quadrant of the project study area was eliminated from consideration due to inaccessibility for vibracore drilling due to the surrounding shallows. Figure 5.01 depicts one boring in the southeastern portion of the project study area outside of the designated geotechnical survey area which was conducted as a subsurface exploratory investigation only. The two additional borings in the southern portion of the project study area were within a smaller designated geotechnical survey area during initial investigations. Step 5: Based on the results from the vibracore analysis (Section 4.6 and Appendix E), the potential placement area was narrowed down further to areas considered to have suitable sediment material for placement (sandy bottom areas considered of lower biological productivity to provide structural support of construction foundations). Step 6: Surface sediment sampling was conducted within the suitable foundation area to verify the absence of wintering crab habitat. The final placement site will occur within this sampling zone. M. Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Figure 5.01 Map of Site Selection Screening Process .. Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Each of the alternatives will utilize dredged material from Manteo Old House Channel Range 2 for creation of a submerged oyster reef habitat. A containment structure will be constructed to contain the dredged material. Several containment structure alternatives were evaluated. The final arrays of alternatives are listed in Table 5.03 and are discussed in the following paragraphs. Table 5.03 Final Array of Alternatives Alt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Containment Structure None /No Action Sheetpile w /Stone Apron Sheetpile w /Stone Apron Sheetpile w /Stone Apron Sheetpile w /Stone Apron Sheetpile w /Stone Apron Sheetpile w /Stone Apron Sheetpile w /Stone Apron Sheetpile w /Stone Apron Stone Sill Stone Sill Stone Sill Stone Sill Stone Sill Stone Sill Stone Sill Stone Sill # of Cells n/a 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 4 Area (acre) n/a 18.6 15.06 9.7 2x9.7 = 19.4 5.07 2x5.07 = 10.14 3x5.07 = 15.21 4x5.07 = 20.28 18.6 15.06 9.7 2x9.7 = 19.4 5.07 2x5.07 = 10.14 3x5.07 = 15.21 4x5.07 = 20.28 Capacity (cy) n/a 179,500 144,100 90,800 181,600 45,500 91,000 136,500 182,000 178,600 143,290 90,100 180,200 45,000 90,000 135,000 180.000 Alternative 1 — No Action. The USACE is required to consider the option of "No Action" as an alternative in order to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). No Action assumes that no project would be implemented by the Federal Government or by local interests to achieve the planning objectives. No Action, which is synonymous with the Without Project Conditions, forms the basis from which all other alternative plans are measured. Under the no- action plan, the USACE and the Sponsor would not make use of dredged material from Old House Channel (Range 2) for oyster reef restoration. Instead, all material from future dredging events would continue to be placed on disposal islands within the vicinity, with the location likely being either islands Wells, Parnell, or MN. No oyster habitat would be created. Although the North Carolina Oyster Restoration Steering Committee has recognized the project study area as an area of need for oyster restoration, there are currently no other plans for reef restoration in addition to the Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 study. 50 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Alternative 2 — one 18.6 acre site with sheetpile and stone combination containment structure. This alternative would involve creation of oyster habit by using composite sheetpile to create one 18.6 acre containment area for dredged material. An 18.6 acre containment area would be able to contain approximately 179,500 cubic yards of dredged material. The sheetpile would be driven into the bottom with a resulting top of sheetpile elevation 4 feet above the sea floor. The outside perimeter of the sheetpile wall would be protected with NCDOT Class 2 armor stone (9 " -23 "). Bedding stone for the armor stone would be NCDOT Class B stone (5 " -12 "). Dredged material from maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel would be pumped into the containment area. The dredged material would be covered with NCDOT Class A stone (2 " -6 ") and oyster shell to provide habitat for establishment of oysters. A typical cross section is shown in Figure 5.02. TYPICAL WATER ELEV. EL. D' 5' 10' 70' CLEARANCE V MIN ARMOR STONE NCDOT CLASS 2 f9" -23"1 ARMOR LAYER _.___ -_ __ ____________E 2'THICK 1 , EL. -10' 70H:1V CAP W/ CLASS A _ _ G.5' RIPRAP & OYSTER - " - . SHELL EL. -14' -------- - - - - -- 1' CONFINED DREDGED CDR STONE LAYER B' DISPOSAL NCDOT CLASS 8 15 " -12 "1 EXISTING BOTTOM SHEETP[LE TYPICAL SHEETP I LE NOT TO SCALE 8, STONE SECTION Figure 5.02. Typical Sheetpile & Stone Cross Section for Alternatives 2 — 9. Alternative 3 — one 15.06 acre site with sheetpile and stone combination containment structure. This alternative would involve creation of oyster habit by using a composite sheetpile to create one 15.06 acre containment area for dredged material. A 15.06 acre containment area would be able to contain approximately 144,100 cubic yards of dredged material. The sheetpile would be driven into the bottom with a resulting top of sheetpile elevation 4 feet above the sea floor. The outside perimeter of the sheetpile 51 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project wall would be protected with NCDOT Class 2 armor stone (9 " -23 "). Bedding stone for the armor stone would be NCDOT Class B stone (5 " -12 "). Dredged material from maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel would be pumped into the containment area. The dredged material would be covered with NCDOT Class A stone (2 " -6 ") and oyster shell to provide habitat for establishment of oysters. Alternative 4 - one 9.7 acre site with sheetpile and stone combination containment structure. This alternative would involve creation of oyster habit by using a composite sheetpile to create one 9.7 acre containment area for dredged material. A 9.7 acre containment area would be able to contain approximately 90,800 cubic yards of dredged material. The sheetpile would be driven into the bottom with a resulting top of sheetpile elevation 4 feet above the sea floor. The outside perimeter of the sheetpile wall would be protected with NCDOT Class 2 armor stone (9 " -23 "). Bedding stone for the armor stone would be NCDOT Class B stone (5 " -12 "). Dredged material from maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel would be pumped into the containment area. The dredged material would be covered with NCDOT Class A stone (2 " -6 ") and oyster shell to provide habitat for establishment of oysters. Alternative 5 — Two 9.7 acre sites with sheetpile and stone combination containment structure. This alternative would involve creation of oyster habit by using a composite sheetpile to create two 9.7 acre containment areas for dredged material. Two A 9.7 acre containment areas would be able to contain a total of approximately 181,600 cubic yards of dredged material. The two separate containment areas would be constructed in close proximity of each other. The sheetpile would be driven into the bottom with a resulting top of sheetpile elevation 4 feet above the sea floor. The outside perimeter of the sheetpile wall would be protected with NCDOT Class 2 armor stone (9 " -23 "). Bedding stone for the armor stone would be NCDOT Class B stone (5 " -12 "). Dredged material from maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel would be pumped into the containment areas. The dredged material would be covered with NCDOT Class A stone (2 " -6 ") and oyster shell to provide habitat for establishment of oysters. Alternative 6 — One 5.07 acre site with sheetpile and stone combination containment structure. This alternative would involve creation of oyster habit by using a composite sheetpile to create one 5.07 acre containment area for dredged material. A 5.07 acre containment area would be able to contain approximately 45,500 cubic yards of dredged material. The sheetpile would be driven into the bottom with a resulting top of sheetpile elevation 4 feet above the sea floor. The outside perimeter of the sheetpile wall would be protected with NCDOT Class 2 armor stone (9 " -23 "). Bedding stone for the armor stone would be NCDOT Class B stone (5 " -12 "). Dredged material from maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel would be pumped into the containment area. The 52 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project dredged material would be covered with NCDOT Class A stone (2 " -6 ") and oyster shell to provide habitat for establishment of oysters. Alternative 7 — Two 5.07 acre sites with sheetpile and stone combination containment structure. This alternative would involve creation of oyster habit by using a composite sheetpile to create two 5.07 acre containment areas for dredged material. Two 5.07 acre containment areas would be able to contain a total of approximately 91,000 cubic yards of dredged material. The two separate containment areas would be constructed in close proximity of each other. The sheetpile would be driven into the bottom with a resulting top of sheetpile elevation 4 feet above the sea floor. The outside perimeter of the sheetpile wall would be protected with NCDOT Class 2 armor stone (9 " -23 "). Bedding stone for the armor stone would be NCDOT Class B stone (5 " -12 "). Dredged material from maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel would be pumped into the containment areas. The dredged material would be covered with NCDOT Class A stone (2 " -6 ") and oyster shell to provide habitat for establishment of oysters. Alternative 8 — Three 5.07 acre sites with sheetpile and stone combination containment structure. This alternative would involve creation of oyster habit by using a composite sheetpile to create three 5.07 acre containment areas for dredged material. Three 5.07 acre containment areas would be able to contain a total of approximately 136,500 cubic yards of dredged material. The three separate containment areas would be constructed in close proximity of each other. The sheetpile would be driven into the bottom with a resulting top of sheetpile elevation 4 feet above the sea floor. The sheetpile would be driven into the bottom to provide a 4 -foot height above the sea floor. The outside perimeter of the sheetpile wall would be protected with NCDOT Class 2 armor stone (9 "- 23"). Bedding stone for the armor stone would be NCDOT Class B stone (5 " -12 "). Dredged material from maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel would be pumped into the containment areas. The dredged material would be covered with NCDOT Class A stone (2 " -6 ") and oyster shell to provide habitat for establishment of oysters. Alternative 9 — Four 5.07 acre sites with sheetpile and stone combination containment structure. This alternative would involve creation of oyster habit by using a composite sheetpile to create four 5.07 acre containment areas for dredged material. Four 5.07 acre containment areas would be able to contain a total of approximately 182,000 cubic yards of dredged material. The four separate containment areas would be constructed in close proximity of each other. The sheetpile would be driven into the bottom with a resulting top of sheetpile elevation 4 feet above the sea floor. The outside perimeter of the sheetpile wall would be protected with NCDOT Class 2 armor stone (9 " -23 "). Bedding stone for the armor stone would be NCDOT Class B stone (5 " -12 "). Dredged 53 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project material from maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel would be pumped into the containment areas. The dredged material would be covered with NCDOT Class A stone (2 " -6 ") and oyster shell to provide habitat for establishment of oysters. Alternative 10 — one 18.6 acre site with 4 -foot stone sill containment structure. This alternative would involve creation of oyster habitat by constructing a stone sill made of NCDOT Class 2 armor stone (9 " -23 ") to create one 18.6 acre containment area for dredged material. An 18.6 acre containment area would be able to contain approximately 178,600 cubic yards of dredged material. The core portion of the containment structure would be constructed of NCDOT Class B Stone (5 " -12 "). Dredged material from maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel would be pumped into the containment area. The dredged material would be covered with NCDOT Class A stone and oyster shell to provide habitat for establishment of oysters. A typical cross section is shown in Figure 5.03. TYPICAL WATER ELEV. EL. G' _ _L 5' ..F. 4' .-F. A.5 ARMOR LAYER �1 20H:1V 2'THICIi SILL CREST 1:� -ln� F I M CLEARANCE 7' L CAP WI CLASS A 6.5 RIPRAP d OYSTER SHELL DREDGED XISTING t' ARMOR STDNE ' CORE SCONE LAYER OTTOM NCOOT CLASS 2 f9' %L —CORE NCDOT CLASS 6 f5 " -12 "1 NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL 4' STONE SILL SECTION Figure 5.03. Typical Stone Cross Section for Alternatives 10 — 17. Alternative 11 — one 15.06 acre site with 4 -foot stone sill containment structure. This alternative would involve creation of oyster habitat by constructing a stone sill made of NCDOT Class 2 armor stone (9 " -23 ") to create one 15.06 acre containment area for dredged material. A 15.06 acre containment area would be able to contain approximately 143,290 cubic yards of dredged material. The core portion of the containment structure would be constructed of NCDOT Class B Stone (5 " -12 "). Dredged material from maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel would be pumped into the containment area. The dredged material would be covered with NCDOT Class A stone and oyster shell to provide habitat for establishment of oysters. 54 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Alternative 12 — one 9.7 acre site with 4 -foot stone sill containment structure This alternative would involve creation of oyster habitat by constructing a stone sill made of NCDOT Class 2 armor stone (9 " -23 ") to create one 9.7 acre containment area for dredged material. A 9.7 acre containment area would be able to contain approximately 90,100 cubic yards of dredged material. The core portion of the containment structure would be constructed of NCDOT Class B Stone (5 " -12 "). Dredged material from maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel would be pumped into the containment area. The dredged material would be covered with NCDOT Class A stone and oyster shell to provide habitat for establishment of oysters. Alternative 13 — Two 9.7 acre sites with 4 -foot stone sill containment structure This alternative would involve creation of oyster habitat by constructing a stone sill made of NCDOT Class 2 armor stone (9 " -23 ") to create two 9.7 acre containment areas for dredged material. Two 9.7 acre containment areas would be able to contain a total of approximately 180,200 cubic yards of dredged material. The two separate containment areas would be constructed in close proximity of each other. The core portion of the containment structures would be constructed of NCDOT Class B Stone (5 " -12 "). Dredged material from maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel would be pumped into the containment areas. The dredged material would be covered with NCDOT Class A stone and oyster shell to provide habitat for establishment of oysters. Alternative 14 — One 5.07 acre site with 4 -foot stone sill containment structure This alternative would involve creation of oyster habitat by constructing a stone sill made of NCDOT Class 2 armor stone (9 " -23 ") to create one 5.07 acre containment area for dredged material. A 5.07 acre containment area would be able to contain approximately 45,000 cubic yards of dredged material. The core portion of the containment structure would be constructed of NCDOT Class B Stone (5 " -12 "). Dredged material from maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel would be pumped into the containment area. The dredged material would be covered with NCDOT Class A stone and oyster shell to provide habitat for establishment of oysters. Alternative 15 — Two 5.07 acre sites with 4 -foot stone sill containment structure This alternative would involve creation of oyster habitat by constructing a stone sill made of NCDOT Class 2 armor stone (9 " -23 ") to create two 5.07 acre containment areas for dredged material. Two 5.07 acre containment areas would be able to contain a total of approximately 90,000 cubic yards of dredged material. The two separate containment areas would be constructed in close proximity of each other. The core portion of the containment structures would be constructed of NCDOT Class B Stone (5 " -12 "). Dredged material from maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel would be pumped into the containment areas. The dredged material would be 55 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project covered with NCDOT Class A stone and oyster shell to provide habitat for establishment of oysters. Alternative 16 — Three 5.07 acre sites with 4 -foot stone sill containment structure This alternative would involve creation of oyster habitat by constructing a stone sill made of NCDOT Class 2 armor stone (9 " -23 ") to create three 5.07 acre containment areas for dredged material. Three 5.07 acre containment areas would be able to contain a total of approximately 135,000 cubic yards of dredged material. The three separate containment areas would be constructed in close proximity of each other. The core portion of the containment structures would be constructed of NCDOT Class B Stone (5 " -12 "). Dredged material from maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel would be pumped into the containment areas. The dredged material would be covered with NCDOT Class A stone and oyster shell to provide habitat for establishment of oysters. Alternative 17 — Four 5.07 acre sites with 4 -foot stone sill containment structure This alternative would involve creation of oyster habitat by constructing a stone sill made of NCDOT Class 2 armor stone (9 " -23 ") to create four 5.07 acre containment areas for dredged material. Four 5.07 acre containment areas would be able to contain a total of approximately 180,000 cubic yards of dredged material. The four separate containment areas would be constructed in close proximity of each other. The core portion of the containment structures would be constructed of NCDOT Class B Stone (5 " -12 "). Dredged material from maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel would be pumped into the containment areas. The dredged material would be covered with NCDOT Class A stone and oyster shell to provide habitat for establishment of oysters. 56 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 5.4 Comparison of Alternatives 5.4.1 "Base Plan" Costs Under the Section 204 Authority, costs of beneficial use of sediment projects are limited solely to construction costs that are in excess of the Base Plan (normal dredging costs without the project). As a result, the costs used for evaluation and comparison purposes are the incremental costs of the potential ecosystem restoration plans over the cost associated with disposing of the sediments as described in the Base Plan. In the case of Manteo, Old House Channel, the costs used for evaluation /comparison purposes are the costs by which the construction costs exceed the cost of dredging of materials from Old House Channel (Range 2) and disposal on the designated disposal area (typically either Wells, Parnell, or island MN). Since there are different quantities of dredged material associated with different alternatives, certain alternatives will be compared to a different "base plan" cost. Each of these different plans will include the costs of mob /demob, dredging of the sediments, and transportation and disposal of the sediments at the designated disposal area. These costs were developed by the Wilmington District Cost Engineering Team based on Regional Sediment Management (RSM) system data from the most recent dredging event at Manteo Old House Channel (2008). The lowest bidder cost in 2008 was $6.34 per cubic yard (CY). Using escalation rates from October 2008 to October 2014 gives a rate of 105.4 %. This inflates the price to $6.68. Adjusting fuel costs another $0.32 would bring the costs for dredging to $7.00 per CY. This figure was used to estimate the base plan costs below. The "base plan" costs for each alternative are shown in Table 5.04. Table 5.04. Base Plan Costs for Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Base Plan Costs for Manteo 204 Alternative Cubic yards* Total Costs Alternatives 180,000 $1,260,000 2,5,9,10,13, &17 Alternatives 3 &11 144,000 1,008,000 Alternatives 4 &12 90,000 630,000 Alternatives 6 &14 45,000 315,000 Alternatives 7 &15 91,000 637,000 Alternatives 8 &16 135,000 945,000 *Cubic yards for each set of alternatives in table are rounded for grouping purposes. 57 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 5.4.2 Costs of Alternatives Table 5.05. Costs of Alternatives Alternative Estimated Cost Average Annual Cost No Action $0.00 2 $9,492,913 $459,573.00 3 $8,221,938 $398,042.00 4 $6,202,513 $300,277.00 5 $11,286,353 $545,526.00 6 $4,304,592 $208,395.00 7 $7,473,198 $361,794.00 8 $10,641,804 $515,193.00 9 $13,810,410 $668,192.00 10 $7,024,596 $340,0767.00 11 $5,999,991 $290,473.00 12 $4,425,449 $214,146.00 13 $7,718,010 $373,646.00 14 $3,024,840 $146,439.00 15 $4,916,793 $238.033.00 16 $6,804,659 $329,429.00 17 $8,695,469 $420,967.00 I .4.3 Ecological Output Analysis of Alternatives Introduction. Environmental Benefits Assessment (EBA) is used to measure the increase in both the quality and quantity of a targeted ecosystem due to various proposed restoration measures and alternatives at a site. For the Manteo 204 study, quality was measured in terms of a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI). The HSI is multiplied by the number of acres being restored in order to generate a "Habitat Unit (HU)" as output. The greater the number of Habitat Units the greater the ecological benefit. The following sections contain detailed description of the application of the Oyster HEP model. Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP). Estuarine reefs were evaluated using a USFWS Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP). The Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) was the target species since a healthy oyster population is considered a keystone indicator of the ecological health of the estuary (NCDMF, 2001 and Frankenberg, 1995). Oysters Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project are ecosystem engineers (Jones et al., 1994) where oyster growth and recruitment is required for reef sustainability and expansion. Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Model. The Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Model: Gulf of Mexico American Oyster developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Cake, 1983) was applied (American oyster is synonymous with Eastern oyster). This model was developed for the Gulf of Mexico with application in Atlantic Coast habitats south of Cape Hatteras. The oyster habitat of the Pamlico Sound where the project would be located area is similar to that of the Gulf of Mexico, in that it supports subtidal oysters (Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)) in waters that are less than 33 feet deep with a small tide range. This site is 35 miles north of Cape Hatteras so oyster life requisites measured by model variables were confirmed as appropriate for this analysis by review of literature regarding Atlantic coast oyster populations (Kennedy et al., 1996). Oyster sampling by NC State University at nearby (< 5 miles) NCDMF Crab Hole Sanctuary further confirm high potential for oyster establishment in the project vicinity. Variables and Formulas. This HSI model has a larval and an adult component and assesses 6 variables to define Habitat suitability. The variables measure reef structure, water column conditions, and oyster abundance to determine site suitability for both larvae (Table 5.06, Variables 1 -3) and adult oysters (Table 5.07, Variables 4 -6). Habitat suitability was calculated as explained below. The model specifically measures habitat suitability for oysters; however, for this application oysters are considered a keystone species supporting, and therefore serving as an indicator of, the wide array of estuarine functions. One associated function is support of fishery resources on and in subtidal bottoms adjacent to the reef structure. Studies have shown that significant increases in the numbers of fish and species richness would also occur in adjacent soft bottom areas extending 50 -100 meters away from the reef (dos Santos et al. 2010). Therefore a conservative 50m perimeter service area, to be demarcated by corner buoys and protected by sanctuary designation is included as a component of this project. As an established oyster sanctuary, the reef and adjacent (service area) soft bottom habitats and resident fauna, would be protected from future harvest and bottom disturbance. The HSI of this area, as a function of proximity of the reef, is assumed to be equal to that of the reef immediately adjacent and diminishing to a conservative theoretical 0, at a distance 50 meters away from the toe of the reef structure.. For this analysis the average HSI of the reef service area is calculated as Service Area HSI = (HSI for the reef adjacent parameter + HSI at 50m (0))/2 (Cake, 1983). 59 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Table 5.06. HSI Variables to Assess Suitability for Oyster Larvae. HSI Variables for Suitability for Oyster Larvae DATA FUNCTION VARIABLE HSI Graph (Cake 1983) SOURCE Support V1 Percent Existing Suitability graph larval suitable Condition ° attachment cultch Side ERDC Scan Survey DA- Report ` 0.6 (2009) Future Z 0,4 Conditions from design 0.0 0 20 40 60 80 loo Water V2 Mean NCSU Crab quality summer Hole 1.0 support for salinity (ppt) Monitoring X 0.8 oyster Data 2006- larvae 2008 &NC Shellfish 0.4 Sanitation �' 0.2 Oregon Inlet 0.0- Fishing ° 10 20 30 40 Center ppf Monitoring Data 2006- 2010 Biological V3 Mean NCSU Crab support for abundance Hole Suitability Graph larvae of living Monitoring 1.0 oysters /M2 Data 2006- 0.e 2008 0.s z. °.4 0 2 o.° ° 20 40 s0 8O 1 D Oysters/m2 .1 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Table 5.07. HSI Variables to Assess Suitability for Adult Oysters. HSI Variables for Suitability for Adult Oysters FUNCTION VARIABLE DATA SOURCE HSI Graph Water column V4 Historic mean NCSU Crab Hole support adult salinity (ppt) Monitoring Data 1'4 oysters 2006 -2008 &NC 0.8 Shellfish a.s Sanitation Oregon Inlet Fishing 0.4 Center Monitoring Y A 0.2 Data 2006 -2010 0.0 0 10 20 30 40 ppt Avoidance of V5 Frequency of NCSU Crab Hole killing killing events /period Monitoring Data 1.0 conditions of record) 2006 -2008 &NC 0.8 Shellfish X a.s Sanitation Oregon Z� Inlet Fishing °'4 Center Monitoring 0.2 Data 2006 -2010 a.a 0 1 2 3 4 5 Years Structural V6 Substrate Existing and 1.0 support for firmness (hard or Without Project 08 adult oysters soft). Areas >80% Geotechnical sand = 0 Appendix With E 0.6 Project W 0.4 Conditions from 0.2- Proposed Design 0.0 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 kglcm2 The HSI, representing habitat quality, was multiplied by the available habitat quantity, for reef service area to determine output measured in Functional Units. 1 . CIS Larvae HSI =(V1 X V2 X V3)1/3 if V3 =0 (V1 XV2) 1/2 2. CIA (Adult HSI) =(V4X V5X V6)1/3 if V6 =0 CIA= 0 3. Oyster HSI If CIA is <CIL HSI =CIA, if CIA >CIL HSI =(CIA X CIL)1 /2 Service Area HSI Calculation: Service Area HSI = (HSI for the reef adjacent perimeter + HSI for the +50m perimeter) /2. 61 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Existing and Future Without Project Conditions. The area proposed for reef development is existing sandy estuarine bottom. Existing deep water sandy bottoms lack suitable cultch and cannot support oyster reefs without the addition of structure and cultch. The HSI model provides an index of 0 if the bottom substrate is composed of 80% or more sand. The existing absence of shell bottom and sandy bottom sediment in the project foot print has been confirmed by side scan survey and sediment analysis. No plans exist to build reefs in this area; therefore the future condition without a Federal project is status quo. Existing sandy soft bottom habitats are currently remote (beyond 100m) to reef structure and currently do not function as a reef and soft bottom complex. The sites lack hard structure and are subjected to reoccurring impacts to benthic resources from trawling. These bottoms currently have no potential to establish reef habitat and were considered to generate 0 benefits under the without project condition. Computation of Habitat Suitability Index. The proposed project includes the construction of new high output reef areas that would be identified by a series of buoys for designation as a sanctuary. As sanctuary, these sites would be managed by NCDMF to preclude oyster harvest and trawling. Recreational fin - fishing by hook and line is allowed. This measure would expand on an existing successful practice that has developed a complex including nine Oyster Sanctuaries throughout the Pamlico Sound. This site is located between two existing NCDMF sanctuaries including 1) Croatan Sound Sanctuary an 8 acre sanctuary established in 1996, including 1,800 tons of riprap, oyster shells surf clam shells and limestone marl and, 2) Crab Hole a 30.5 acre sanctuary including 37, 00 tons of riprap that are within a 3 mile radius of the proposed site and should be benefited by an additional supply of larvae once the new reefs become populated by oysters. The site location was optimized considering pumping distance from the Old House Channel, and bottom conditions to assure foundational stability and to avoid existing biological resources. Mud bottoms (preferred crab harvest areas), SAV and existing shell bottoms were avoided. The proposed location is shown in Figure 5.01. It is assumed that any location within this identified area would have equal suitability for oyster growth and sustainability and only one HSI for the existing, future without, and future with condition was calculated. 62 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Table 5.08. HSI Computations based on HEP. HSI Computations Based on HEP USFWS OYSTER HSI >, MODEL (CAKE, 1983) M 0 o a > > U u N � X U (6 O 11 Cn = N N X X co J L X a) a� U x j y X a� M u cn E > a a U U N (n 0 �� = N X cn a> > a> Y > �. Q N x > X = _ cn 0 _J O TO 2 N (y) U �M 'IT L0 m U O U Existing Condition 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Future With Reef Construction 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Future Without 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Notes:* existing and future without condition >80% sand =0 Construction of new sanctuary reefs would add suitable cultch (V1); provide a firm rock layer where bare sandy bottom currently exists (V6). Variable V3, oyster density, will be assumed to be equal to nearby reference reefs by year 3. Benefits realized by construction of new sanctuary reefs will not be fully realized until year 3 at which time oyster recruitment and growth is expected to equal that of natural reefs located in the same cell. Habitat data for reference reefs are shown in Reference 3. Fls were annualized as shown in Reference 4. For simplicity, benefits are assumed to increase linearly until year 3. Benthic Conditions Evaluated. Two potential bottom conditions were evaluated to determine suitability for oyster growth including (1) oyster reef (with project condition) and (2) sandy bottoms in the vicinity < 50M of new reef structure (with project condition). Future without project conditions over the 50 year period of analysis is status quo, where unprotected sandy bottom would persist. Under with project conditions sandy bottoms would be converted to functioning reefs with HSI equal to 1.0 or reef service area HSI =0.5 after a 3 establishment period. Oyster Reefs. HSI for reef habitat in the proposed reef construction area would be 1.0, indicating ideal condition for oyster establishment and growth. These sites would have a hard structure that elevates the reef tops reducing potential exposure to hypoxia and 63 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project would be protected from harvest. The benefits of reef habitat are well documented (Deaton et al. 2010, Posey et al. 1999, Mann 2001, Peterson et al. 2003, Soniat et al. 2004) as summarized below. The structural relief provided by high profile reefs and associated current upwelling would attract pelagic forage fish, and a shell covered surface provides habitat for resident species such as crabs, gobies, blennies and toad fish. These food resources would support transient fish such as bluefish and Spanish mackerel, anadromous fish, including striped bass, and important estuarine spawning sport fish, like red drum, would also use these food resources as they congregate in preparation for spawning. Juvenile sea bass, grouper and other ocean spawning estuarine dependent species, would also use these reefs as essential habitat during their exodus from estuarine nursery areas to the ocean. Abundant oysters support improved water quality by providing substantial filtering (Cresman et.al 2003), and provide improved habitat conditions supporting higher fish and fish food production. As an established oyster sanctuary, the reef and associated fauna would be protected from commercial harvest and bottom disturbance. Sandy Bottoms Adjacent to Reefs. Once reefs are established adjacent estuarine bottoms within 50M of the reefs were determined to have an average HSI of 0.5. Studies have shown that significant increases in the numbers of fish and species richness would occur over adjacent bottom areas extending 50 - 100 meters away from the reef (dos Santos et al. 2010). As an established oyster sanctuary, the reef service area, bottom habitats and resident fauna, would be protected from commercial harvest and bottom disturbance. Habitat Output. Two alternative designs and multiple size configurations were evaluated as listed below. Various reef designs and configurations alter the area of clutched or rock surface available for oyster attachment and the area of adjacent estuarine bottom that is enhanced by the reef proximity. The designs that maximize the reef and service area generate the most benefits. HUs and project costs were calculated for No Action and 2 containment scenarios, and 8 size combinations as shown below: (1) No Action (Alt 1) (2) Stone Containment: Alt 10: One 18.60 Acre Reef Alt 11: One 15.06 Acre Reef Alt 12: One 9.70 Acre Reef Alt 13: Two 9.70 Acre Reef Complex Alt 14: One 5.07 Acre Reef Alt 15: Two 5.07 Acre Reef Complex Alt 16: Three 5.07 Acre Reef Complex Alt 17: Four 5.07 Acre Reef Complex (3) Sheetpile Containment: Alt 2: One 18.60 Acre Reef Alt 3: One 15.06 Acre Reef Alt 4: Once 9.70 Acre Reef Alt 5: Two 9.70 Acre Reef Complex IME Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Alt 6: One 5.07 Acre Reef Alt 7: Two 5.07 Acre Reef Complex Alt 8: Three 5.07 Acre Reef Complex Alt 9: Four 5.07 Acre Reef Complex Table 5.09. Oyster Areas and Outputs for Various Alternatives. ALTERNATIVES OYSTER REEF HAB INDEX HABINDEX ACRES Alt 1 0.0 0.0 Alt 2 1.0 19.86 Alt 3 1.0 16.20 Alt 4 1.0 9.70 Alt 5 1.0 19.40 Alt 6 1.0 6.00 Alt 7 1.0 11.48 Alt 8 1.0 17.21 Alt 9 1.0 22.95 Alt 10 1.0 20.38 Alt 11 1.0 16.66 Alt 12 1.0 10.99 Alt 13 1.0 21.99 Alt 14 1.0 6.02 Alt 15 1.0 12.03 Alt 16 1.0 18.05 Alt 17 1.0 24.07 SERVICE AREA OUTPUT HAB INDEX ACRES HUs AAHUs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 16.47 28.1 27.3 0.5 15.12 23.8 23.0 0.5 13.63 16.5 16.0 0.5 27.26 33.0 32.0 0.5 9.70 10.9 10.5 0.5 19.92 21.4 20.8 0.5 29.89 32.2 31.2 0.5 39.85 42.9 41.6 0.5 16.65 28.7 27.8 0.5 15.25 24.3 23.6 0.5 12.89 17.4 16.9 0.5 25.77 34.9 33.8 0.5 10.18 11.1 10.8 0.5 20.37 22.2 21.6 0.5 30.55 33.3 32.3 0.5 40.73 44.4 43.1 Note: (Reef Hab Index x Acres) + (Service Area Hab Index x Acres) = HUs For each alternative, an Average Annual Habitat Unit (AAHU) was calculated (Table 5.09). AAHU are calculated by determining Habitat Units for each project year, adding these together, and dividing by the project life (50 years). The total AAHU benefit for oysters is the difference between the AAHU calculated for that alternative (with project) and the AAHU calculated for the no action alternative (without project). In all the alternatives evaluated, the without project condition was 0. 2 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 5.4.4 Cost Effectiveness /Incremental Cost Analysis For ecosystem restoration planning, where traditional benefit -cost analysis is not possible because costs and benefits are expressed in different units, cost effectiveness analyses offer plan evaluation approaches that are consistent with the P &G paradigm. Cost effectiveness analyses are conducted to ensure that the least cost plans are identified for each possible level of ecosystem restoration output; and that for any level of investment, the maximum level of output is identified. In the absence of a common measurement unit for comparing the non - monetary benefits with the monetary costs of ecosystem restoration plans, cost effectiveness analyses are valuable tools to assist in decision - making. The results of the analyses permit decision - makers to progressively compare alternative levels of ecosystem restoration outputs. Methodology. Data for initial construction /implementation, land acquisition, monitoring, and periodically recurring costs for OMRR &R (operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation), have been developed through engineering design and cost estimation, and real estate appraisal efforts. Details of that data development are explained and discussed elsewhere in this report. The main issues requiring economic evaluation attention include present worth calculations, price levels, and timing of project spending. Costs represent the difference between conditions without any plan (the "base condition ", or "without- project condition ") and with a plan or alternative. For purposes of this report and analysis, NER costs (National Environmental Restoration Costs, as defined by Federal and Corps of Engineers policy), are expressed in 2012 price levels, and are based generally on costs estimated to be incurred over a 50 year period of analysis. Costs of a plan represent the value of goods and services required to implement and operate /maintain the plan. The timing of a plan's costs is important. Construction and other initial implementation costs cannot simply be added to periodically recurring costs for project operation, maintenance, and monitoring. Also, construction costs incurred in a given year of the project can't simply be added to construction costs incurred in other years if meaningful and direct comparisons of the costs of the different alternatives are to be made. A common practice of equating sums of money across time with their equivalent at an earlier single point in time is the process known as discounting. Through this mathematical process, which involves the use of an interest rate (or discount rate) officially prescribed by Federal policy for use in water resource planning analysis (currently set at 4.0% per year), the cost time streams of each alternative are mathematically translated into a present worth value. This present worth value, calculated for this study as of the beginning of the period of analysis, can then be directly and meaningfully compared between the plans being considered in this study. An annual value, equivalent to the present worth, can also be computed for the 50 year 30 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project period of analysis. This average annual value represents an equivalent way of expressing the costs of a plan. The various costs estimated to be incurred over time to put each plan into place and keep it going will be computed and expressed as both a present worth value and an average annual equivalent value. Cost Effective Alternative Selection. Cost effectiveness analysis begins with a comparison of the costs and outputs of alternative plans to identify the least cost plan for every possible level of output considered. The resulting least cost alternative plans are then compared to identify those that would produce greater levels of output at the same cost, or at a lesser cost, as other alternative plans. Alternative plans identified through this comparison are the cost effective alternative plans. Next, the cost effective alternative plans are compared to identify the most economically efficient alternative plans, that is, the "Best Buy" alternative plans that would produce the largest output for the associated cost. Finally, the additional costs for the additional amounts of output ( "incremental cost ") produced by the Best Buy alternative plans are calculated. The results of all the calculations and comparisons of costs and outputs provide a basis for addressing the decision question of if the additional outputs worth the costs incurred to achieve them. 67 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Table 5.10. Cost and Performance Summary for Plan Selection (in order of ascending habitat output) .: COST AND PERFORMANCE SUMMARY USED IN COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR PLAN SELECTION, Manteo 204 Alternative # Average Cost Cost and Average Annual Per Cost Within Description Estimated Annual Habitat Habitat Effective Best CAP Cost Cost Units Unit ? Buy? limit? 1 No Action $0.00 0.0 $0 Yes Yes Yes 6 Sheet Pile 5.07 $4,304,592 $208,395 10.5 $19,847 No No Yes 14 Stone 5.07 $3,024,840 $146,439 10.8 $13,559 Yes No Yes 4 Sheet Pile 9.7 $6,202,513 $300,277 16 $18,767 No No Yes 12 Stone 9.7 $4,425,449 $214,146 16.9 $12,677 Yes No Yes 7 $7,473,198 $361,794 20.8 $17,394 No No IF No 2 X5.07ile 2X5.07 13 Stone 2X5.07 $4,916,793 $238,033 21.6 $11,020 Yes No Yes 3 Sheet Pile $8,221,938 $398,042 23 $17,306 No No No 15.06 11 Stone 15.06 $5,999,991 $290,473 23.6 $12,308 Yes No Yes 2 Sheet Pile 18.6 $9,492,913 $459,573 27.3 $16,834 No No No 10 Stone 18.6 $7,024,596 $340,076 27.8 $12,233 No No Yes 8 Sheet Pile $10,641,804 $515,193 31.2 $16,513 Yes No No 3X5.07 5 Sheet Pile $11,286,353 $545,526 32 $17,047 No No No 2X9.7 16 Stone 3X5.07 $6,804,659 $329,429 32.3 $10,199 Yes No Yes 13 Stone 2X9.7 $7,718,010 $373,646 33.8 $11,055 Yes No No 9 Sheet Pile $13,810,410 $668,192 41.6 $16,062 No No No 4X5.07 17 Stone 4X5.07 $8,695,469 $420,967 43.1 $9,767 Yes Yes No .: Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Figure 5.04. Planning Set Cost and Output Planning Set "Manteo 23_May" Cost and Output Cost Effective Plan Alternatives Differentiated by Cost Effectiveness 400K - 350K - 300K - 250K - m u 200K - 150K - 100K - 50K - 0- 0 ■ ■ Non Cost Effective Cost Effective Best Buy 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Output Incremental Cost Analysis. This section presents the results of incremental cost analysis for the Manteo 204 alternative plans for the optimization of the site. All the cost effective plans are arrayed by increasing output to clearly show changes in cost (i.e., increments of cost) and changes in output (i.e., increments of output) of each cost effective alternative plan compared to the Without Plan condition. The plan with the lowest incremental costs per unit of output of all plans is the first Best Buy plan. After the first Best Buy plan is identified, all larger cost effective plans are compared to the first Best Buy plan in terms of increases in (increments of) cost and increases in (increments of) output. 2 • 4 x 5.67 ■ Stone 2x97 ■ Stone 3 x 5.07 ■ 15.06 Stone Stone ■ 'I EM17 9.7 Stone Stone ■ 5 one 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Output Incremental Cost Analysis. This section presents the results of incremental cost analysis for the Manteo 204 alternative plans for the optimization of the site. All the cost effective plans are arrayed by increasing output to clearly show changes in cost (i.e., increments of cost) and changes in output (i.e., increments of output) of each cost effective alternative plan compared to the Without Plan condition. The plan with the lowest incremental costs per unit of output of all plans is the first Best Buy plan. After the first Best Buy plan is identified, all larger cost effective plans are compared to the first Best Buy plan in terms of increases in (increments of) cost and increases in (increments of) output. 2 • Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Table 5.11. Results of Incremental Cost Analysis RESULTS OF INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS: BEST BUY PLANS ARRAYED BY INCREASING OUTPUT FOR COMBINED HABITAT (ALL PLANS) Average Average Incremental Incremental Incremental Plan Annual Output Cost Per Average Output Cost Per Cost Output Annual Cost Output No $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 Action Stone $420,967 43.1 $9,767 $420,967 43.1 $9,767 4X5.07 Figure 5.05. Planning Set Incremental Cost and Output 8000 m 6000 0 V 4000 a v 2000 0 Planning Set "Manteo CEICA" Incremental Cost and Output Best Buy Phui Alternatives 0 10 20 30 40 Output 70 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Screening of Alternative Plans The alternatives considered in this analysis were screened based on a number of factors, all of which are discussed below. Completeness, Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Acceptability. Completeness, Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Acceptability are the four evaluation criteria specified that the USACE uses in the screening of alternative plans ( USACE P &G Section 1.6.2(c)). Alternatives considered in any planning study, not just ecosystem restoration studies, should meet minimum subjective standards of these criteria in order to qualify for further consideration and comparison with other plans. Completeness. A plan must provide and account for all necessary investments or other actions needed to ensure the realization of the planned restoration outputs. This may require relating the plan to other types of public or private plans if these plans are crucial to the outcome of the restoration objective. Real estate, operations and maintenance, monitoring, and sponsorship factors must be considered. Where there is uncertainty concerning the functioning of certain restoration features and an adaptive management plan has been proposed, it must be considered for in the plan. Of the alternatives considered in detailed analysis, all directly address the identified problem of the decline of oyster habitat in Pamlico Sound. Those alternatives consisting of larger acreages of restored area would provide greater benefit. Successful resource reference areas in the project vicinity add assurance that the benefits attributed to these alternatives in this analysis will actually be realized. For this study, an adaptive management plan is described in Section 6.3. Effectiveness. Effectiveness is the extent to which an ecosystem restoration plan alleviates the specified problems and achieves the specified opportunities. The cost - effectiveness of the array of alternatives was analyzed using IWR -Plan software. Alternatives 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and the No- Action plan were identified as being effective in terms of cost per benefit. Efficiency. Efficiency is the extent to which an alternative plan is the most cost effective means of alleviating the specified problems and realizing the specified opportunities. The problem identified and opportunities that may be realized under this Section 204 study are associated with the future without project condition of lack of oyster habitat in the project vicinity, and an opportunity to contribute to the connectivity of a self- sustaining network of oyster reefs in Pamlico Sound, NC as expressed by the North Carolina Oyster Restoration Steering Committee's northern workgroup. As discussed in Section 5.4.4, Alternative 17 and the no- action plan were designated as Best Buy alternatives. As a result, these are the alternatives that provide the most "bang for the buck ", and therefore are the most efficient alternatives. However, the no- action does not address the identified problem or opportunities that exist. Additionally, Alternative 17 exceeds the federal cost -share limit of the Section 204 authority. 71 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Therefore, the most cost - efficient alternative identified by IWR -Plan that is within the cost constraints of the authority was identified as Alternative 16. Acceptability. An ecosystem restoration plan should be acceptable to state and Federal resource agencies, local governments and the public, and compatibility with existing laws, regulations, and public policies. A recommended plan must be acceptable to the non - Federal cost - sharing partner. However, this does not mean that the recommended plan must be the locally preferred plan. All of the alternatives under consideration are in concert with state and Federal agency views in that oyster habitat in Pamlico Sound should be addressed in order to restore and preserve the ecological integrity of the Albemarle - Pamlico National Estuary system of North Carolina. A recommended plan should also fall within the cost limitation of the Section 204 Authority. The best buy plan, Alternative 17, exceeds the cost limitations. Alternatives 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and the No- Action plan were identified as being effective in terms of cost per benefit and were within cost limitations of the Authority. Resource Significance This section provides a qualitative evaluation and summary of the alternative impacts to significant resources. Along with information from cost effectiveness and incremental costs analyses, information on the significance of ecosystem outputs will help determine whether a proposed environmental investment is worth the cost. The significance of the Manteo, Old House Channel, NC restoration outputs is herein recognized in three categories: Institutional, Public, and /or Technical. 5.6.1 Institutional Significance. Significance based on institutional recognition means that the importance of an environmental resource is acknowledged in the laws, adopted plans, and other policy statements of public agencies, tribes, or private groups. Sources of institutional recognition include public laws, executive orders, rules and regulations, treaties, and other policy statements of the Federal Government; plans, laws, resolutions, and other policy statements of states with jurisdiction in the planning area; laws, plans, codes, ordinances, and other policy statements of regional and local public entities with jurisdiction in the planning area; charters, bylaws, and other policy statements of private groups. The Albemarle - Pamlico Sound was designated by Congress as an "estuary of national significance" in 1987. Oysters have been recognized as a keystone species of that ecosystem (Street et al. 2005; Peterson et al. 2003; NCDMF 2009). The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) has designated the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) as a species of "Concern" due to long term decline caused by overharvesting and habitat disturbances (NCDMF 2010). Oyster restoration is a high priority for the State of North Carolina as expressed in the Blue Ribbon Report (Frankenburg 1995). Restoration of oysters in North Carolina is also a national goal of the US EPA's Albemarle - Pamlico Sound National Estuary Program 72 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project ( source- www.carteret.edu /aqu /cogp /). The NC Oyster Restoration Steering Committee ( NCORSC), comprised of various resource agencies and private organizations, has identified the project vicinity as a priority area for restoration as part of an overall plan to create a self- sustaining network of oyster reefs in Pamlico Sound (Figure 5.06. Source: Notes from NE Oyster Work Group Meeting March 18, 2010). The NCORSC Northern Work Group also has a stated goal of "500 acres of new reef constructed and designated as sanctuaries by 2018 ". The agencies and organizations that comprise the NCORSC include the NC Division of Coastal Management, The NC Division of Marine Fisheries, the NC Division of Water Quality, the NC Department of the Environment of Natural Resources, The NC Division of Environmental Health — Shellfish Sanitation Section, US Army Corps of Engineers, the North Carolina Coastal Federation, The Nature Conservancy, North Carolina Sea Grant Program, UNC Wilmington, NC State University, and UNC Chapel Hill Institute of Marine Sciences (NCCF, 2008). All of the alternatives in the final array under consideration work in concert with local, state, and Federal goals of oyster restoration in North Carolina. 73 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Figure 5.06. Priority Areas for Oyster Restoration, as recommended by the NCORSC Northern Workgroup (Includes Old House Channel). Source: North Carolina Oyster Work Group meeting notes, March 18, 2010. M dl.. • l {ifi,1, } v 5.6.2 Public Significance. r Parched Cam 6av Significance based on public recognition means that some segment of the general public recognized the importance of an environmental resource, as evidenced by people engaged in activities that reflect an interest or concern for that particular resource. Such activities may involve membership in an organization, financial contributions to resource - related efforts, and providing volunteer labor and correspondence regarding the importance of the resource. 74 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Organized public volunteer efforts are routinely underway throughout each year in North Carolina to restore oysters to North Carolina's waters, both by recycling oyster shells for replacement in the water, and by support and membership in private organizations such as the North Carolina Coastal Federation which engage in active programs to restore the oyster population in North Carolina (NCCF, 2011). �M Figure 5.07. Volunteers Placing Oyster Shells in NC Waters to Create Reef. (source: NCCF) 5.6.3 Technical Significance. Significance based on technical recognition means that the resource qualifies as significant based on its "technical" merits, which are based on scientific knowledge or judgment of critical resource characteristics. Technical significance should be described in terms of one or more of the following criteria: scarcity, representation, status and trends, connectivity, and limiting habitat. Significance of oysters as an important resource has been widely recognized and documented. General. Oysters are good indicators of the overall health of an estuarine ecosystem (NCCF, 2008). They improve water quality and provide essential fish habitat and are a source of food for associated aquatic life. The irregular surfaces of oyster reefs provide fifty times the surface area of a similarly extensive flat bottom. Unique crevices provide good nursery habitat for a wide diversity of vertebrate and invertebrate organisms such as worms, snails, sea squirts, sponges, small crabs, and fishes. The small inhabitants of the subtidal reef community are the base of the food chain for a wide variety of predators. Oyster reefs are recognized by fisheries management agencies as vital habitat for certain commercially and recreationally important fish species and critical to 75 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project fisheries production (Street, 2005). A recent study, conducted through the North Carolina Sea Grant on the use of oyster reef habitat by economically valuable species, suggests that restoring oyster reef habitat enhances fish production and potential harvest levels in North Carolina estuaries (Peterson and Grabowski, 2003). In addition, the presence of oyster reef sanctuaries provides a brooding stock which benefits the robustness of harvestable oyster reefs in adjacent waters (NCDMF, 2008 and Street et al., 2005). Scarcity. Researchers estimate that 85% of oyster reefs world -wide have been lost (AFP 2011). In North Carolina, the eastern oyster has been given the stock status of Concern due to overharvesting and dredging practices (NCDMF 2010). Oyster landings in North Carolina are estimated to be only ten percent of what they were just over a century ago (Ortega & Sutherland, 1992; Street et al. 2005). All alternatives would contribute positively to reducing the scarcity of this resource. Status and trends. Since the early 1900's, North Carolina's oyster harvests have declined 90 percent, with current estimates that only 50 percent of the population remains from the late 1800's. With recognition of the importance of the oyster as a keystone species in ecosystem health, local, state and federal efforts have increased to restore oyster reef habitat. The NC Oyster Sanctuary Program has helped to increase biomass of oysters in and around the Pamlico Sound area (NCDMF 2010). Restoration is viewed as an essential tool to sustain long -term management of North Carolina's oyster population. All alternatives would contribute to varying degrees in increasing the biomass of oysters in northern Pamlico Sound. Connectivity. The NCORSC Northern workgroup has a goal of developing a network of self- sustaining oyster reefs in Albemarle - Pamlico National Estuary as described by the NCORSC's Oyster Restoration and Protection Plan. Through modeling, historic data and knowledge of the area, NCORSC has identified the project vicinity as an area of need for re- establishment of oysters as part of an overall plan to create a self - sustaining network of oyster reefs in Pamlico Sound (Figure 5.06 Source: Notes from NE Oyster Work Group Meeting March 18, 2010). All alternatives would contribute to this network. Also, as a keystone species, oysters provide habitat to a wide variety of sea life. The Ecosystem Restoration Plan The criteria used to select the NER plan include all the evaluation criteria discussed above. Selecting the NER plan requires careful consideration of the plan that meets planning objectives and constraints and reasonably maximizes environmental benefits while passing tests of cost effectiveness and incremental cost analyses, significance of outputs, completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability. Additional factors to consider include the following items: 76 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 5.7.1 Partnership Context This Beneficial Use of Dredged Material project was planned in cooperation with the State of North Carolina. The North Carolina Coastal Federation and the NC Oyster Restoration Steering Committee's northern workgroup also provided valuable input. This project planning process included an opportunity for open comment to ensure the public has had opportunities to contribute. 7.2 Reasonableness of Costs All costs associated with a plan were considered, and tests of cost effectiveness and incremental cost analysis have been satisfied for the alternatives analyzed. Cost estimates were based on the costs of transportation of construction materials to the site as well as project construction, and included contingency costs of 25 %. _ _, Plan Selection 5.8.1 The NER /Preferred Plan The plan that reasonably maximizes net national ecosystem restoration benefits and is consistent with the Federal objective is identified as the NER plan. As mentioned in section 5.4.4, cost effectiveness /incremental cost analysis identified alternative 17 (stone sill, 4x5.07 acres) and the no- action plan as the best buy plans. Alternative 16 (stone sill, 3x5.07 acres) was also identified as the most cost - efficient alternative that is within the cost constraints of the Section 204 authority. Since the no- action plan does not meet study objectives, and alternatives 16 and 17 both provide significant ecosystem restoration benefits in a cost - effective manner, the no- action plan was removed from consideration as the NER plan. As indicated in table 5.10, the incremental cost of implementing Alternative 17 is $9,767 per habitat unit. This is slightly less than the incremental cost of $10,199 per habitat unit for Alternative 16. The next most cost - effective plan is Alternative 11 with an incremental cost of $12,308 per habitat unit. Alternative 16 is the plan with the lowest cost per unit of habitat ($10,199) that is within the cost constraints of the Section 204 Authority. Therefore, Alternative 16 is selected as the NER plan and the federally recommended plan. 5.8.2 NED /Optimum Tradeoff Plan Because all alternatives considered address ecosystem restoration of the Old House Channel area rather than national economic development, no plans have been identified as being the NED plan. Additionally, there is no optimum trade off plan as each of the alternatives considered only address ecosystem restoration. 77 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 5.8.3 Locally Preferred Plan There is no locally preferred plan. The sponsor fully supports the NER plan. The NER plan will best meet the sponsor's goals of restoring oyster habitat in Pamlico Sound in conjunction with dredging operations at Old House Channel. .8.4 Designation of the Tentatively - Selected Plan Alternative 16 is designated as the tentatively - selected plan due to the fact that it is both the NER plan as well as the locally preferred plan. Within the cost constraints of the Section 204 Authority, this plan will provide the greatest ecosystem restoration benefits in the most cost effective manner and is also the plan most desirable to the local sponsor while having minimal adverse environmental impacts. This plan will advance the goals of North Carolina's oyster restoration efforts, including the NCORSC's stated goal of 500 acres of new oyster reef constructed and designated as sanctuary by 2018. Restoration of oysters in North Carolina is also a national goal of the US EPA's Albemarle - Pamlico Sound National Estuary Program. Lastly, it will alleviate the volume of dredged material placed on existing disposal islands during the associated dredging cycle, an objective supported by the NCWRC. 6.1 Plan Description The Tentatively - Selected Plan (TSP), having best met the alternative screening conditions in comparison to all other alternatives, is designated as the Recommended Plan. Under the TSP, three submerged oyster reefs would be constructed within close proximity of each other, approximately 1.7 miles from Old House Channel (Range 2). Stone sills made of NCDOT Class 2 armor stone (9 " -23 ") would be constructed to create three 5.07 acre containment areas for dredged material. The three 5.07 acre containment areas would contain a total of approximately 135,000 cubic yards of dredged material. The three separate containment areas would be constructed in close proximity of each other with spacing of approximately 100 yards. The core portion of the containment structures would be constructed of NCDOT Class B Stone (5 " -12 "). Reefs would be constructed during a regularly scheduled maintenance dredging cycle for the navigation channels. Dredged material from maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel would be pumped into the containment areas and would, most likely, utilize a hydraulic pipeline dredge. However, other dredges could be used. The dredged material would be covered with NCDOT Class A stone and oyster shell to provide habitat for establishment of oysters. A typical cross section is shown in Figure 5.03. Approximately 18 acres of new oyster reef habitat would be created, as well as enhanced service area associated with the reefs. The construction of the preferred oyster reef alternative would be a one -time event under the Section 204 Authority. Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project However, this project could serve as a pilot for future oyster restoration efforts in conjunction with dredging operations. Real Estate Requirements The tentatively selected plan for the project consists of three 5.07 acre submerged oyster reefs within close proximity of one another (100 yards between one reef edge and another). Submerged stone containment rings will be constructed, and then filled with dredged material from maintenance dredging of Old House Channel. The sand - based reefs will then be topped with cultch for oyster reefs. The location of the reef configuration will be where good oyster growing conditions are found near the navigation channel and where submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) or other significant resources do not immediately exist. The project study area is shown in Figures 2.01 and 2.02. All reef development and construction will be accomplished below mean high water (MHW). These areas are considered lands of the State and a permit will be required from the State of North Carolina Department of Administration State Property Office for construction of the project in state waters. As this project will make beneficial use of dredged material, no borrow site is required. The only real estate requirement identified is a staging area of approximately 0.5 of an acre that will be needed for an estimated period of 6 -12 months. Two parcels as shown in Figures 6.0.1 and 6.0.2 are owned by the State of North Carolina and could be made available for staging areas. Only one parcel would be needed. Acquisition of a Temporary Work Area Easement for the staging area could be accomplished within 6 months. k - r *A a nchesa Figure 6.01. Potential Staging Area Dare County Figure 6.02. Potential Staging Area Hyde County 79 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project The Temporary Work Area Easement. A temporary easement and right -of -way in, on, over and across (the land described in Schedule A) (Tracts Nos. ), for a period not to exceed 12 months, beginning with date possession of the land is granted to the Sponsor for use by the Sponsor, its representatives, agents, and contractors as a work area, including the right to move, store and remove equipment and supplies, and erect and remove temporary structures on the land and to perform any other work necessary and incident to the construction of the Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Beneficial Use of Dredged Material for Oyster Reef Restoration Project, together with the right to trim, cut, fell and remove there from all trees, underbrush, obstructions, and any other vegetation, structures, or obstacles within the limits of the right -of -way; reserving, however, to the landowners, their heirs and assigns, all such rights and privileges as may be used without interfering with or abridging the rights and easement hereby acquired; subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines. The proposed project would offer environmental improvements by creating new oyster reefs. No adverse environmental impacts are expected. No hazardous, toxic and radioactive wastes have been identified in the project area. There are no utility /facility relocations required for implementation of the project, and there are no relocations of individuals under PL 91 -646. The project is not for commerce related purposes and has no nexus to navigation; therefore Navigation Servitude does not apply. There is no known public opposition to the project. The State of North Carolina is the non - Federal sponsor for the project (NFS). The NFS has the responsibility to acquire all real estate interests required for the Project. The NFS shall accomplish all alterations and relocations of facilities, structures and improvements determined by the government to be necessary for construction of the Project. The sponsor will have operation and maintenance responsibility for the project after construction is completed. Title to any acquired real estate will be retained by the Project Sponsor and will not be conveyed to the United States Government. Prior to advertisement of any construction contract, the NFS shall furnish to the government an Authorization for Entry for Construction to all lands, easements and rights -of -way, as necessary. The NFS will also furnish to the government evidence supporting their legal authority to grant rights -of -way to such lands. The NFS shall comply with applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91 -646, approved 2 January 1971, and amended by Title IV of the Surface Transportation Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987, Public Law 100 -17, effective 2 April 1989, in acquiring real estate interests for the Project, and inform all affected persons of applicable benefits, policies, and procedures in connection with said Act(s). The non - Federal sponsor is entitled to receive credit against its share of project costs for the value of lands it provides and the value of the relocations that are required for the project. Generally, for the purpose of determining the amount of credit to be afforded, the value of the lands, easements and rights -of -way (LER) is the fair market value of the real property interest, plus certain incidental costs of acquiring those :e Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project interests, that the non - federal sponsor provided for the project as required by the Government. The NFS will not receive credit for lands used that were previously provided as an item of cooperation. The NFS should not acquire lands required for the project prior to execution of the Project Partnership Agreement (PPA). Should the NFS proceed with acquisition of lands prior to execution of the PPA, it is at the risk of not receiving credit or reimbursement for any costs incurred in the connection with the acquisition process should the PPA not be signed. There is also risk in acquiring lands either not needed for the project or not acquired in compliance with requirements for crediting purposes in accordance with 49 CFR Part 24, dated March 2, 1989. A Realty Specialist will meet with the NFS prior to construction to discuss the real estate acquisition process and to provide guidance. The estimated real estate costs include the land cost for acquisition of land and federal and non - federal administrative costs. Land cost is based on an opinion of value dated April 5, 2011 and on a market rental rate of 10% for one year. Administrative costs are those costs incurred for verifying ownership of lands, certification of those lands required for project purposes, legal opinions, analysis or other requirements that may be necessary during Planning, Engineering and Design (PED). A 25% contingency is applied to the estimated total for these items. Table 6.01 is a summary of the real estate cost for the project. Table 6.01. Real Estate Cost Estimate Manteo Section 204 Real Estate Cost Estimate Federal Non - Federal Total 01B LANDS AND DAMAGES 01 B40 Acq /Review of PS $ 5,000 $ $ $ 5,000 01B20 Acquisition by PS $ $ 20,000 $ 20,000 01 B Contingencies (25 %) $ 1,250 $ 5,000 $ 6,250 Subtotal $ 6,250 $ 25,000 $ 31,250 01G Temporary Permits /Lic /ROEs 01 G20 By PS $ $ 5,000 $ 5,000 01 G Contingencies (25 %) $ $ 1,250 $ 1,250 Subtotal $ $ 6,250 $ 6,250 01R REAL ESTATE LAND PAYMENTS 01 R1 B Land Payments by PS $ $ 5,500 $ 5,500 01 R Contingencies (25 %) $ 1,375 $ 1,375 Subtotal $ $ 6,875 $ 6,875 TOTALS $ 6,250 $ 38,125 $ 44,375 ROUNDED TO $ 44,500 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Considerations In accordance with Section 2039 of WRDA 2007, the recommended project includes a plan for monitoring the success of the ecosystem restoration. Monitoring will continue until success criteria have been met. For this project, a 5 -year habitat establishment /persistence period is expected, therefore monitoring should be concluded in 5 years. However, if success criteria are not met, monitoring would continue as a project cost until year 10, and as sponsor cost thereafter. Both structural and biological persistence will be evaluated by hydrographic survey and biological sampling described below. Under the Section 204 authority, it is the responsibility of the local sponsor to maintain the project after construction. It is anticipated that little to no O &M activity will be required to maintain the functionality of the reef after construction. However, marker buoys would require replacement every two years. If 3- legged piles are used only one replacement would be expected during the project life. Cost to mark the corners of the sanctuary site with a three - legged piling system according to U.S. Coast Guard regulations and state permit is estimated to be $1,500 per pilling, times 12 pilings = $18,000. Assuming these are replaced at year 25, maintenance costs would be $18,000 over the life of the project. The potential for an extended monitoring period have been addressed and adaptive management plans are described below; however due, to optimum site location as demonstrated by modeling and a successful nearby reference, the risk that extended monitoring or adaptive management would be needed is low. 6_4 Monitoring and Adaptive Maiiar,%;;;j,.jL%;;;nt Plan In accordance with Section 2039 of WRDA 2007, the recommended project includes a plan for monitoring the success of the ecosystem restoration. Monitoring will continue until success criteria have been met. For this project, a 5 -year habitat establishment /persistence period is expected, therefore monitoring should be concluded in 5 years. However, if success criteria are not met, monitoring would continue as a project cost until year 10, and as sponsor cost thereafter. Both structural and biological persistence will be evaluated by hydrographic survey and biological sampling described below. Under the Section 204 authority, it is the responsibility of the local sponsor to maintain the project after construction. It is anticipated that little to no O &M activity will be required to maintain the functionality of the plan after construction. I The implementation guidance for Section 2039, in the form of a CECW -PB Memo dated 31 August 2009, also requires that an adaptive management plan be developed for all ecosystem restoration projects. Several questions were considered to determine if adaptive management should be applied to the Manteo 204 project: 1) Are the ecosystems to be restored sufficiently understood in terms of hydrology and ecology, and can project outcomes be accurately predicted given recognized FIN Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project natural and anthropogenic stressors? Yes, as demonstrated by a nearby successful reference at Crab Hole sanctuary. 2) Can the most effective project design and operation to achieve project goals and objectives be readily identified? Yes. High relief structures would be consistent with NCDMF current practice. 3) Are the measures of this restoration project's performance well understood and agreed upon by all parties? Yes. Performance measures will be consistent with established NCDMF Sanctuary Program monitoring measures. 4) Can project management actions be adjusted in relation to monitoring results? Yes. If unforeseen low recruitment were to occur proven methods are available to augment recruitment by stocking spat on shell. A "YES" answer to all 4 questions identified the project as a candidate which would not benefit from adaptive management . Therefore, the adaptive management plan is that no adaptive management would be required. Structural Persistence. A Hydrographic survey of the reef site identifying significant project features will be made upon completion (year 1) as a construction cost. This survey will document base conditions and construction compliance. A comparison monitoring survey will be made at the end of the monitoring period (Year 5) to determine structural persistence of project components. The aerial extent of the reef will be mapped and quantified. Visual documentation of site conditions by underwater camera sled will be conducted concurrent with the survey operation if water conditions permit. Success Criteria. The Manteo 204 Reef Sanctuaries will be considered successful if at the end of 5 years the site is documented to be in a generally stable condition. Adaptive Management. No Adaptive Management required. Biological Persistence. Biological sampling would be conducted annually for 5 years following construction. Monitoring would be extended to 10 years, if needed. Monitoring would include collection of reef stones and /or Quadrate Samples by Divers to assess colonization by oysters and other fowling organisms. Three (3) randomly selected target areas would be evaluated by collection and analysis of 3 samples each, on an annual basis in years 1- 5. Methods will be consistent with NCDMF sanctuary sampling methods, as outlines below, to the degree practical. The information obtained will be compared to the previous year's sampling results from the restoration site and annual state sanctuary Indexes as available. Faunal utilization of the site will be assessed by qualitative methods. An annual monitoring report will be prepared and coordinated with interested parties. The following information will be collected for each sample per the NCDMF sanctuary sampling methods: • Length x Width x Height of rock (mm) • Number of live and dead oysters FIX Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project o 3 size classes spat, sublegal and legal size oysters • Height of each alive and dead (box) oyster. (Size distribution) • Organisms found attached to rock and extent (fouling) • Barnacles, mussels, tunicates, bryozoans, sponges, limpets, etc. • Recorded as percent coverage using 7 graded scale which recognizes only seven possible coverage percentages; 1, 5, 10, 25, 50, 75, and 100percent • Presence and number of predators o Oyster drills, crabs, etc. Success Criteria. Manteo 204 Sanctuary will be considered successful if at Year 5, the oyster density is at least 25 oysters /m2. (Combined all size classes) for 3 of the 5 years sampled. Adaptive Management. No Adaptive Management Plan. Additional cultch could be added to areas that are not supporting oyster habitat. Events Survey Contract Biological Contract Corps Support Corp Dive inspector Total Total Cost Estimate MONITORING COST Cost per Event No. of Events Total Cost $30,000 1 $30,000 15,944 5 79,720 10,000 6 60,000 5,000 5 25,000 194,720 $200,000* * monitoring costs included as part of Total Project Costs and are cost shared on a 65% Federal/ 35% Non - Federal basis. ., Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 6.5 Detailed Cost Estimate for Tentatively - Selected Plan Total Project Cost (Fully Funded) including contingency is $7,217,000. For more detail and Cost MCX Certification, see Appendix D — Cost Engineering. Table 6.02 Total Project Costs TENTATIVELY - SELECTED PLAN, ALTERNATIVE 16 "THREE 5.07 ACRE SITES WITH 4 -FOOT STONE SILL CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE" MANTEO, OLD HOUSE CHANNEL, NC SECTION 204 BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL FOR OYSTER REEF RESTORATION PROJECT TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (Includes 19% Contingency) Estimate Date: 2 August 2012 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (FULLY FUNDED) Prices $7,217,000 Non - Federal Share Real Estate $38,125 Cash Contribution (35% of total implementation costs less RE) $2,328,875 TOTAL $2,367,000 Federal Share Total Cost less Non - Federal Share $4,396,000 Feasibility Phase Cost, 100% Federally funded $453,000 TOTAL* $4,850,000 * The TOTAL maximum Federal expenditures on any one project under this authority is a maximum of $5,000,000.. Any costs over the $5,000,000 Federal limit will be 100% non - Federal and reflected as such in the PPA. 6.6 Cost Sharing Under the Section 204 authority, the non - Federal sponsor is responsible for 35% of the Total Project Costs minus the feasibility phase costs. RM Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 7.0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This section compares the impacts of the proposed Preferred Alternative (three 5.07 acre sites with 4 -foot stone sill containment) and the No- Action alternative. Fifteen alternatives that were eliminated from further consideration are outlined in section 5.3.3. General Environmental Conditions Neither the Preferred Alternative nor the No Action Alternative is expected to impact any environmental conditions within the study area or greater Pamlico Sound. Impact analyses of the environmental conditions are outlined below and summarized in table 7.01. i.1.1 Climate Climate in the Pamlico Sound depends significantly on the Gulf Stream and the Labrador currents. As the Preferred or the No Action Alternatives would not have any impacts on these currents, neither the Preferred nor the No Action alternative would have an impact on the climate. 7.1.2 Tides, Currents, and Sea Level Rise It is not expected that either the Preferred or No Action Alternative would significantly impact tides, currents, or sea level rise in the Pamlico Sound. Slight alteration of currents around the Preferred Alternative would result in minor localized changes in currents but should not have any impact on currents in the greater Pamlico Sound, nor would any potential localized changes be significant enough to alter the local conditions. Potential increase in sea level rise (between 0.87 and 2.2 feet over 50 years) would not impact the function of the alternatives discussed in the report. The elevation design of the preferred alternative is set to provide a minimum depth for safe vessel navigation and any rise in water level just provides additional buffer between the vessel and the reef /bottom. .jL.3 Water Quality The placement of armor stone and dredged material for this project, from the Federally authorized Navigation channel, would result in minor temporary turbidity during the construction but overall impacts to water quality would be minimal and of short duration. The Preferred Alternative would not contribute to point or non -point sources of pollutants and would not have any long -term negative impacts to water quality in the Pamlico Sound. Establishment of oysters on these constructed reefs would have positive benefits to water quality. A 401 Water Quality Certification would be required prior to construction. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the impacts associated with the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States are discussed in the Section 404(b)(1) (P. L. 95 -217) evaluation in appendix XX. :. Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project The No Action Alternative would have no adverse impacts on water quality. 7.1.4 Current Land Use in Project Area Neither the Preferred Alternative nor the No Action Alternative would impact land use, as the project is located entirely within the waters of Pamlico Sound, away from all major upland areas. BIOTIC COMMUNITIES The Preferred Alternative is not expected to have any long term negative impacts on biotic communities within the project area or the Pamlico Sound. The vast majority of impacts to biotic communities would be in the placement of the rock sill with minor impacts as the area is recolonized by new species. Placement of the rock substrate would result in a permanent change in habitat substrate. Positive impacts associated with construction of the structures and stone sill substrate in an otherwise sandy flat community would provide benefits to species that would utilize the hard surfaces and higher surface elevation. The No Action alternative would not have any impacts to biotic communities or facilitate the growth of certain communities that would utilize the structure and vertical elevation that would be provided by the Preferred Alternative. These impacts to biotic communities are outlined below. 7.2.1 Aquatic Habitats 7.2.1.1 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation The Preferred Alternative would not be located on or in the vicinity of any SAV beds as the nearest SAV bed is one -mile west of the proposed project site and would be far enough away from identified beds in the surveyed project area that potential negative impacts (turbidity) would be significantly reduced or eliminated (Figure 5.01). Construction would utilize methods to keep turbidity contained in the construction zone, further reducing or eliminating any impacts that would be associated with sedimentation on the SAV habitat. The No Action Alternative would have no impacts on SAV. 7.2.1.2 Shell Bottoms. The Preferred Alternative would be sited to keep the proposed oyster reef location away from the known low relief shell bottom habitat identified in the survey area approximately 0.5 miles north of the proposed site and oyster sanctuaries in the relatively near vicinity (Figure 5.01). By avoiding known shell bottoms and locating the proposed project area far enough away to avoid sedimentation from the construction of the stone sill, and associated placement of dredged material, the Preferred Alternative Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project would not impact shell bottom. Positive impacts of providing habitat suitable for establishment of oysters and utilization by other species would provide positive benefits to an area that is dominated by soft bottom habitat. The No Action Alternative would not provide additional oyster habitat and would not impact any shell bottom within the study area. 7.2.1.3 Soft Bottom Soft bottom makes up the majority of the substrate that will be altered under the Preferred Alternative. Construction would require the addition of rock sills which add hardened substrate to an otherwise sandy soft habitat with the total project area converting 5.07 acres of the sandy bottom to a higher relief hardbottom. However, these impacts and impacts associated with placing material would be expected to be minimal and, overall, provide more habitat diversity to the aquatic habitat. Dredged materials placed in the project area are expected to be of similar type and quality to that of the project area sediments. Invertebrates that utilize soft substrates would be expected to quickly re- colonize the sediments in the area. The No Action Alternative would not impact the soft bottoms or the associated communities in the project area. 7.2.2 Bird Islands Construction of the Preferred Alternative should not adversely impact the nearby bird islands. As many of the effluent islands have exceeded capacity for good bird habitat by leaving them susceptible to predatory hazards, reducing the amount of material placed on these islands will promote a healthier and safer habitat for the birds that utilize the islands. Reduction in future material placement would therefore provide an overall positive impact to coastal bird communities. The No Action Alternative would not directly impact bird islands or coastal birds. Secondary negative effects may occur by not providing an alternative disposal location for material that would otherwise go on islands that are already at or over capacity and subject to increases in predation. 2.3 Wetlands While the Pamlico Sound contains estuarine wetlands, the proposed project area is not located in the vicinity of any wetlands. Therefore, there would be no impacts to wetlands from construction of the Preferred Alternative nor would there be impacts associated with the No Action Alternative. As stated in section 7.1.3, Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the impacts associated with the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States are discussed in the Section 404(b)(1) (P.L. 95 -217) evaluation in appendix XX. While the .. Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not issue permits to its own agency, the agency complies with 404 regulations and nationwide permit conditions. Threatened and Endangered Specie; Neither the Preferred Alternative nor the No Action Alternative would be expected to have any adverse impacts to Threatened or Endangered Species that may be encountered in the project area. Potential species and associated assessment of impacts are outlined below. Manatee. Pamlico Sound has not historically had manatee populations of any significant size, and manatees are not expected to be encountered in the project area. However, transport of materials as well as activities at the construction site would follow all manatee protocols regarding vessel traffic, further reducing any potential impacts associated with transport or construction. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the species. The No Action Alternative would not adversely impact the manatee. Shortnose Sturgeon. The Preferred Alternative would not be located in habitat or breeding areas regularly utilized by shortnose sturgeon. Any sturgeon in the immediate project vicinity would be expected to safely transition out of the area with no impacts to individuals or the population. The project is in the vicinity of Oregon Inlet which is used by shortnose sturgeon as access to the estuary from the ocean. Structures related to the preferred alternative would not hinder access. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative may affect but is not likely to adversely affect shortnose sturgeon. The No Action Alternative would not be expected to adversely affect shortnose sturgeon. Atlantic sturgeon. The Preferred Alternative would not be located in habitat or breeding areas regularly utilized by Atlantic sturgeon. Any sturgeon in the immediate project vicinity would be expected to safely transition out of the area with no impacts to individuals or the population. The project is in the vicinity of Oregon Inlet which is used by shortnose sturgeon as access to the estuary from the ocean. Structures related to the preferred alternative would not hinder access. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Atlantic sturgeon. The No Action Alternative would not be expected to adversely affect Atlantic sturgeon. Sea turtles. While sea turtles may potentially appear in the area, it is not anticipated that these species would be adversely affected by the Preferred Alternative. Planning for construction of the Preferred Alternative would include scheduling construction at times of the year when chances of encounters with sea turtles would be reduced to minimize potential impacts. While there are currently no restrictions on dredging, any schedule constraints would be based on the Operations and Maintenance contracts and, if any, windows for disposal established during consistency coordination. During Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project construction, it is anticipated that a hydraulic pipeline dredge would be used although the dredge project has authority to use other dredges. The Preferred Alternative would not impact beaches adjacent to the proposed project area, where sea turtles have been known to nest. The No Action Alternative would not result in adverse affects to sea turtles. Birds. As the Preferred Alternative would not be located within the immediate vicinity of islands or beaches where Piping Plovers or Roseate Terns nest, and would not impact fisheries resources that shorebirds rely on, no negative effects are anticipated beyond the potential temporary minor impacts associated with disturbance by equipment during the construction phase. Therefore, this project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered bird species. The No Action Alternative would not have any adverse effects to Threatened or Endangered bird species. Benthic Resources The Preferred Alternative is not expected to negatively impact benthic resources beyond minor temporary impacts during placement of dredged material during construction. Minor impacts would be associated with burial of species located on the sandy bottom habitat. However, due to the nature of the system being highly dynamic, these impacts are not expected to be long term with species recovering in the immediate area rapidly following the disturbance. Facilitation of oyster growth by providing suitable habitat should promote not only oysters but other benthic organisms that would utilize the constructed reef. The No Action Alternative is not expected to negatively impact benthic resources; however, by not providing additional habitat that can be utilized by benthic species, the No Action Alternative would not promote growth of the benthic community. Therefore, with the No Action Alternative, conditions would be expected to remain generally status quo with minimal to no impacts to resources. 7.5 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Fisheries Potential impacts to EFH and HAPC that are in the project area of the Preferred Plan are discussed and summarized in the following paragraphs. Aquatic Beds. Aquatic beds (defined as assemblages of submerged rooted vascular vegetation found in tidal freshwater areas) are not found in the immediate project area due to the salinity of waters; therefore, no impacts from the Preferred or No Action Alternatives would occur. Estuarine Water Column. The Preferred Alternative is expected to create localized, short -lived turbidity elevations that should dissipate within the estuarine water column in I Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project a short time period. In addition to the actions of winds, waves, and currents, the duration of these turbidities would be dependent upon the grain -size of material being placed: the finer the grain -size, the slower the return to pre- construction conditions. The results of grain -size analyses from Old House Channel and past dredging events show that sand is the predominant sediment and, as such it is expected that turbidities would be slightly elevated above those routinely present in the area but should return to normal levels quickly once construction is complete, with minimal and short -term impacts. The No Action Alternative would not result in any impacts to the estuarine water column. Oyster Reefs and Shell Banks. These habitat types are present in the area of Pamlico Sound and occur within the project study area (see figure 4.04). Placement of dredged material under the Preferred Alternative is not expected to affect these habitats, as the Preferred Alternative would be located in areas away from oyster reefs and shell banks. Turbidities as a result of construction would be far enough removed from any potential reefs or shell banks as to not cause impacts to those resources. Construction of additional oyster reefs should have positive impacts to the surrounding populations by providing additional habitat that is currently unavailable to oysters due to the depth and lack of suitable substrate. The preferred alternative is not expected to cause any negative impacts to oyster reefs and should result in overall positive impacts to the oyster community in Pamlico Sound. The no action alternative should not provide any direct negative impacts but will not provide additional oyster and shell habitat thereby not supporting North Carolina's oyster restoration goals. SAV and Seagrasses. Shallow bottom within the project study area (Figure 4.04) contains habitat suitable for SAV and SAV communities. The proposed oyster reef construction could potentially impact SAV habitat. However, precautions would be taken to avoid areas where SAV are known to exist and the Preferred Alternative location will be far enough away from SAV to eliminate potential impacts from burial or turbidity during construction with the nearest site being located currently one -mile north of the proposed site. Once constructed, the Preferred Alternative should have no negative impacts and may possibly, as a secondary benefit, facilitate SAV growth in nearby waters if water clarity improves due to filtering by oysters. The No Action Alternative would have no impact on any known SAV or its habitat. State — designated Areas Important for Managed Species. Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs) are designated by the NC Marine Fisheries Commission and are defined as tidal saltwaters that provide essential habitat for the early development of commercially important fish and shellfish. There are PNAs in Pamlico Sound, but this project is at least five -miles away from these locations so that neither the construction of the oyster reefs nor the disposal would have adverse impacts. Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project The No Action Alternative would have no impacts on any State - designated areas. Impact Summary for Essential Fish Habitat. Adverse impacts to EFH, HAPC, or EFH species from construction of the Preferred Alternative, if any, has been determined to be minimal and short -lived on an individual and cumulative effects basis. As a result of these minimal impacts and based on agency coordination at the January 10, 2012 meeting in Manteo, NC, mitigation to offset impacts is not expected to be required. This assessment will be coordinated with the NMFS Southeast Region. sediments Due to the highly dynamic environment of Oregon Inlet and Pamlico Sound, it is not expected that the relocation of sediments from the Federally Authorized channel to the Preferred Alternative location would have any significant long term impacts to sediments in the project area. Sediment composition is consistent between the channel and preferred alternative location, so grain size and quality is not expected to change during construction of the Preferred Alternative. Project impacts during construction may include slightly elevated turbidity conditions at the Preferred Alternative site however; this is expected to be a short -term impact with sediments settling rapidly in the system. The No Action alternative will not impact sediments in Pamlico Sound. %,.uastal Yrot coava The proposed project would be located beneath the water surface at all times, leaving the site relatively protected from the effects of winds, waves, and tidal fluxes. Due to the submerged location it is not expected that the project would alter the coastal processes of the project area; therefore, no impacts to coastal processes are expected. The No Action alternative would not impact coastal processes. Air Quality The Preferred Alternative would result in minimal temporary impacts to air quality during the construction phase of the project. Air emissions would be slightly elevated during construction from the operation of heavy machinery and vessel equipment. These impacts are expected to be minimal and short term. No open burning would occur during any phase of this project. The No Action Alternative will not result in increases in air emissions and will have no impact on air quality. Socio- Economics and Recreation The Preferred Alternative would provide additional fishing and shellfish habitat boosting both local recreational fisheries and the tourism industry in the areas surrounding the WMI Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project project site. This would have a positive effect on the local community. Design of the Preferred Alternative avoids any impacts to navigation and, by providing an additional disposal location for material dredged from the channel to maintain navigation depth, aids in maintaining the federally authorized navigation channels which support the local economy. The No Action Alternative is not expected to have any impacts on the local economy or recreation. 7 J U cultural Resources After review of the ERDC survey report conducted by the USACE Field Research Facility in Duck, NC, the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office concluded that it was unlikely that the Manteo 204 project would affect any significant submerged resources (Appendix H). 7.11 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Wastes The Preferred Alternative will not be located in any area where HTRW have been identified nor will the alternative result in the creation of HTRW. No impacts related to HTRW are expected to occur with either the Preferred or No Action Alternatives. 7.12 Floodplains As the project is not located within a floodplain and will not alter any surrounding floodplains, neither the Preferred Alternative nor the No Action Alternative will cause any impacts to floodplains. 1.13 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts associated with the preferred alternative were considered. There are ten existing state estuarine reefs in the greater Pamlico Sound; of these, two are within 2.5 miles of the proposed site. These reefs were constructed at or over a decade ago by NCDMF and cover a total of 39 acres. Another reef within the vicinity is currently in the planning stage with no additional new reefs expected in the foreseeable future within Pamlico Sound, other than the proposed project. The success of the sanctuaries in the Albemarle - Pamlico Estuary System along with the success of the naturally sustaining subtidal oyster reef ecosystem restoration project at Festival Park suggest that the preferred plan will facilitate further re- establishment of oysters in the Pamlico Sound and aid in creating a more stable naturally sustainable oyster population. Additional projects in the area include the Manteo (shallowbag) Bay project which was authorized in 1940 and is considered a navigation maintenance project. This project includes maintenance of several navigation channels and runs parallel to the Outer Banks adjacent to the proposed project site. No other federal dredge work is proposed for this project area. Proposed project design using material from this maintenance 11 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project channel would provide an alternative location for placement of channel materials relieving the adjacent islands of the excess dredged material which will benefit both the birds that may utilize the islands while providing available substrate for oyster recruitment. As a proposed beneficial use of dredged material project, net effects are expected to be beneficial. Any adverse effects would be minor and temporary, associated with construction disturbance. An insignificant reduction in soft bottom habitat would occur as soft bottoms are converted to oyster habitat. Table 7.01 Summary of Environmental Impacts r•A Alternatives Proposed Action Resource 3 -5.07 Acre sites with 4 -foot stone No Action sill containment Climate No impacts No impacts Tides, Currents, and No impacts No impacts Sea Level Rise Minor temporary turbidity during construction Water Quality No impacts Long term positive benefits from Oysters Land Use No impacts No impacts SAV Potential minor short -term turbidity No impacts No impacts to existing hardbottom No impacts to existing Shell Bottom Positive benefits from increased hardbottom available habitat No additional habitat Soft Bottom Loss of soft bottom habitat at No impacts constructed reef Bird Islands Reduced predation and disposal Potential increase in placement on islands predation and continued frequent disposal on islands Wetlands No impacts No impacts Threatened and No impacts expected No impacts Endangered Species r•A Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Resource Alternatives Proposed Action 3 -5.07 Acre sites with 4 -foot stone sill containment No Action Benthic Resources Facilitation of habitat to promote benthic growth No impacts EFH Minimal to no impacts No impacts No additional shell habitat Sediments Short -term elevated turbidity No impacts Coastal Processes No impacts No impacts Air Quality Short term elevated emissions No impacts Socio- economics Boost local recreational fisheries No impacts Cultural Resources No impacts expected No impacts HTRW No impacts No impacts Floodplains No impacts No impacts 8.0 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATUTES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS The Recommended Plan, as built, must comply with applicable state and federal environmental protection statutes and executive orders, including NEPA. Applicable state and federal permitting, with the required public review, must be accomplished prior to construction of the project. A listing of the federal laws and policies and their compliance status is located in Table 8.01. IM Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Table 8.01. Listing of Public Laws and Compliance Status (Note: Items identified as being in Full Compliance assumes their compliance status after the NEPA process is complete.) Title of public law U.S. Code Compliance status Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 43 U.S.C. 2101 Full Compliance American Indian Religious Freedom Act 42 U.S.C. 1996 Not Applicable Agriculture and Food Act (Farmland Protection Policy Act) of 1981 7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq. Not Applicable American Folklife Preservation Act of 1976, As Amended 20 U.S.C. 2101 Not Applicable Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965, As Amended 16 U.S.C. 757 a et seq. Full Compliance Antiquities Act of 1906, As Amended 16 U.S.C. 431 Full Compliance Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, As Amended 16 U.S.C. 469 Full Compliance Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, As Amended 16 U.S.C. 470 Full Compliance Bald Eagle Act of 1972 16 U.S.C. 668 Full Compliance Buy American Act 41 U.S.C. 102 Full Compliance Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P. L. 88 -352) 6 U.S.C. 601 Full Compliance Clean Air Act of 1972, As Amended 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Full Compliance Clean Water Act of 1972, As Amended 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. Full Compliance Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 16 U.S.C. 3501 -3510 Full Compliance Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, As Amended 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. Full Compliance Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 42 U.S.C. 9601 Not Applicable Conservation of Forest Lands Act of 1960 16 U.S.C. 580 mn Not Applicable Contract Work Hours 40 U.S.C. 327 Full Compliance Convict Labor 18 U.S.C. 4082 Full Compliance Copeland Anti - Kickback 40 U.S.C. 276c Full Compliance Davis Bacon Act 40 U.S.C. 276 Full Compliance Deepwater Port Act of 1974, As Amended 33 U.S.C. 1501 Not Applicable Emergency Flood Control Funds Act of 1955, As Amended 33 U.S.C. 701m Not Applicable Emergency Wetlands Resources Act 16 U.S.C. 3901 -3932 Full Compliance Endangered Species Act of 1973 16 U.S.C. 1531 Full Compliance Estuary Program Act of 1968 16 U.S.C. 1221 et seq. Full Compliance Equal Opportunity 42 U.S.C. 2000d Full Compliance Farmland Protection Policy Act 7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq. Not Applicable 06 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Federal Environmental Pesticide Act of 1972 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. Full Compliance Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, As Amended 16 U.S.C. 4601 Full Compliance Title of public law IL IL U.S. Code Compliance status Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, As Amended 16 U.S.C. 661 Full Compliance Flood Control Act of 1944, As Amended, Section 4 16 U.S.C. 460b Full Compliance Food Security Act of 1985 (Swampbuster) 16 U.S.C. 3811 et seq. Not Applicable Hazardous Substance Response Revenue Act of 1980, As Amended 26 U.S.C. 4611 Not Applicable 9.0 SUMMARY COORDINATION, PUBLIC VIEWS, AND COMMENTS 9.1 Scoping Comments and Responses A scoping letter describing the proposed project, dated May 27, 2009, was circulated to resource agencies and the public for review and comment. There were no comments received from the general public. All scoping comments from other agencies were considered during the development of this project. A summary of comments received from stakeholder organizations and resource agencies, along with USACE responses referenced to appropriate sections of this document, is presented in Appendix A. 9.2 Stakeholder Meetings In addition to ongoing communication via phone and e-mail, an agency coordination meeting was held in Manteo, NC on January 10, 2012 with representatives from the following agencies and stakeholders: National Marine Fisheries, NC Division of Marine Fisheries, NC Division of Water Resources, NC Shellfish Sanitation, NC Ferry Division, NCDCM, and The Nature Conservancy. 10.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 10.1 Non - Federal Responsibilities The State of North Carolina, as stated in a letter dated July 15, 2008 (Appendix B), has expressed support of the project with the financial capability to execute a project partnership agreement, and has agreed to accept the role of non - Federal sponsor in event of approval of a final feasibility report. The State of North Carolina has statutory authority under the Federal Water Resources Development Law of 1969 (G.S. 143- 215.38 et. seq.) to make binding commitments to carry out the non - Federal responsibilities related to USACE projects, including making cash contributions to Iffil Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project projects. In order to implement the Selected Alternative, the State of North Carolina, as non - Federal sponsor, would be responsible for the following: 1. Legal provision, without cost to the U.S. Government, of all necessary land, easements, rights -of -way, and access routes necessary for project construction and subsequent operation and maintenance. Land provisions would include: a. construction site to accommodate all oyster restoration habitat improvement features to be constructed, and b. Temporary staging area(s) of acceptable location and acreage for contractor's use during construction period. 2. Cash contribution, provided during the period of implementation, toward cost of the project totaling 35% of project first cost, less value of the non - Federal sponsor's real estate contribution. The amount of cash contribution is currently estimated to be $2,335,150. The State of North Carolina has stated their intent by letter dated July 15, 2008 (Appendix B), to accept the non - Federal sponsor's responsibilities as defined in a Project Partnership Agreement, should a final feasibility report be approved. 3. Funding of 100% of the cost of Annual Operation and Maintenance (O &M) required to keep the project in viable condition to satisfy its design function. This funding would not be provided for initial implementation of the project, but would become a yearly responsibility of the non - Federal sponsor upon completion of the construction phase. O &M costs are estimated to be $18,000 over the life of the project (see section 6.3 for details). 4. Satisfy all provisions of the Project Partnership Agreement (PPA) regarding non - Federal sponsor responsibilities in implementing the project. 10.2 Federal Responsibilities In order to implement the Selected Alternative, the USACE would provide the Federal share of project cost, to equal project first cost less the total non - Federal share, not including Annual Operation and Maintenance expenses. The Federal share of project cost is currently estimated to be $4,423, 028, not including feasibility phase costs. Total Federal expenditures on any one project under Section 204 authority may not exceed a total of $5 million. The additional cost of Federal Feasibility Phase work, currently estimated at $493,000 would be 100% Federally- funded. The USACE would also provide the following: 1. Review and certification of Real Estate provisions. 2. Planning, Engineering, and Design (PED) of the project. 3. Contracting for project construction. 4. Supervision and Administration of project construction. ►! Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 10.3 Work -in -Kind Work -in -Kind is defined as work contributed by the non - Federal sponsor toward implementation of a project, in lieu of payment of a portion of the sponsor's cash contributions toward implementation of the project. In some cases, completed Work-in - Kind may be credited by the USACE to the non - Federal sponsor, resulting in a reduction of their cash contribution on behalf of the project. The NCDMF has expert knowledge of oyster management in the project area with facilities and capability to provide and or place cultch and conduct oyster monitoring. Coordination is underway with the sponsor to determine their interest in providing work in -kind. 10.4 Project partnership Agreement (PPA) Upon approval of a final feasibility report for this Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 project, a project partnership agreement (PPA) would be created. A PPA is a legally binding agreement between the Federal government (in this case, the USACE) and a non - Federal sponsor (in this case, the State of North Carolina) for construction of a water resources project, in this case, the Manteo, Old House Channel, NC - Beneficial Use of Dredged Material for Oyster Reef Restoration Project. The PPA would describe the project and the responsibilities of the USACE and the State of North Carolina in the cost sharing and execution of project work. Sponsor Views The State of North Carolina, as non - Federal sponsor, has expressed support for this project by requesting the USACE, in 2008, to investigate opportunities for oyster restoration in the Pamlico system (See letter from the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, dated July 15, 2008, in Appendix B). The State also enacted new coastal stormwater rules at that time to protect and improve the water quality in the Pamlico system, which, along with its oyster populations, had experienced indicators signaling the potential of continuing decline. The State has also indicated a willingness and financial capability to execute a project partnership agreement (PPA) should this detailed project report be approved. The State's preference among the alternative plans ( "Locally- Preferred Alternative ") is Alternative 16 (3 5 -acre reef complex with stone containment). Since this alternative is also the Federally- Recommended Alternative, it is considered the Recommended Plan. 11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The Tentatively - Selected Plan, Alternative 16, has been determined to be the plan that would provide the greatest ecosystem restoration benefits in the most cost effective manner within the cost constraints of the Section 204 Authority, and is also the plan most desirable to the local sponsor while having minimal adverse environmental impacts. This plan has therefore been selected as the Recommended Plan for implementation, upon approval of a final feasibility report and execution of a PPA. ,.. Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project 12.0 DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The proposed action is not expected to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. If this determination is confirmed through coordination of this EA, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required, and a Finding of No Significant Impact ( FONSI) will be signed prior to the initiation of the proposed action. The signed FONSI will be made available to the public. iK111111NPIIPINPlL1 III D O Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team (ASSRT). 2007. Status Review of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office. February 23, 2007. 174 pp. Angley, Wilson. 1985. An Historical Overview of Oregon Inlet. Report on file at the Research Branch, NC Division of Archives and History, Raleigh, NC. Associate Filtered Press (AFP). 2011. Oysters disappearing worldwide. study (posted February 3, 2011) retrieved February 5, 2011. Website: http:// www. breitbart. com/ article. php? id= CNG.b9l96e3cb8adcl 839123aa8091 ab db30.2dl &show article =1 Cake, E.W. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models. Gulf of Mexico American Oyster. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, Oyster Biology Section, Ocean Springs, MS. Cressman, K.A., Posey, M.H., Mallin, M.A., Leonard, L.A., Alphin, T. 2003. Effects of oyster reefs on water quality in a tidal creek estuary. Journal of Shellfish Research 22:753 -762. Dahl, Thomas E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. http:/ /www. npwrc. usgs. gov/ resource /wetlands /wetloss /index. htm Deaton, A.S., Chappell, W.S., Hart, K., O'Neal, J., Boutin, B. 2010. North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Marine Fisheries, NC. 639 pp. 100 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project dos Santos, L. N., Brotto, D. S., and Zalmon, 1. R. 2010. Fish responses to increasing distance from artificial reefs on the Southeastern Brazilian Coast, Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, Volume 386, Issues 1 -2, 30 April 2010, Pages 54 -60, ISSN 0022 -0981, DOI: 10.1016/j.jembe.2010.01.018. Frankenberg, D. 1995. North Carolina Blue Ribbon Advisory Council on Oysters: Final Report on Studies and Recommendations. Jones, C.G., Lawton, J.H., Shachak, M. 1994. Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69: 373 -386. Kennedy, V.S., Newell, R.I., and Eble, A.F. 1996. Eastern Oyster: Crassostrea virginica. University of Maryland, Sea Grant Program, College Park, MD. Mann, R. 2001. Oyster reefs as fish habitat: Opportunistic use of restored reefs by transient fishes. Journal of Shellfish Research 20:951 -959. Murawski, S. A. and A. L. Pacheco. 1977. Biological and fisheries data on Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus (Mitchill). National Marine Fisheries Service Technical Series Report 10: 1 -69. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon ( Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 104 pages. NCCF (North Carolina Coastal Federation). 2008. DRAFT Oyster Restoration and Protection Plan for North Carolina. A Blueprint for Action. 2nd ed. (2008- 2012). NCCF, Oyster Restoration and Protection Plan Steering Committee. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources — Division of Air Quality. Website: http://www.ncair.org/ NCDMF (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries). Website: httr)-//www.ncfisheries.net/habitat/index.htmI NCDMF. 2001. North Carolina oyster fishery management plan. North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, Department of Environment and Natural Resources. NCDMF. 2008. North Carolina Oyster Fishery Management Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. Website: httr)-//www.ncfisheries.net/rules.htm. 101 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project NCDMF. 2010 Species Stock Status Report. Website: http: / /www. ncf isheries. net /stocks /oyster. htm NCDMF CHPP (Coastal Habitat Protection Plan). Documents and Downloads webpage: http://www.ncfisheries.net/habitat/chpp28.htmi) NCDMF. North Carolina's Oyster Sanctuary Program. Retrieved July 25, 2009, from North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, North Carolina. Website: http://www.ncfisheries.net/shellfish/sanctuaryl.htm. Ortega, S. and J.P. Sutherland. 1992. Recruitment and Growth of the Eastern Oyster, Crassostrea virginica, in North Carolina. Estuaries 15(2): 158 -170. Peterson, C.H., Grabowski, J.H., and Powers, S.P. 2003. Estimated enhancement of fish production resulting from restoring oyster reef habitat: Quantitative valuation. Marine Ecology- Progress Series 264: 249 -264. Peterson, C.H., Grabowski, J.H., Powers, S.P. 2003a. Estimated enhancement of fish production resulting from restoring oyster reef habitat: Quantitative valuation. Marine Ecology- Progress Series 264:249 -264. Posey, M.H., Alphin, T., Powell, C.M., Townsend, E. 1999. Use of oyster reefs as habitat for epibenthic fish and decapods. In: Luckenbach, M.W., Mann, R., and Wesson, J.A. (ed), A synopsis and synthesis of approaches. Virginia Institute of Marine Science Press, Gloucester Point, p 358. Schulte, D. M., Burke, R. P., & Lipcious, R. N. August 28, 2009. Unprecedented Restoration of a Native Oyster Metapopulation. Science, 325(5944), 1124 -1128. Smith, T. I. J. and J. P. Clungston. 1997. Status and management of Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenseroxyrinchus, in North America. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48: 335 -346 Soniat, T.M., Finelli, C.M., Ruiz, J.T. 2004. Vertical structure and predator refuge mediate oyster reef development and community dynamics. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 310:163 -182. Stedman, S.M., and T.E. Dahl. 2008. Coastal Watersheds of the eastern United States: Status and Trends of Wetlands. National Wetland Newsletter by Environmental Law Institute. Street, M.W., Deaton, A., Chappell, W., Mooreside, P. 2005. North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. NC Division of Marine Fisheries. 660 pp. 102 Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc. 1992. Historical and Cartographic Research to Identify and Assess the Potential for Cultural Resources in the Proposed Corridor for a Replacement Bridge on N. C. 12 Across Oregon Inlet, Dare County, North Carolina. Report on file at the Research Branch, NC Division of Archives and History, Raleigh, NC. US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). Website: http://www.cop. noaa.gov/stressors/climatechange/current/slr/habitats. htm I USACE — ERDC (United States Army Corps of Engineers - Engineer Research and Development Center) TN- EMRRP- ER -01. 2003. Henderson, J. and O'Neal, J. Economic Values Associated with Construction of Oyster Reefs by the Corps of Engineers. USACE — ERDC Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Field Data Collection and Analysis Branch. Old House Channel Bathymetric and Sidescan Survey. December 2009. USACE — ERDC TN- DOER -E24. Golder, W., Allen, D., Cameron, S., Wilder, T. August 2008. Dredged Material as a Tool for Management of Tern and Skimmer Nesting Habitats. 103 /_1:2 :2 =1L, II] /:I_1 SCOPING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MANTEO, OLD HOUSE CHANNEL NC SECTION 204 BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL FOR OYSTER REEF RESTORATION PROJECT A scoping letter describing the proposed project, dated May 27, 2009, was circulated to stakeholder organizations, resource agencies and the public for review and comment. There were no comments received from the general public. Following is a summary of comments received from stakeholder organizations and resource agencies, along with USACE responses referenced to appropriate sections of this document. A. NC Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) Contact: Resources Enhancement Section [CONTACT NAMES OMITTED FROM THIS SECTION —AVAILABLE IN DRAFT] (June 24, 2009) 1. The Division feels the idea is certainly worth looking into and formulating a plan. Response. Agreed and in progress. 2. Ensure material is suitable to provide a base. Response. The submerged oyster reefs would be encircled by armor stone sills, stabilizing the dredged materials placed inside and allowing consolidation to a consistency similar to the existing project area sediments. As stated in 7.2.1 "Soft Bottom'; "Dredged materials placed in the project area are expected to be of similar type and quality to that of the project area sediments." The sediments are described in 4.6 as "...fine sand (SP) and fine sand with silt (SP -SM) with composite percent silt content at less than 10 %." The contained sand sediments would be expected to adequately support the oyster cultch layer, a mix of stone and oyster shell placed over the sediments. Placement sites would be located where existing substrate material is suitable (5.3.3 "Step 3'; "4.'). No HTRW issues with sediments are expected, as explained in 7. 11, "Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Wastes'; and any risk of sand quality inappropriate for beneficial use is being minimized through geotechnical sampling (5.2.3 "d.'). 3. A suitable location will need to be permitted by DCM and USACOE, with Public Hearings. Response. Compliance with environmental protection statutes, including NEPA, will require applicable permitting and public review prior to construction, as indicated in 8.0 "Compliance with Environmental Protection Statutes and Executive Orders ". 4. Material will need to be contained (retainer wall or riprap). Response. As described in 6.0 "Recommended Plan'; armor stone sills would initially be constructed around the perimeters of the three 5.07 -acre oyster reef sites, for containment of dredged material to be placed inside. Once filled to design elevation, the dredged material would be covered by a layer of oyster cultch material, a mix of stone and oyster shell. 5. Appropriate location must be chosen. Response. As stated in 2.2 "Study Area Location'; the Study Area Location "...was chosen based on its vicinity to State oyster restoration efforts, and identified dredged material disposal needs from Old House Channel (Range 2)." Impacts to existing oyster reefs, shell banks or bottom, SA V, seagrass areas, hard bottom, archaeological sites, fisheries, navigation, and EFH habitat/HAPC within or near the study area would be avoided and minimized by placement of new construction outside such known areas, as described in 7.5, "Essential Fish Habitat and Fisheries" and 5.2.3 "Planning Constraints ". 6. Overall scope should be considered (start small and document success). Response. Size of the Recommended Plan was determined within the planning objectives as follows. 1. Increase oyster reef areas in the estuary by 5 -20 acres (5.2.2 "Planning Objectives" and 5.1 "Public Concern'), 2. alleviate dredge material disposal strain on bird islands which are becoming oversized, for up to one dredging cycle (5.2.1 "3') ' 3. meet economic limitations of CAP Section 204, $5m Federal share (section 1.0 "Study Authority and Background'). The combined size (15.21 acres) of the 3 proposed reefs of the Recommended Plan provides the largest allowable capacity approaching one dredging cycle, and the most cost - effective alternative, within economic limitations. B. North Carolina Department of Administration Contact: Director, State Environmental Review Clearinghouse (July 13, 2009) 1. Attached to this letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review. Response. Attachments noted and responses made to individual comments herein. C. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) Contact: Northeast Coastal Region Coordinator, Habitat Conservation Program (June 22, 2009) 1. The NCWRC has considered the proposed project and believes the project will have significant benefits to aquatic resources. Response. Comment noted, and concur. 2. We understand an environmental assessment will be circulated that will better identify alternatives, placement of reefs, and construction methods. Response. This document, which includes an environmental assessment of potential effects of the Recommended Plan, clarifies alternatives (5.3), placement of reefs (5.3.3 "Site Selection Screening'), and construction methods (5.3.3, shown for individual alternatives). 3. We request the applicant consider impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation and navigation when compiling this document. Response. As described in 5.3.3 "Site Selection Screening" and 7.2.1 "Aquatic Habitats'; the Recommended Plan would not be located on or in the vicinity of any known SA V beds, and far enough away from beds to significantly reduce or eliminate negative impacts. 5.3.3 "Site Selection Screening" "Step 3" gives requirement for navigation. "Water depth must be sufficient enough to allow 7 ft. navigation clearance above reef top (based on State of NC Policy)." 4. Once details are known and the project progresses, comments including moratorium dates may be provided. Response. Comment noted; awaiting further comments following review of this document. 5. Our office supports the comments and recommendations of the NC Division of Marine Fisheries. Response. Comment noted; NCDMF comments addressed individually. D. North Carolina Division of Environmental Health Contact: PWSS (June 3, 2009) 1. For Regional and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this form. Response. Comment noted; referenced comments addressed individually. Contact: Washington RO, Regional Supervisor for Public Water Supply Section (June 3, 2009) (No comments furnished.) Contact: Regional Program Person (June 12, 2009) 1. Program within Division of Environmental Health: Public Water Supply Response: No objection to project as proposed. See comments below: This project will not likely affect any Public Water Supply system; therefore this office has no objections. Response. Comment noted. E. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Contact: Chief, NEPA Program Office, Office of Policy and Management (June 3, 2009) 1. EPA recommends that the past performance of Parnell and Wells Islands as a habitat should be assessed to help better define whether or not the proposal for additional islands would be successful. This project appears to be a proposal to expand the disposal since they are within the "Survey Limits." Response. Although the existing bird islands in the project vicinity "...maintain a large portion of the colonial shorebird species as primary nesting habitat" (4.2.2 "Bird Islands'), the study of potentially adding bird islands in this area (5.3.1 "Additional Bird Island Creation') falls outside the scope of this study, which was initiated at the request of the State of North Carolina for improvement of oyster habitat in the Pamlico system (see Executive Summary). Construction of bird islands would not address the identified problem, the historic loss of oyster reef habitat in Pamlico Sound. Bird island creation would also require mitigation for the loss of aquatic habitat. Under the study authority, the primary purpose cannot be expansion /creation of disposal areas. the Section 204 CAP authority(1.0 "Study Authority and Background') requires the project's purpose to be to benefit aquatic and related habitats in connection with an authorized navigation project (Range 2 of Old House Channel of the AIWW). 2. Is this dredged material suitable for beach restoration? If so, EPA recommends that this alternative use of the spoil should be considered in the assessment. Response. There is potential that the dredged material would be suitable for beach restoration. Beach placement was included in 5.3.1 "Description of Measures" "2." and in Table 5.10 "Initial Preliminary Screening of Measures /Alternatives "as a potential measure to address the planning objectives. It was screened out from further consideration since it would not address the identified problem, loss of oyster habitat. Other drawbacks would include the 5 -mile pumping distance and national seashore restrictions to placement of disposal materials on Cape Hatteras National Seashore. 3. EPA recommends that there be future efforts in establishing submerged rooted aquatic grassbeds along with the oyster reef. Response. Comment noted. As outlined in 7.5 "Essential Fish Habitat and Fisheries" "SA V and Seagrasses ", known SA V beds would be avoided in siting the oyster reefs, and the sites would be kept far enough away from beds to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to SA V. Once constructed, the reefs would possibly facilitate SA V growth in nearby areas. 4. If the goal is to eventually have a commercial oyster harvest area, there could be a joint government /private oysterman partnership venture. Also, EPA recommends a partnership with the Albemarle - Pamlico NEP be considered. EPA is unsure if the high - relief oysterbeds can be commercially harvested. Response. Comments noted. Potential commercial harvest is not an objective of this study, but rather, the restoration of oyster reef habitat, and attendant ecological benefits, that have been in decline in Pamlico Sound. It is intended that any constructed reef alternatives would be protected in the North Carolina Oyster Sanctuary Program. 5. The figure shows two rectangular areas which do not mimic natural island configurations. EPA recommends a careful design to approximate something that will survive the natural sand movement and hydrological processes within the inlet area. Response. Reef layouts would be positioned and shaped for positive structural stability within the estuarine environment. Armor stone sills would form a continuous hard edge to each reef, to define and anchor their perimeters. Once the reefs are filled, they would be topped with a mixed stone%yster shell cultch layer, which would help ensure retention of the disposal material. 6. What are the current conditions in this area? Could a viable oysterbed be established this close to Oregon Inlet? Response. Although this is a dynamic estuarine environment, there are successful constructed oyster sanctuaries already in existence within 0.6 mile SW (Crab Hole Oyster Sanctuary, 30.5 acres) and 2.3 miles (Croatan Sound Sanctuary, 7.7 acres) of the study area. See 3.2 "Existing Projects ". Given effective siting and configuration of the new reefs within the study area, indications are good that they can be successful. 7. The NMFS' Beaufort Lab has documented submerged grassbeds and is continuing with that monitoring. Response. 8. EPA's NEPA Program Office recommends that the Wilmington District coordinate this project with the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Health, Shellfish Sanitation Section, which is currently monitoring and classifying these coastal waters as to their suitability for shellfish harvesting for human consumption. Response. 9. The Corps should coordinate this work with the North Carolina Recreational Water Quality Program (RWQ), which is also monitoring these coastal waters in order to protect the public health by monitoring and notifying the public when bacteriological standards for safe bodily contact are exceeded. Response. 10. The Wilmington District should also coordinate the project with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and ensure that they have no objections to decreasing the depth of water (which could potentially impact the fish community structure as the bathymetry is decreased). Response. 11. Before work commences, the NEPA Program Office recommends that you contact Gary Collins, EPA Region 4's Ocean Disposal Coordinator for North Carolina waters. Response. Comment noted, and Mr. Collins will be contacted. F. North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Contact: SEPA Coordinator, Basinwide Planning Unit and SEPA Program (June 29, 2009) 1. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has reviewed the subject project and is concerned about the possible contaminated sediments that will be dredged and relocated to establish oyster reefs. We encourage project proponents not to harvest the established oyster beds for human consumption until it can be determined that the oysters are not contaminated from the dredge material. Response. G. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Contact: Program Representative (June 25, 2009) The Natural Heritage Program supports this project proposal, with the understanding that both Wells and Parnell islands will continue to receive dredged material, as needed, for the benefit of the colonial nesting bird colonies that are present on both islands. The scoping letter does indeed state this, and thus it is our anticipation and assumption that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will continue to coordinate the timing and amount of dredge material deposited on the islands with the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission. Response. Comment noted. USA CE will continue to coordinate disposal of dredged material on Wells and Parnell Islands with the NCWRC. H. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office Contact: SHPO 1. (June 18, 2009) There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological resources. Our underwater research files have references to extensive maritime activities and shipwreck losses in the general project vicinity; therefore, much of the project area holds a high potential for containing submerged cultural resources. We recommend that your office maintain close consultation with our Underwater Archaeology Branch during the initial acoustic survey of the overall sixteen square mile project area. Based on the results of that survey and the final selection of specific reef sites, we may recommend additional remote sensing surveys. Those additional surveys should include the use of a marine magnetometer in order to determine if the reef sites contain submerged cultural resources that may be impacted by project construction. Response. Comments noted. See comment 2 following. 2. (September 8, 2011) We have received the survey report for the above project conducted by the USACE Field Research Facility in Duck, NC, and believe it adequately addresses our concerns for historic resources. Based on the information provided, we believe the project is unlikely to affect any significant submerged resources. We therefore recommend no further remote sensing or archaeological work be conducted for this project as proposed. Response. Comment noted. I. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Contact: Planning Specialist (May 29, 2009) 1. The Natural Resources Conservation Service does not have any comments at this time. Response. Comment noted. J. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Contact: Regional Office Representative (June 17, 2009) The Service recommends that project planning consider the proposed oyster reef creation as an "experiment" in habitat creation. While your letter notes that a successful oyster sanctuary has been created at the nearby Crab Hole, there is no certainty that efforts along Old House Channel will have similar success. The dredged material placed on estuarine bottoms may be moved by currents. In order to determine the success of this effort, a significant part of the project should be an applied research monitoring program. Monitoring should be done by an objective third party, such as a university, and findings should be published, preferably in the peer reviewed literature. Response. The Manteo 204 study would lead to a one time project, and does not necessarily establish a new policy for dredged material use. Monitoring of the project post- construction will be undertaken (Section 6.3). 2. Sediment placement should not occur in or near areas with submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). Area [sic] with a high probably [sic] of being colonized by SAV should also not be used as disposal sites. Response. A side -scan sonar survey was conducted of the study area, in part to identify and avoid SAV habitat. Michael F. Easley, Governor Colonel John Pulliam District Engineer Wilmington District, USACOE Post Office Box 1890 Raleigh, North Carolina 28402 Dear Colonel Pulliam, July 15, 2008 Routed: 23 July 2008 Action: TS Suspense: 6 August 08 CF: DE,DD, DP, DX, OC, PM William G. Ross Jr., Secretary Thomas A. Reeder, Director I am writing to request a study under the Continuing Authorities Program, Section 204, entitled Beneficial Use of Dredge Material ('Oyster Restoration) for Old I-Iouse Channel, Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay, North Carolina. The State of'North Carolina is willing and has the financial capability to execute a project partner agreement should the project report be approved. We appreciate the assistance of the Wilmington District in the implementation of this important project for the State of North Carolina. Cc: John Sutherland, Darren England'. Jeff Bruton 1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1611 Phone: 919 - 733 -40641 FAX: 919 - 733 -3558 \ Internet: www.ncwater.org An Equal Opportunity] Affirmative Action Employer -50 % Recycled 1.0 Post Consumer Paper NorthCarolina Aaturalltf APPENDIX C DESIGN & ENGINEERING Study Authority. This study is authorized under Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, as amended. Study Description. This appendix presents the results of the engineering evaluations supporting studies aimed at creating a man -made submerged oyster reef habitat. The study involved evaluation of the feasibility of creating submerged oyster reef habitat using dredged material and alternatives to contain Figure 1. Map of Project Location Project Description Location. The proposed project site is located in Pamlico Sound approximately 5 miles southwest of Oregon Inlet in Dare County, North Carolina, as shown in figure 1. The site is also approximately 1.7 miles west of the Manteo Old House Range 2 federal navigation channel. Description. The proposed project involves the construction of a submerged oyster reef habitat using dredged material from maintenance of the Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay project. This action is considered a beneficial use of dredged material. A containment structure will be constructed to contain the dredged material. The dredged material will be capped with Class A stone (2 " -6 ") and oyster shell to provide habitat for establishment of oysters. Tide Data. The closest tide gage to the project site is at the Oregon Inlet Marina just north of the Oregon Inlet Bridge. Provided below is pertinent tide data for the area. Mean Higher -High Water (MHHW): 0.59 feet MSL Mean High Water (MHW): 0.44 feet MSL Mean Low Water (MLW): -0.45 feet MSL Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW): -0.58 feet MSL Being inside the inlet, the regular astronomical tide is sufficiently dampened to a mean tide range of 0.89 feet. The project site is located about 5 miles from the inlet, so the regular mean tide range is even less, at about 0.70 feet based on the NOAA tide predictions. Due to the width and long fetch lengths and relatively shallow water in Pamlico Sound, the wind has a greater impact on tide levels than normal tide cycles. Depending on the wind direction, the tides can be considerably higher than normal or considerably lower. Project Design Alternatives. Several containment structure alternatives were evaluated to determine the best project design. The containment structure would be constructed in an area located approximately 1.7 miles from Old House Channel where the bottom elevation is at about -14' MLLW. Construction Type 1: Sheetpile Wall and stone sill structure. This alternative would involve creation of oyster habit by using a composite sheetpile wall to contain the dredged material. For this alternative various containment area sizes for single and multiple sites were evaluated as discussed in section 5.3.3 of the main report. The outside perimeter of the sheetpile wall would be protected with NCDOT Class 2 armor stone (9 " -23 "). Bedding stone for the armor stone would be NCDOT Class B stone (5 " -12 "). Dredged material from maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel would be pumped by hydraulic pipeline dredge into the containment area. The dredged material would be covered with NCDOT Class A stone (2 " -6 ") and oyster shell to provide habitat for establishment of oysters. A typical cross section is shown in Figure 2. TYPICAL WATER ELEV. EL. 0' 5' 10' 70` CLEARANCE V MIN ARMOR STONE NCDOT CLASS 2 f9 " -23 "1 ARMOR LAYER 2' TH I CI( %�2Dri 1 V EL. —10' CAP W/ CLASS A 6•$ R[PRAP 8 OYSTER SHELL ---------------- EL. —la' 1' CONFINED DREDGED CORE STONE LAYER 8' DISPOSAL NCO Or CLASS B I5 " -12 "1 EXISTING BOTTOM SHEETP]LE TYPICAL SHEETPILE NOT TO SCALE 8 STONE SECTION Figure 2. Typical cross section of sheetpile wall & stone sill containment structure Construction Type 2: Stone sill containment structure. This alternative would involve creation of oyster habitat by using NCDOT Class 2 armor stone (9 " -23 ") to contain the dredged material. For this alternative various containment area sizes for single and multiple sites were evaluated as discussed in section 5.3.3 of the main report. The core portion of the containment structure would be constructed of NCDOT Class B Stone (5 " -12 "). Dredged material from maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel would be pumped by hydraulic pipeline dredge into the containment area. The dredged material would be covered with NCDOT Class A stone and oyster shell to provide habitat for establishment of oysters. A typical cross section is shown in Figure 3. TYPICAL WATER ELEV. EL. 0' 70' CLEARANCE 7' 5' 5' A 4.5' 12.5 6' ARMOR LAYER 1' 20HCtV - 2'TN]CK SILL CREST EL. -10' CAP WI CLASS A � 5 5, RIPRAP 6 OYSTER 15 SHELL { D' 1 EL. -19' A - - - ° -- -- - -• -------- ----- ' -- --------------------- 27 CONFINED DREDGED EXISTING ARMOR STONE CORE STONE LAYER DISPOSAL BOTTOM NCO07 CLASS 2 f9 " -23 "} NCOOT CLASS B (5 " -12 ") NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL 4' STONE SILL SECTION Figure 3. Typical cross section of stone sill containment structure For Construction Types 1 and 2 various containment area sizes for single and multiple sites were evaluated as discussed in section 5.3.3 of the main report. The largest containment structure plan was sized to contain one maintenance dredging cycle from Old House Channel Range 2. The maintenance dredging cycle volume is based on the average pay quantity (209,000 cubic yards) removed from Old House Channel Range 2 for the three most recent dredging contracts. It was assumed that during dredging of Old House Channel Range 2 there would be 15% losses with only 177,650 cubic yards of the 209,000 cubic yards removed from the channel ending up in the containment area. The 15% losses are based on average losses observed on previous dredging projects for channel dredging with beach disposal. Therefore the largest containment area of 18.6 acres was sized to contain approximately 178,000 cubic yards of dredged material. In addition to the 18.6 acre site, the array of alternatives evaluated in the main report included one 15.06 acre site, one 9.7 acre site, two 9.7 acre sites, one 5.07 acre sites, two 5.07 acre sites, three 5.07 acre sites, and four 5.07 acre sites. If the quantity of the maintenance dredging material exceeds the capacity of the containment area(s) the additional dredged material would be pumped to nearby existing disposal islands. Alternative Evaluations. Construction Type 1. This alternative uses composite sheetpile driven into the bottom. There are some constructability concerns with this alternative. Constructability concerns include working from a barge in an open water location subject to wind and waves which may impact alignment and driving of sheetpile. Safety would also be a concern as it may be necessary to use divers during installation of sheetpile, the final top elevations of which would be submerged. Construction Type 2. Stone placement is expected to be by barge mounted crane. There are no constructability issues of concern for this alternative. Selected Alternative. Based on evaluation of costs, benefits, effectiveness and constructability of the alternatives, the Construction Type 2 stone sill containment structure plan with three 5.07 acre sites is the selected plan. Armor Stone. Armor stone will be granite. The size of the armor stone for the containment structure was based on a design wave generated at the site using a predicted wind speed for a 50 -yr recurrence storm event. The design wave was calculated using the "Wind Adjustment and Wave Growth Option" available in the CEDAS -ACES computer program suite. The design wave conditions were governed by the wind acting over the long -axis of the Pamlico Sound extending generally southwest of the project site. The result of the analysis was a design wave with a height and period of 6.0 ft and 6.0 sec, respectively. The stone size was subsequently calculated using the Van der Meer Stability formula for a 2- layer submerged breakwater, as contained in the Coastal Engineering Manual (CEM). The stone size was evaluated assuming a minimum clearance of 7 -ft over the mound, and water depths of 12 -14 ft. This resulted in a design stone weight, W50, equal to 154 lbs. A standard NCDOT Class 2 stone gradation slightly exceeds this median weight and was selected for the submerged stone sill design. The NCDOT Class 2 stone gradation (9 " -23 ") has a median size of 14" and a median weight of 172 Ibs (assuming a granite stone having a unit weight of 165 Ibs /cf). Table X lists the pertinent design information for the submerged stone sill. Table X. Armor Stone Design Results for Submerged Stone Sill Design Wave Height (ft) Design Wave Period (s) Stone Unit Weight (lb /cf) Design Stone Weight, W50 (lb) Recommended Stone W50 (lb) Class 2) 6.0 6.0 165 154 172 (NCDOT Armor Layer Thickness (ft) 2.0 Core Stone. The core stone for the stone sill will be NCDOT Class B stone. Core stone will be limestone. The NCDOT Class B gradation (5-12 ") has a median size of 8" and a median weight of 22 Ibs (assuming a limestone stone having a unit weight of 115 Ibs /cf). Oyster Reef Habitat construction. The oyster reef habitat will be created within the containment structure using material from maintenance dredging of Manteo Old House Channel Range 2. The interior of the containment areas will be filled with dredged material to a maximum top elevation at -7.5' MLLW with the perimeter sloped toward the containment structure. It is assumed the material will lay out at a 20H:1 V slope. This assumption is based on slopes observed following beach disposal of similar type dredged material. The dredged material will be capped with NCDOT Class A stone (2 " -6 ") and oyster shell to provide habitat for establishment of oysters. The Class A stone will be granite. Two 90' wide strips which extend from side to side and bisect the containment structure will be left bare of NCDOT Class A stone and oyster shell. Construction Sequence. The containment structure will be constructed before the dredged material is placed. The core stone will be placed first followed by the protective armor layer. The dredged material will be placed on the inside of the containment structure. It is anticipated that the dredged material will be excavated and pumped into the containment area using a hydraulic pipeline dredge. The dredging contractor will be required to submerge the end of the discharge pipe to minimize turbidity. The Class A riprap and oyster shell will be placed on top of the dredged material. Maintenance. Once the project is constructed, there will be a cost associated with maintenance of the project. The expected life of the project will be 50 years. BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 MANTEO, NORTH CAROLINA OYSTER REEF RESTORATION PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY COST ENGINEERING APPENDIX Contents SECTION 1. GENERAL 1.1 Guidance ............................................................ ............................... 3 1.2 Computer Aided Software ...................................... ............................... 3 SECTION 2. THE COST ESTIMATE REPORT 2.1 Report Description ................................................. ............................... 3 2.2 Estimate Qualifications .............................................. ............................... 4 2.3 Quantities .............................................................. ............................... 5 2.4 Estimate Assumptions ............................................... ............................... 6 SECTION 3. CODE OF ACCOUNTS 3.1 Current Working Estimate ...................................... ............................... 6 3.2 Code of Account 01: Lands and Damages ....................... ............................... 6 3.3 Code of Account 06: Fish & Wildlife Facilities ................ ............................... 6 3.4 Code of Account 30: Planning, Engineering, and Design ..... ............................... 6 3.5 Code of Account 31: Construction Management ................ ............................... 7 SECTION 4. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ................ ............................... 8 SECTION 5. TOTAL PROJECT COST ...................... ............................... 10 SECTION 6. TSP DETAIL ESTIMATE .......................... ............................... 13 SECTION 7. COST RISK ANALYSIS .......................... ............................... 18 SECTION 8. LABOR RATES ..................................... ............................... 28 SECTION 1. GENERAL 1.1 Guidance 1. ER 1110 -2 -1302, CIVIL WORKS COST ENGINEERING 2. ER 1110 -2 -1150, ENGINEERING AND DESIGN FOR CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS 3. ETL 1110 -2 -573, CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATING GUIDE FOR CIVIL WORKS 4. ECB 2007 -17, APPLICATION OF COST RISK ANALYSIS TO DEVELOP CONTINGENCIES FOR CIVIL WORKS TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 1.2 Computer Aided Software 1. Micro- Computer Aided cost Estimating System (MCACES), Second Generation (MII). MII 4.1 2. Abbreviated Risk Analysis Spreadsheet maintained by USACE Cost Center of Expertise, Walla Walla, WA. SECTION 2. THE COST ESTIMATE REPORT 2.1 Report Description This report is tentative in nature and is intended to be used for planning purposes only. The estimate reflects the very early stages and concepts of design. This civil works project includes the creation of man -made submerged oyster reefs in Manteo Bay, North Carolina. The site is located approximately 5 miles southwest of Oregon Inlet in the Pamlico Sound in Dare County, North Carolina. The location is approximately 1.7 miles west of the Manteo Old House Range 2 federal navigation channel. Construction measures primarily include the construction of stone sill filled with dredged material and layered with limestone and oyster cultch. Various alternatives were evaluated to determine the best product. All alternatives involved the construction of a containment structure for dredged materials. Different types of construction were considered in determining the selected plan. The first construction type included the installation of composite sheetpile wall and stone sill structure. The sheetpile wall would outline the outside perimeter of the containment structure(s) and would be protected with NCDOT Class 2 granite armor stone (9 " -23 "). NCDOT Class B stone would be used for bedding stone. Dredged material would be hydraulically pumped via pipeline dredge into the containment area. The dredged material would then be covered with NCDOT Class A stone (2" — 6 ") topped with oyster shell. The second construction type considered was a stone sill containment structure. This alternative creates an oyster habitat by using NCDOT Class 2 granite armor stone (9 " -23 ") to contain the dredged material. The core of the containment structure would be constructed of NCDOT Class B Stone (5 " -12 "). Dredged material would be hydraulically pumped via pipeline dredge into the containment area and covered with NCDOT Class A stone (2 " -6 ") and then topped with oyster shell. The Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) was chosen based on economic factors indicating the greatest effectiveness. The Cost Estimate supporting the TSP is prepared using the MCACES, Second Generation (MII 4.1). • MCACES references the ME English Cost Book 2010 as the source library for all construction based activities unless otherwise adjusted by the user. • Equipment cost is referenced through the MII Equipment Region III — 2009 based on the EP 1110 -1 -8, Construction Equipment and Operation Expense Schedule 2009 version. • MCACES Labor Defaults to Labor National — Seattle 2009. This data has been adjusted by the User to reflect region and North Carolina labor rates as illustrated in the Department of Labor Wage Rates with a reasonable markup for payroll taxes, insurance, fringes and burdens. DOL Wage Rates are referenced in Section 8. Based on economic evaluation, stone sill construction was the type of construction method chosen for the TSP. The TSP will construct three 5.07 acre sites with a stone sill containment structure. Each of the sites will create an oyster habitat by using NCDOT Class 2 granite armor stone to contain the dredged material. The core of the stone sill will be constructed of NCDOT Class B limestone. The dredged material will be pumped into the containment area and then topped with NCCDOT Class A limestone followed by oyster shell. The Current Working Estimate (CWE) for Construction of the TSP is $5,554,017. These costs have been established to be the Baseline Cost Estimate for August 2012 price levels. 2.2 Estimate Qualifications • The project construction cost estimate is prepared as though the Government were a prudent and well- equipped contractor estimating the proposed measures based on the current feasibility level design. The estimates are developed in as much detail as can be assumed based on the best information available at this time. • The estimate adheres to the civil works work breakdown structure and was internally verified for quality control addressing cost, schedule and risk issues as practical. The estimate was developed based on a limited scope of work. Record of assumptions, construction methods, concerns, and unknowns are maintained within the Mll estimate for each construction task. • Parametric estimating techniques were used to develop the estimate. They are based on engineering parameters, historical information, practical construction practices and engineering principles. Project definition characteristics to include physical properties of the project site, functional purpose of the project and methods of construction were considered when developing the estimate. • The estimated time to construct the project was developed based on the production rates of the largest and most significant features of the project. The project construction schedule was developed using Microsoft Project to substantiate the construction duration assumptions. Often a disconnect with probable durations was noticed when compared to Mll durations that don't normally account for multiple crews working jointly. MII durations assume one crew completing a specific construction task, which can lead to large, unrealistic durations. Therefore, the construction schedule shows a realistic duration to reflect the work of a suitable number of crews. The structure of the cost estimate is planned so that all tasks are logical and are in accordance with appropriate plan of construction and good understanding of the project scope. A unit cost for each task is developed in an effort to increase the accuracy of the estimate and includes consideration given to site specific conditions as they pertain to constructability, biddability, and operability issues. Lump sum unit cost and unit pricing is used only to report items with limited or no design specified. The assumptions for these allowances are documented in the estimates and are based on experience and consultation with project teammates. As design scope evolves, it is anticipated that these lump sum costs will be better defined. The district developed a baseline cost estimate within which the project can be designed and constructed. An Mll estimate was prepared with careful analysis of contingencies appropriate for each feature. The proposed project features are comprised largely of rock placement and oyster placement. To compute accurate stone quantities, the district obtained recent contour data from topographic mapping at two -foot intervals from the proposed project location. • The estimated costs developed for this project are fair and reasonable to a well- equipped and competent contractor and include overhead costs and profit. Actual crew sizes, equipment and production rates that contractors have achieved previously on similar types of projects were implied in developing the unit costs for the work items contained in this project. • Unit prices for construction features and lump sum costs for structures were developed using parametric estimated from the MII Costbook database and drew from expertise maintained within the Wilmington District. 2.3 Quantities 4 Ft Stone Sill Typical cross section area for Class B Stone = 48.5 sq ft Typical cross section area for Class 2 Stone = 17.5 sq ft Area Area Perimeter Volume (Sq Ft) (Acres) (Ft) (tons) Bushels One 900'x900' (18.60 Acres) Site Containment capacity = 178,600 cy Class B Stone 48.5 3,684 7,705.3 Class 2 Armor Stone 17.5 3,674 3,713.0 Surface Area of Class B and Class 2 Stone 77,364 1.78 Class A Riprap 656,100 15.06 21,651 Oyster Shell Cultch (500 bushels /acre) 7,530 Total bottom footprint 20.37 Reef Service Area 1,612,900 37.03 One 810'x810' (15.06 Acres) Site Containment capacity = 143,290 cy Class B Stone 48.5 3,324 6,952.4 Class 2 Armor Stone 17.5 3,314 3,349.2 Surface Area of Class B and Class 2 Stone 69,804 1.60 Class A Riprap 518,400 11.90 17,107 Oyster Shell Cultch (500 bushels /acre) 5,950 Total bottom footprint 16.66 Reef Service Area 1,392,400 31.97 One 650'x650'(9.70 Acre) Site Containment capacity = 90,100 cy Class B Stone 48.5 2,684 5,613.8 Class 2 Armor Stone 17.5 2,674 2,702.4 Surface Area of Class B and Class 2 Stone 56,364 1.29 Class A Riprap 313,600 7.20 10,349 Oyster Shell Cultch (500 bushels /acre) 3,600 Total bottom footprint 10.99 Reef Service Area 1,040,400 23.88 One 470'x470'(5.07 Acres) Site Containment capacity = 45,000 cy Class B Stone 48.5 1,964 4,107.8 Class 2 Armor Stone 17.5 1,954 1,974.8 Surface Area of Class B and Class 2 Stone 41,244 0.95 Class A Riprap 144,400 3.31 4,765 Oyster Shell Cultch (500 bushels /acre) 1,660 Total bottom footprint 6.02 Reef Service Area 705,600 16.20 2.4 Estimate Assumptions • Bid Items and Tasks are based on the English 2010 Mll Costbook. • Fuel rates are set at $3.15 for unleaded gasoline, $3.19 for Off -Road diesel, and $3.60 for on -road diesel. • Prime Contractor's job office overhead is set at 18 %; home office overhead is set at 12 %, profit is set at 12 %. • Job office overhead is not included for subcontractors as it is assumed temporary job office facilities are not needed by subcontractors for this job. • It is anticipated that the prime contractor will be a marine construction contractor. The following is a list of anticipated subcontractors used for the estimate: Hauling subcontractor, Stone Subcontractor and Oyster Subcontractor. • Construction Staging Area has been identified for the project. The state of North Carolina owns property at Wanchese Seafood Industrial Park in Dare County and has offered this site as a construction staging area for a 12 month duration. • Preconstruction submittals and project closeout administration is anticipated to be included with the contractors HOOH. It is not detailed out in the construction estimate. • It is not anticipated that a USACE field office will be required; therefore, no costs are included in the estimate for such. • Construction Duration was estimated at 226 work days — roughly 9 months, however additional time may be added for preconstruction submittals and closeout procedures as design develops. SECTION 3. CODE OF ACCOUNTS 3.1 Current Working Estimate (CWE) The detailed CWE's are shown in the attached MCACES (Microcomputer Aided Cost Engineering System) files. The estimates are formatted into a Code of Accounts framework in compliance with Civil Works Breakdown Structure. The costs included under each Code of Accounts are described below. 3.2 Account 01: Lands and Damages The estimated costs were furnished by the Real Estate Division, Savannah District and are discussed in the Real Estate Appendix. The estimated real estate costs include the land cost for acquisition of land, relocation costs, and federal and non - federal administrative costs. Administrative costs are those costs incurred for verifying ownership of lands, certification of those lands required for project purposes, legal opinion, analysis or other requirements that may be necessary during Planning, Engineering and Design (PED). A 25% contingency is applied to the estimated costs for these items, separate of the analysis for construction contingencies. 3.3 Account 06: Fish and Wildlife Facilities The tentatively selected plan consists of the creation of oyster habitat by constructing a stone sill made of NCDOT Class 2 armor stone to create three -5.07 acre containment areas for dredged material. The three areas would contain the dredged materials and constructed within close proximity of each other. The core of each stone sill will be constructed of NCDOT Class B Stone. The Dredged material to fill the area will come from maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel. The dredged material would then be covered by NCDOT Class A stone followed by oyster shell to provide a habitat for the establishment of oysters. A contingency of 19.9% was established for this account by the Abbreviated Cost Risk Analysis. 3.4 Account 30: Planning, Engineering, and Design The costs included in this account were furnished by those responsible for performing each activity during PED> This account includes plans, specifications, cost estimates, field investigations, surveys, engineering during construction, environmental/physical monitoring, and project management. A contingency of 12.4% was established for this account by the Abbreviated Cost Risk Analysis. 3.5 Account 31: Construction Management This account includes supervision and administration of the contracts by construction management and includes hydrologic surveys during construction and necessary contracting personnel during construction. A contingency of 10% was established for this account by the Abbreviated Cost Risk Analysis. SECTION 4. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL Sectim 204 of the Water Resowees De elopmmt Act of 1992 MANFE O, NORTH CAROLINA; NTP - -- - - - -- 1 day Thu5f9113 Thu 5t9113 - -- Reconstruction Submittals 30 days Fri6flU3 Thu 6!20113 2 - Mobilization 5days Fri 5!21!13 Thu 5!27!13 3 Set -up Temporary RemplLoedlr> 1 Jaye Fri 6!28!13 TuB 7124 ._... .. ..,..... p� Place ClassB Stone , .. 45 days We 713113 .............. Tue 9!3113 �5 g Place ClassAStone . ..,.. ... . . .50 days We 914113 Tue 11/12/13 6 -- Prime Contractor- Demob 3 days Wed 11!13113 Fri 11115!13 1 Oq _ .... ..................... .. San d Placement 30 days Mon 11/18/13 Fri 12/27/13 8 Prime Contractor Remote 3 days Mon 12/30/13 Wed V1114 9 Place Clese2 Slone 30 Jaye Thu 1!2!14 Wed 2!12114 10 Place Ojster Cultch 20 days Thu N13f14 ?Ned 3!12114 11 p� Remove Temporary Loading 1 day Thu 3113114 Thu 3113114 12 Closeout Submittals 5 days Fri 3114114- Thu 3120114 13 Demobilization .............................I Idays Fri 3111114 Thu 3121114 13 Project Complete - - 0 days Thu 3R0l14 Thu 312U4 15.11 Midpoint o(Construction 1 day? Mon 10/14/13 Mon 10/14/13 Project. OYSTER REEF RESTORATIO Task Progress Summary ^ External Tasks Deadline Date_ Wed 9128!11 SPlit Milestone Project Summary 111POOMMOMW External Milestone OYSTER REEF RESTORATION PROJECT Page BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL Section 204 of the Wateir Resowces Development Act of 1992 MANIEO, NORTH CAROLINA; 2 C,c' NTP 3 ...................ithl � Precons[ruction Suhmetele 4 ✓ Mobilization 5 Set -up Temporary RamplLoadi 6 Place Class 5 Stone 7 Place ClacsA Stone ... "." 8 .,,.i Prime Contractor -Demob 9 - �� Sand Placement 10 - Prime Contrscto r Remob 11 Place Claes2 Slone Place Oyster Wtch 11 Remove Temporary Cc ad7i 14 [,�� Closeout SubmAtals 15 Lb Demobilization 16 4G,j Project Complete 17 �,. Midpoint of Conslructio n . 3R0 Project: OYSTER REEF RESTORATIOJ Task Pro go— � Summary � Ele rnal Tasks � Deadline Dete. Wed 128f1 So it Milestone Project Summary 9000000MV Exlernal Milestone OYSTER REEF RE STORATION PROJE CF Paget SECTION 5. TOTAL PROJECT COST WALLA WALLA COST ENGINEERING MANDATORY CENTER OF EXPERTISE COST AGENCY TECHNICAL REVIEW CERTIFICATION STATEMENT For SAW - MANTEO 204 ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION — OYSTER REEF CREATION The Manteo Ecosystem Restoration project, as presented by Wilmington District, has undergone a successful Cost Agency Technical Review (Cost ATR), performed by the Walla Walla District Cost Engineering Mandatory Center of Expertise (Cost MCX) team. The Cost ATR included study of the project scope, report, cost estimates, schedules, escalation, and risk -based contingencies. This certification signifies the products meet the quality standards as prescribed in ER 1110 -2 -1160 Engineering and Design for Civil Works Projects and ER 1110 -2 -1302 Civil Works Cost Engineering. As of August 10, 2012, the Cost MCX certifies the estimated total project cost of: FY 2013 Price Level: $6,669,000 Fully Funded Amount: $7,217,000 including Feasibility costs It remains the responsibility of the District to correctly reflect these cost values within the Final Report and to implement effective project management controls and implementation procedures including risk management throughout the life of the project. ,e--Gie n R. atlock, CE Chief, Cost Engineering Walla Walla District US Army Corps of Engineers )4" Date (rte% �� Z6212-- 7 " ' TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY '— PROJECT Manteo 204 - Ecosytem Restoration - Oyster Reef Creation LOCATION: Manteo Harbor, NC This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule in report, Printed:811 0120 1 2 Page 1 of 2 DISTRICT: SAW Wilmington Districl PREPARED: 8122012 POC: CHIEF, COST ENGINEERING, Lee Danley Mandatory by Regulation CHIEF, COST ENGINEERING, Lee Danley Mandatory by Regulation PROJECT MANAGER, Jason Glazener Mandatary by Regulation CHIEF, REAL ESTATE. Bellrida Estabrook CHIEF, PLANNING, Elden Gatwood CHIEF, ENGINEERING, Greg Wiilums CHIEF, OPERATIONS, Bob Sattin CHIEF, CONSTRUCTION, Dennis Lynch CHIEF, CONTRACTING, John Mayo CHIEF, PM -PB, James Medlock CHIEF, DPM, Christine Brayman Filename- Marrleo TPCS 2012 8 08.xlsx TPCS ESTIMATED FEDERAL COST: 65% $4,396 ESTIMATED NON - FEDERAL COST: 35% $2,367 FEDERAL FEASIBILITY CAP COSTS: 100% $453 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST: $7,217 O &M OUTSIDE OF TOTAL PROJECT COST: WBS Structure ESTIMATED COST PROJECT FIRST COST Dollar Basis} [Constant TOTAL PROJECT COST [FULLY FUNDED] Program Year (Budget EC) 2013 Effeclive Price Level Date 1 OCT 12 Spent Thru: WBS Civil Works COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL ESC COST CNTG TOTAL 2B- Jun -12 COST CNTG FULL NUMBER Feature & Sut�Feature Description ($Kl ($K) _ f %) (SK) ,[au] (SK) ($K) ($K) (SKI ($Kj_ f$K} ($K) A B C D E F G H I J H L M N O 06 FISH & WILDLIFE FACILITIES $4,948 $984 20% $5,932 0.9% $4,992 $992 $5,985 $5,071 $1,008 $6,079 CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: $4,948 $9B4 $5,932 0.9% $4,992 5992 $5,985 $5,071 $1,006 $5,079 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES $36 $9 25% $45 0.9% $35 $9 $45 $36 $9 $45 22 FEASIBILITY STUDY [CAP studies] 5453 $453 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN $322 $40 12% $362 0.7% $324 $40 $365 $324 $40 $365 31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $248 $25 10% $273 0.7% $250 $25 $275 $250 $25 $275 PROJECTCOSTTOTALS: $5,554 $1,057 19% $6,611 $5,603 $1,06-1 $5,869 $5,581 $1,082 $7,217 $453 Mandatory by Regulation CHIEF, COST ENGINEERING, Lee Danley Mandatory by Regulation PROJECT MANAGER, Jason Glazener Mandatary by Regulation CHIEF, REAL ESTATE. Bellrida Estabrook CHIEF, PLANNING, Elden Gatwood CHIEF, ENGINEERING, Greg Wiilums CHIEF, OPERATIONS, Bob Sattin CHIEF, CONSTRUCTION, Dennis Lynch CHIEF, CONTRACTING, John Mayo CHIEF, PM -PB, James Medlock CHIEF, DPM, Christine Brayman Filename- Marrleo TPCS 2012 8 08.xlsx TPCS ESTIMATED FEDERAL COST: 65% $4,396 ESTIMATED NON - FEDERAL COST: 35% $2,367 FEDERAL FEASIBILITY CAP COSTS: 100% $453 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST: $7,217 O &M OUTSIDE OF TOTAL PROJECT COST: TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY "" Pdnted:811 012 01 2 Page 2 of 2 .. *' CONTRACT COST SUMMARY'­ PROJECT Manteo 204 - Eeasytem Restoration - Oyster Reef Creation DISTRICT: SAW Wilmington District PREPARED: 8/2/2012 LOCATION: Manteo Harbor, NC POC: CHIEF, COST ENGINEERING, Lee Hanley This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule in reporl: Filename: Manteo TPCS 2012_e_08.xlsx TPCS WBS Structure ESTIMATED COST PROJECT FIRST COST Dollar Basis) (Constant TOTAL PROJECT COST (FULLY FUNDED) Estimate Prepared: 28- Jun -12 Program Year (Budget EC): 2013 Effective Price Level: 28- Jun -12 Effective Price Level Date: 1 OCT 12 RISK BASED WBS Civil Works COST CNTG CNTG TOTAL ESC COST CNTG TOTAL Mid -Point INFLATED COST CNTG FULL NUMBER Feature && Sut�Feature Descriotion _($K) ($K) _t%) ($K) (W ($K) (W i$K1 Date I %1 ($K) ($K) ($K) 'a a C D E F G k 1 J P, L M N ❑ PHASE 1or CONTRACT 1 06 FISH & WILDLIFE FACILITIES $4,948 $984 20% $5,932 0.9% $4,992 $992 $5,985 201441 1.6 1/6 $5,071 $1,008 $6,079 CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: $4,948 $984 20% $5,832 $4,992 $992 $5,985 $5,071 $1,008 $6,079 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES $36 $9 25% $45 0.9% $36 $9 $45 201302 0.3% $36 $9 $45; 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN 0.5% Project Management $25 $3 12% $28 0.7% $25 $3 $28 201301 $25 $3 $28 0.5% Planning & Environmental Compliance $25 $3 12% $28 0.7% $25 $3 $28 201301 $25 $3 $28 2.0% Engineering & Design $99 $12 12% $111 0,7% $100 $12 $112 201301 $100 $12 $112 1.0% Engineering Tech Review ITR & VE $49 $6 12% $55 0.7% $49 $6 $55 201301 $49 $6 $55 0.5% Contracting & Reprographics $25 $3 12% $28 0.7% $25 $3 $26 201301 $25 $3 $28 1.0% Engineering [luring Construction $49 $6 12% $55 01% $49 $6 $55 201301 $49 $6 $55 0.5% Planning During Construction $25 $3 12% $28 0.7% $25 $3 $28 201341 $25 $3 $28 0,5% Project Operations $25 $3 12% $28 0.7% $25 $3 $28 201301 $25 $3 $28 31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 4.0% Construction Management $198 $20 10% $218 0,7% $199 $20 $219 201341 $199 $20 $219 0.5% Project Operation: $25 $3 10% $28 0.7% $25 $3 $28 201301 $25 $3 $28 0.5% Project Management $25 $3 10% $28 0,7% $25 $3 $28 201301 $25 $3 $28 CONTRACT COST TOTALS: $5,681 $1,082 $6,764 $5,554 $1,057 $6,611 $5,603 $1,067 $6,669 Filename: Manteo TPCS 2012_e_08.xlsx TPCS SECTION 6. TSP DETAIL ESTIMATE Print Date Wed 27 February 2013 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Eff. Date 8/8/2012 Project: Manteo 204 - CWE Manteo 204 TSP Manteo 204 - CWE CWE for Construction of Oyster Reef using Dredged material and Stone Sill arond three 5.07 ac sites. Estimated by Designed by Wilmington District Prepared by Kristin Olsen Preparation Date 8/8/2012 Effective Date of Pricing 8/8/2012 Estimated Construction Time 198 Days This report is not copyrighted, but the information contained herein is For Official Use Only. Time 15:34:14 Title Page Labor ID: NC50 EQ ID: EP09R03 Currency in US dollars TRACES MII Version 4.1 Print Date Wed 27 February 2013 Eff. Date 8/8/2012 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project: Manteo 204 - CWE Manteo 204 TSP Time 15:34:14 Table of Contents Description Page Contract Cost ................................ ............................... LANDS AND DAMAGES ... ............................... FISH & WILDLIFE FACILITIES ................... Mobilization /Demobilization ......................... Stone Placement .................... ............................... Class A Riprap ...................... ............................... Class B Stone ........................ ............................... Class 2 Stone ......................... ............................... Sand Placement Oyster Cultch Placement ............................... Place Oyster Cultch (EA = bushel) PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT Labor ID: NC50 EQ ID: EP09R03 Currency in US dollars TRACES MII Version 4.1 Print Date Wed 27 February 2013 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Time 15:34:14 Eff. Date 8/8/2012 Project: Manteo 204 - CWE Manteo 204 TSP Contract Cost Page 1 Description Quantity UOM ContractCost CostToPrime ProjectCost Contract Cost 5,554,017 4,012,535 5,554,017 LANDS AND DAMAGES 1 LS 36,000 0 36,000 FISH & WILDLIFE FACILITIES 1 LS 4,948,017 4,012,535 4,948,017 Mobilization /Demobilization 1 EA 322,792 223,575 322,792 Stone Placement 1 LS 4,517,815 3,702,913 4,517,815 Class A Riprap 14,310 TON 1,939,179 1,589,399 1,939,179 Class B Stone 12,330 TON 1,719,242 1,409,133 1,719,242 Class 2 Stone 5,940 TON 859,394 704,381 859,394 Sand Placement 1 LS 3,157 2,186 3,157 Oyster Cultch Placement 1 LS 104,253 83,861 104,253 Place Oyster Cultch (EA = bushel) 4,980 EA 104,253 83,861 104,253 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN 1 LS 322,000 0 322,000 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 1 EA 248,000 0 248,000 Labor ID: NC50 EQ ID: EP09R03 Currency in US dollars TRACES MII Version 4.1 SECTION 7. COST RISK ANALYSIS Project (less than $40M): Project Development Stage: Risk Category: ;N11111111 T: Abbreviated Risk Analysis Manteo 204- Ecosystem Restoration - Oyster Reef Crea Reconnaissance Moderate Risk: Typical Project or Possible Life Safety Total Construction Contract Cost = $ FPaturP of \Nnrk 4,948,017 Contract Cost % Contingency $ Contingency Total Totals 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES Real Estate $ 36,000 25.00% $ 9,000 $ 45,000.00 1 06 FISH AND WILDLIFE FACILITIES Stone $ 4,517,815 20.22% $ 913,643 $ 5,431,457.51 2 06 FISH AND WILDLIFE FACILITIES Sand $ 3,157 22.67% $ 716 $ 3,872.54 3 06 FISH AND WILDLIFE FACILITIES Oyster Cu Itch $ 104,253 16.17% $ 16,854 $ 121,106.91 4 0.00% $ - $ - 5 0.00% $ $ 6 0.00% $ $ 7 0.00% $ $ 8 0.00% $ $ 9 0.00% $ $ 10 $ 0.00% $ $ 11 $ - 0.00% $ $ - 12 Remaining Construction Items $ 322,792 7.0% 16.24% $ 52,413 $ 375,204.57 13 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING, AND DESIGN Planning, Engineering, & Design $ 322,000 12.37% $ 39,836 $ 361,836.04 14 31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT Construction Management $ 248,000 10.00% $ 24,800 $ 272,800.00 Totals Real Estate $ 36,000 25.00% $ 9,000 $ 45,000.00 Total Construction Estimate $ 4,948,017 19.88% $ 983,625 $ 5,931,642 Total Planning, Engineering & Design $ 322,000 12.37% $ 39,836 $ 361,836 Total Construction Management $ 248,000 10.00% $ 24,800 $ 272,800 Total $ 5,554,017 $ 1,057,261 $ 6,611,278 N c d E d w Y N R R v Project Scope Growth Acquisition Strategy Construction Elements Quantities for Current Scope Specialty Fabrication or Equipment Cost Estimate Assumptions External Project Risks Manteo 204- Ecosystem Restoration - Oyster Reef Creation Reconnaissance Abbreviated Risk Analysis Potential Risk Areas or of or oc or �i �i O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � G Q to Q G cs Manteo 204- Ecosystem Restoration - Oyster Reef Creation Reconnaissance Abbreviated Risk Analysis Very Likely Meeting Date: DATE Likely Possible Unlikely Risk Level Negugioie iviarginai aignmcam unncai unsis Risk Conc Element Feature of Work PDT Discussions &Conclusions Likelihood Impact Level (Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact) Project Scope Growth Max Potential Cost Growth 75% vo Stone was selected from various alternatives and will most economically ©o© 000 ©o accomplish the intent of the project. Potential for scope growth is minimal. Negugioie iviarginai aignmcam unncai unsis Risk Conc Element Feature of Work PDT Discussions &Conclusions Likelihood Impact Level (Include logic & justification for choice of Likelihood & Impact) Project Scope Growth Max Potential Cost Growth 75% Stone was selected from various alternatives and will most economically accomplish the intent of the project. Potential for scope growth is minimal. There can be no additional features added to the project for any increased benefits. All subsuface investigations have validated the scope of work for PS -1 Stone • Water care and diversion fully understood, planned? • Project accomplish intent? the project. Design on this project thus far is extremely detailed. We arejust Unlikely Marginal 0 AS -1 Stone • Requirement for subcontracting? • Potential for scope growth, added features and quantities? shy of cutting plan sheets to begin design. Water care - cost estimator has Unlikely Marginal 0 • Investigations sufficient to support design assumptions? included turbidity curtains in the estimate to account forturbidity concerns • Design confidence? during the construction /placement of materials. Water diversion is not • Water care and diversion fully understood, planned? needed for this project. Sand will come from Manteo Harbor Old House Channel dredging project in the area. The footprint of the reef can be sized to accommodate the availability of sand, therefore, we do not anticipate project scope creep. Sand accomplishes our intent of the project - this project offers a much needeed PS -2 Sand • Water care and diversion fully understood, planned? • Potential for scope growth, added features and quantities? disposal site for the dredged material. Dredging of Old House Channel has a Possible Marginal 1 • Project accomplish intent? historical basis - therefore, design confidence and investigations are well AS -2 Sand • Requirement for subcontracting? • Investigations sufficient to support design assumptions? documented. No specific water care or diversion is required under the scope Unlikely Significant 1 • Design confidence? of this project. Any water quality issues will be addressed in the dredging • Water care and diversion fully understood, planned? contract. • Potential for scope growth, added features and quantities? • Investigations sufficient to support design assumptions? Oyster Cultch is coming from various vendors in the area. Again, the project PS -3 Oyster Cultch • Water care and diversion fully understood, planned? • Project accomplish intent? can be sized according to market conditions if needed, when the time comes. Unlikely Negligible 0 • Design confidence? Therefore, the PDT does not anticipate any growth in the scope of work, no • Water care and diversion fully understood, planned? additional features or additional quantities. The remaining Construction items are only real estate and mobilization costs. Remaining Construction Because our project is well defined - the team does foresee any potential for PS -12 Items • Water care and diversion fully understood, planned? scope growth of this project as it relates to these features. There are no Unlikely Negligible 0 • Potential for scope growth, added features and quantities? water diversion features required for this work, as such, there is no risk • Water care and diversion fully understood, planned? associated with it. • Potential Tor scope growth, added ea ures and quantities-? • Project accomplish intent? We do not anticipate any scope growth, added features or additional PS -13 Planning, Engineering, & ? Water care and diversion fully understood, planned. • Investi ations sufficient to support design assumptions? 9 PP 9 P uantties during PED. The project has had a significant amount of 9 9 P 1 9 Unlikely Significant 1 Design g •Design confidence? engineering completed. As such, design confidence is very high. We are just • Water care and diversion fully understood, planned? shy of cutting plan sheets. PS-14 Construction Management • Design confidence? • Project accomplish nfide 'ntent? • Design confidence? confidence is high -see note above. Unlikely Negligible 0 Acquisition Strategy Max Potential Cost Growth 30% This project is anticipated to be solicited as unrestricted. It is not reasonable to believe that a small contractor can perform this work. Start-up costs, mobilization and scheduling is such that a large contractor is better suited to perform this owrk. There will be a requirement for subcontracting /supplier for • Contracting plan firmly established? stone. It is anticipated that a hauling subcontractor is needed for delivery of AS -1 Stone • Requirement for subcontracting? • Requirement for subcontracting? the stone. Unlikely Marginal 0 This project is anticipated to be solicited as unrestricted. It is not reasonable to believe that a small contractor can perform this work. Start-up costs, mobilization and scheduling is such that a large contractor is better suited to perform this owrk. There will be a requirement for subcontracting /supplier for sand. It is currently anticipated that this'rock sill enclosure' will serve as alternate disposal area for dredged sand from Manteo -Old House Channel. This new site will be closer than the disposal site currently being used. No special set -up will be required of the dredging contractor. Turbidity curtain • Contracting plan firmly established? has been included in the estimate, however, it is not known if a turbidity AS -2 Sand • Requirement for subcontracting? • Requirement for subcontracting? curtain will be required. Unlikely Significant 1 Construction Elements Max Potential Cost Growth 25% Again, this will be solicited as an unrestricted bid. Contractor will be required Placement of stone & sand is in water. This district has recent history of to acquire oyster cultch from various supplilers in the area. The availability of successfully placing stone in adverse wet environments. Special mobilization the oyster cultch in the area is reasonable for this project, however, it will take includes the mobilization of deck barges, tug boats, barge mounted cranes, some initiative on the part of the contractor to purchase from various • High risk or complex construction elements, site access, in- water? etc to place the stone. Access to site is availale through federal lands nd has CE -1 • Contracting plan firmly established? suppliers. Even so, this project will still be successful without the oyster • Special mobilization? been used for staging on previous projects in Manteo. Possible Marginal 1 • Requirement for subcontracting? cultch. Biologist on the team ensures that it's not necessary to have the Turbidity curtain has been included in the estimate IN CASE it might be AS -3 Oyster Cultch • Limited bid competition anticipated? • Limited bid competition anticipated? cultch for oysters to form a habitat here. Likely Negligible 1 Remaining Construction Again, mobilization is what is left in remaining construction items. The • Water care and diversion plan? coordination with the dredging contractor to dispose in this location. AS -12 Items • Contracting plan firmly established? • Contracting plan firmly established? acquisition strategy is to be unrestricted. Unlikely Negligible 0 Planning, Engineering, & • Special equipment or subcontractors needed? dredging contractor is required. Construction modification is possible if AS -13 Design • Contracting plan firmly established? • Contracting plan firmly established? PED will continue with design plans for an unrestricted acquisition strategy. Unlikely Negligible 0 AS -14 Construction Management • Contracting plan firmly established? • Contracting plan firmly established? S &A will continue with an unrestricted acquistion strategy. Unlikely Negligible 0 Construction Elements Max Potential Cost Growth 25% Placement of stone & sand is in water. This district has recent history of successfully placing stone in adverse wet environments. Special mobilization includes the mobilization of deck barges, tug boats, barge mounted cranes, • High risk or complex construction elements, site access, in- water? etc to place the stone. Access to site is availale through federal lands nd has CE -1 Stone • Special mobilization? • Special mobilization? been used for staging on previous projects in Manteo. Possible Marginal 1 Turbidity curtain has been included in the estimate IN CASE it might be needed. No special mobilzation is required, however, it will require • Water care and diversion plan? coordination with the dredging contractor to dispose in this location. • Special mobilization? Subcontractor isn't needed, but again - consultation and coordination with • Special equipment or subcontractors needed? dredging contractor is required. Construction modification is possible if CE -2 Sand • Potential for construction modification and claims? • Potential for construction modification and claims? dredging does not occur in the year that this structure will be built. Possible Negligible 0 CE -3 Oyster Cultch • Accelerated schedule or harsh weather schedule? No Concerns regarding the placement of oyster cultch. Unlikely Negligible 0 Remaining Construction CE -12 Items • Accelerated schedule or harsh weather schedule? No concerns. Unlikely Negligible 0 Planning, Engineering, & CE -13 Design • Accelerated schedule or harsh weather schedule? No concerns. Unlikely Negligible 0 CE -14 Construction Management • Accelerated schedule or harsh weather schedule? No concerns. I Unlikely I Negligible 1 0 Quantities for Current Scope Max Potential Cost Growth 20% Specialty Fabrication or Equipment Max Potential Cost Growth 75% Stone quantities have been calculated based on the design section. The Various suppliers have een identified and received quotes for. Quarry near design section is based on best available survey data and other coastal Raleigh has been identified for stone acquistion. Hauling costs forthis site • Level of confidence based on design and assumptions? hydrology criteria. Currently, the confidence in the design is suitable for • Confidence in suppliers' ability? have been accounted for. Likely there are various stone yards closer to the • Possibility for increased quantities due to loss, waste, or subsidence? construction. There will be some quantity that might be lost in transportation, • Confidence in contractors ability to install? site that can provide stone, however, cost engineer thought it prudent to be FE -1 • Appropriate methods applied to calculate quantities? however previous history with similar construction projects do not document • Ability to reasonably transport? conservative with the haul distance. Possible Marginal 1 • Sufficient investigations to develop quantities? any losses. As such, losses due to transportation or weather are considered • Unusual parts, material or equipment manufactured or installed? Sand from dredging contractor indicates different acquisition method than Q -1 Stone • Quality control check applied? • Quality control check applied? to be minimal. Possible Marginal 1 Level of confidence for sand placement is extremely high - suitable for • Confidence in contractors ability to install? contractors ability to install is high. Successful hisotrical dredging indicates FE -2 Sand construction at this point - due to the fac tthat the material is anticipated to • Ability to reasonably transport? high confidence in the contractors ability to acquire, install, transport, etc. Possible Marginal 1 come from Old House Channel in Manteo. Our district has dredged this area Again, oyster cultch will need to come from various suppliers in the area - not • Level of confidence based on design and assumptions? time and again as part of maintenance dredging program. As such, design just one. As such, it will take some effort on the contractor's part to • Possibility for increased quantities due to loss, waste, or subsidence? confidence is high as is our confidence in the maintenance surveying and coordinate with these suppliers to acquire the cultch needed. However, • Appropriate methods applied to calculate quantities? investigations to aid in the determination of quantities. Losses do not need to because the cultch isn't absolutely necessary for a successful oyster reef, • Sufficient investigations to develop quantities? be mitigated for the sand - because we have play of about 3' surface • Confidence in suppliers' ability? there is a lot of flexibility in the quantity, or the option not to install cultch at Q -2 Sand • Quality control check applied? • Quality control check applied? elevation in what will constitute a successful project for the oyseter reef. Possible Marginal 1 FE -3 • Level of confidence based on design and assumptions? Oyster Cultch quantities are based on histroical data maintained by the state's • Ability to reasonably transport? it will be placed with the same equipment already on site. Likely Negligible 1 • Possibility for increased quantities due to loss, waste, or subsidence? environmental agencies. No possibility for increase of quantity. Basically, FE -12 • Appropriate methods applied to calculate quantities? USACE will take what we can get based on market conditions at the time. Unlikely Q -3 Oyster Cultch • Quality control check applied? • Quality control check applied? The project will be successful with or without the cultch. Possible Marginal 1 FE -13 • Level of confidence based on design and assumptions? or installed? Unlikely Negligible Remaining Construction • Appropriate methods applied to calculate quantities? Mobilzation of equipment is based on the equipment needed to construct the Q -12 Items • Quality control check applied? • Quality control check applied? project. Possible Negligible 0 Negligible Planning, Engineering, & Q -13 Design • Quality control check applied? Unlikely Negligible 0 Q -14 Construction Management • Quality control check applied? Unlikely Negligible 0 Specialty Fabrication or Equipment Max Potential Cost Growth 75% Various suppliers have een identified and received quotes for. Quarry near Raleigh has been identified for stone acquistion. Hauling costs forthis site • Confidence in suppliers' ability? have been accounted for. Likely there are various stone yards closer to the • Confidence in contractors ability to install? site that can provide stone, however, cost engineer thought it prudent to be FE -1 Stone • Ability to reasonably transport? • Ability to reasonably transport? conservative with the haul distance. Possible Marginal 1 • Unusual parts, material or equipment manufactured or installed? Sand from dredging contractor indicates different acquisition method than • Confidence in suppliers' ability? traditional methods of acquiring sand. Confidence in the dredging • Confidence in contractors ability to install? contractors ability to install is high. Successful hisotrical dredging indicates FE -2 Sand • Ability to reasonably transport? • Ability to reasonably transport? high confidence in the contractors ability to acquire, install, transport, etc. Possible Marginal 1 Again, oyster cultch will need to come from various suppliers in the area - not just one. As such, it will take some effort on the contractor's part to coordinate with these suppliers to acquire the cultch needed. However, because the cultch isn't absolutely necessary for a successful oyster reef, • Confidence in suppliers' ability? there is a lot of flexibility in the quantity, or the option not to install cultch at • Confidence in contractors ability to install? all. Installation and transport/delivery of the cultch to the site is not a concern, FE -3 Oyster Cultch • Ability to reasonably transport? • Ability to reasonably transport? it will be placed with the same equipment already on site. Likely Negligible 1 Remaining Construction FE -12 Items • Ability to reasonably transport? Unlikely Negligible 0 Planning, Engineering, & • Unusual parts, material or equipment manufactured FE -13 Design or installed? Unlikely Negligible 0 • Unusual parts, material or equipment manufactured FE-14 Construction Management or installed? Unlikely Negligible 0 Cost Estimate Assumptions Max Potential Cost Growth—T-- rowth 35% External Project Risks Max Potential Cost Growth 40% documented in the estimate. Prime and subcontractors are assigned been accounted for in the productivity of the .. project as well as documented in • Reliability and number of key quotes? accordingly and marked up as necessary. Assumptions regarding crew, the project schedule. Productivity with weather delays is based on previous • Assumptions related to prime and subcontractor markups/assignments? productivity and overtime have been addressed in the estimate. the contracts that involved placing stone in wet conditions in this area. While the • Assumptions regarding crew, productivity, overtime? productivity and crew size needed for the placement of stone is based on • Potential for severe adverse weather? project is anticipated to go to construction next FY, it's unknown if fuel prices EX -1 • Site accessibility, transport delays, congestion? historical data - contracts in the past two years in which we've placed stone in • Unanticipated inflations in fuel, key materials? will stabilize. Possible CT -1 Stone • Overuse of Cost Book, lump sum, allowances? • Overuse of Cost Book, lump sum, allowances? similar environment. Site access has been identified and discussed with the Possible Marginal 1 addtessed in the dredging contract. However, at this time, the team believes • Potential for severe adverse weather? accounted for in the dredging contract. Sufficient time has been accounted this new site to be sued for disposal is closer to the dredged area and should • Political influences, lack of support, obstacles? for in the contractor's overheads and project schedule to acocunt for any increase productivity and reduce costs for the dredging contractor. Because • Unanticipated inflations in fuel, key materials? delays due to adverse weather. No concerns with regard to political EX -2 Sand we can size the footprint of the area according to market conditions, if there • Potential for market volatility impacting competition, pricing? obstacles have been identified. Possible Marginal 1 • Assumptions regarding crew, productivity, overtime? are losses or over - dredging, we can accomodate that in our design, if The public has embraced the concept behind this construction in the creation CT -2 Sand • Site accessibility, transport delays, congestion? • Site accessibility, transport delays, congestion? needed. Possible Marginal 1 Cultch suppliers have been identified and are documented in the estimate. completely dependent on availability of cultch. It is anticipated that the • Reliability and number of key quotes? Pricing in the estimate is slightly higher than what the state currently contractor can obtain the amount of cultch needed for the project, however, • Assumptions related to prime and subcontractor markups/assignments? purchases cultch for. There should not be a need for a subcontractor for this because it is not a requirement for the project to be successful, the impact is EX -3 • Assumptions regarding crew, productivity, overtime? work. Placement of the cultch can be almost simultaneous with the placement • Potential for market volatility impacting competition, pricing? negligent if it is not received. Unlikely CT -3 Oyster Cultch • Site accessibility, transport delays, congestion? • Site accessibility, transport delays, congestion? of the capping stone. Possible Negligible 0 Remaining Construction Remaining Construction Site Access has been identified as federal lands. It is sufficient forthe project. Delays due to weathr have been accounted for in the contractors CT -12 Items • Site accessibility, transport delays, congestion? • Site accessibility, transport delays, congestion? contractorto set up /establlish staging area with ease. Possible Significant 2 Marginal Planning, Engineering, & Planning, Engineering, & CT -13 Design • Reliability and number of key quotes? Design • Potential for severe adverse weather? Unlikely Negligible 0 CT-14 Construction Management • Reliability and number of key quotes? Construction Management • Potential for severe adverse weather? Unlikely Negligible 0 External Project Risks Max Potential Cost Growth 40% been accounted for in the productivity of the .. project as well as documented in the project schedule. Productivity with weather delays is based on previous contracts that involved placing stone in wet conditions in this area. While the • Potential for severe adverse weather? project is anticipated to go to construction next FY, it's unknown if fuel prices EX -1 Stone • Unanticipated inflations in fuel, key materials? • Unanticipated inflations in fuel, key materials? will stabilize. Possible Marginal 1 Any delays for adverse weather as it pertains to dredging will be monetarily • Potential for severe adverse weather? accounted for in the dredging contract. Sufficient time has been accounted • Political influences, lack of support, obstacles? for in the contractor's overheads and project schedule to acocunt for any • Potential for market volatility impacting competition, • Unanticipated inflations in fuel, key materials? delays due to adverse weather. No concerns with regard to political EX -2 Sand pricing? • Potential for market volatility impacting competition, pricing? obstacles have been identified. Possible Marginal 1 The public has embraced the concept behind this construction in the creation of oyster reefs in the area. Market volatility of oyster cultch in the area is completely dependent on availability of cultch. It is anticipated that the contractor can obtain the amount of cultch needed for the project, however, • Potential for market volatility impacting competition, because it is not a requirement for the project to be successful, the impact is EX -3 Oyster Cultch pricing? • Potential for market volatility impacting competition, pricing? negligent if it is not received. Unlikely Negligible 0 Adverse weather could impact the mobilization and demobilizaiton of the Remaining Construction project. Delays due to weathr have been accounted for in the contractors EX -12 Items • Potential for severe adverse weather? • Potential for severe adverse weather? overheads and construction schedule. Possible Marginal 1 Planning, Engineering, & EX -13 Design • Potential for severe adverse weather? Unlikely Negligible 0 EX -14 Construction Management • Potential for severe adverse weather? Unlikely Negligible 0 SECTION 8. LABOR RATES General Decision Number: NC120050 07/20/2012 NC50 Superseded General Decision Number: NC20100087 State: North Carolina Construction Type: Building County: Alleghany County in North Carolina. BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS (does not include single family homes or apartments up to and including 4 stories). Modification Number 0 1 2 Publication Date 01/06/2012 07/06/2012 07/20/2012 * PLUM0421 -004 07/01/2012 Rates Fringes PIPEFITTER (Excluding HVAC System Installation) .............$ 24.40 9.35 * SUNC2011 -031 08/26/2011 HVAC MECHANIC (Installation Rates Fringes BRICKLAYER .......................$ 18.45 4.18 CARPENTER (Drywall Hanging Only ) ............................$ 17.59 2.31 CARPENTER (Form Work Only) ....... $ 14.28 1.13 CARPENTER, Excludes Drywall $ 11.07 1.10 Hanging, and Form Work ........... $ 15.60 2.25 CEMENT MASON /CONCRETE FINISHER ... $ 14.02 0.00 ELECTRICIAN ......................$ 15.37 0.40 HVAC MECHANIC (Installation of HVAC Unit Only, Excludes Installation of HVAC Pipe and Duct ) ............................$ 16.94 3.04 IRONWORKER, STRUCTURAL ........... $ 18.75 5.62 LABORER: Common or General ...... $ 11.07 1.10 LABORER: Landscape & Irrigation .......................$ 10.29 1.82 LABORER: Mason Tender - Brick /Cement /Concrete ..... $ 10.00 0.00 OPERATOR: Backhoe /Excavator /Trackhoe ....... $ 18.60 1.41 OPERATOR: Crane .................$ 19.25 2.37 OPERATOR: Grader/Blade .......... $ 15.25 1.52 PAINTER: Brush, Roller and Spray ............................$ 14.77 1.87 PLUMBER, Excludes HVAC System Installation .....................$ 17.51 2.33 ROOFER ...........................$ 13.55 0.80 SHEET METAL WORKER (HVAC Duct Installation Only) ...............$ 15.62 2.09 SHEET METAL WORKER, Excludes HVAC Duct and System Installation .....................$ 13.61 1.10 TRUCK DRIVER: Dump Truck ........ $ 12.50 1.36 WELDERS - Receive rate prescribed for craft performing operation to which welding is incidental. Unlisted classifications needed for work not included within the scope of the classifications listed may be added after award only as provided in the labor standards contract clauses (29CFR 5.5 (a) (1) (ii)). The body of each wage determination lists the classification and wage rates that have been found to be prevailing for the cited type(s) of construction in the area covered by the wage determination. The classifications are listed in alphabetical order of "identifiers" that indicate whether the particular rate is union or non - union. Union Identifiers An identifier enclosed in dotted lines beginning with characters other than "SU" denotes that the union classification and rate have found to be prevailing for that classification. Example: PLUM0198 -005 07/01/2011. The first four letters , PLUM, indicate the international union and the four -digit number, 0198, that follows indicates the local union number or district council number where applicable , i.e., Plumbers Local 0198. The next number, 005 in the example, is an internal number used in processing the wage determination. The date, 07/01/2011, following these characters is the effective date of the most current negotiated rate /collective bargaining agreement which would be July 1, 2011 in the above example. Union prevailing wage rates will be updated to reflect any changes in the collective bargaining agreements governing the rate. Non -Union Identifiers Classifications listed under an "SU" identifier were derived from survey data by computing average rates and are not union rates; however, the data used in computing these rates may include both union and non -union data. Example: SULA2004 -007 5/13/2010. SU indicates the rates are not union rates, LA indicates the State of Louisiana; 2004 is the year of the survey; and 007 is an internal number used in producing the wage determination. A 1993 or later date, 5/13/2010, indicates the classifications and rates under that identifier were issued as a General Wage Determination on that date. Survey wage rates will remain in effect and will not change until a new survey is conducted. WAGE DETERMINATION APPEALS PROCESS 1.) Has there been an initial decision in the matter? This can be. • an existing published wage determination • a survey underlying a wage determination • a Wage and Hour Division letter setting forth a position on a wage determination matter • a conformance (additional classification and rate) ruling On survey related matters, initial contact, including requests for summaries of surveys, should be with the Wage and Hour Regional Office for the area in which the survey was conducted because those Regional Offices have responsibility for the Davis -Bacon survey program. If the response from this initial contact is not satisfactory, then the process described in 2.) and 3.) should be followed. With regard to any other matter not yet ripe for the formal process described here, initial contact should be with the Branch of Construction Wage Determinations. Write to: Branch of Construction Wage Determinations Wage and Hour Division U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20210 2.) If the answer to the question in 1.) is yes, then an interested party (those affected by the action) can request review and reconsideration from the Wage and Hour Administrator (See 29 CFR Part 1.8 and 29 CFR Part 7). Write to: Wage and Hour Administrator U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20210 The request should be accompanied by a full statement of the interested party's position and by any information (wage payment data, project description, area practice material, etc.) that the requestor considers relevant to the issue. 3.) If the decision of the Administrator is not favorable, an interested party may appeal directly to the Administrative Review Board (formerly the Wage Appeals Board). Write to: Administrative Review Board U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20210 4.) All decisions by the Administrative Review Board are final. END OF GENERAL DECISION Appendix E Manteo Section 204 Beneficial Use of Dredged Material for Oyster Restoration Geotechnical Appendix 1.0 Introduction The Manteo 204 Study area is located within northern Dare County, with its center lying 4.5 nautical miles southwest of Oregon Inlet and 6 nautical miles west of Pea Island (Figure E -1). The 17 mile square mile study area also includes the Old House Channel, Range No. 2. Old House Channel, Range No. 2 is approximately 5 miles long with an authorized depth of -12 feet MLLW with 1V to 3H side slopes (Figures E -2a and E -2b). The channel is dredged on average every two years. The area lies within Manteo - Shallowbag Bay, a back - barrier channel region that experiences diurnal tidal changes and seasonal storm overwash from the Atlantic Ocean. The extent of the Study Area was established based on its practical pumping distance of about 2 miles from the channel reach with a more significant shoaling rate than surrounding reaches. The Manteo 204 Study goal is to recommend an environmentally sound dredge material disposal option that is both cost effective and will contribute to the State of North Carolina's restoration goals in the northern Pamlico Sound, while addressing with the Corps' dredging and disposal needs for Old House Channel, Range No. 2. 2.0 Geological Framework The geologic history of the Manteo 204 Study Area and the Outer Banks of North Carolina has largely been influenced by fluctuating sea levels associated with glacial cycles over the past 1.5 million years (Dolan, 1986). Sea -level rise associated with glacial melt resulted in the flooding of paleo- coastal areas and the deposition of finer - grained, deeper -water sediments atop coarser - grained, near shore and land derived sediments. Conversely, sea -level fall associated with glacial freezing resulted in shoreline advancement seaward, and the deposition of coarser - grained sediments atop the finer - grained deep water derived sediments. Geochronologic dating of strata and fossil material indicate that there have been at least six major sea -level fluctuations (Wehmiller, 2006) within region during the Pleistocene Period alone (1.8 million years ago- 100,000 years ago). When the last period of glaciation, the Wisconsin, ended 14,000 to 18,000 years ago, sea -level was 300 feet lower than it is today and the North Carolina shoreline was located 50 -70 miles seaward of its current position (Dolan, 1986). During this period of sea - level, the shelf area was exposed weathering and erosional processes. Rivers and streams meandered across the exposed continental shelf, incising channels and created river deltas along position of the present -day shelf -break (Riggs, 2000, Buckner and other 2005). As the climate warmed during the Holocene Period (12,000 years ago to Present) and the glaciers melted, the sea -level rose and drowned the Pleistocene shoreline. Freshwater peat deposits, found near Cape Hatteras, are the result of the landward migration of the shoreline and barrier island complexes. Numerous post - glacial sea -level fluctuations driven by oceanographic (salinity, current flow and ocean temperature) and climatic changes (mini -ice ages) have resulted in multiple depositional and erosional events that have extensively modified the morphology of the nearby landforms (Riggs, 2000). The morphology of the nearby landforms, such as Pea - Island, is constrained by four main factors; the inherited rock /sediment types of older Pleistocene strata, the paleotopography from Pleistocene landscape, the physical dynamics of erosion (long shore and cross shore currents, wind - transport and storms), and human modification (Riggs and others, 2001). E -2 3.0 Previous Subsurface Investigations Subsurface investigations of sediment in the Old House Channel Range 2 are very limited. Some work was published in a research report, titled "A Scoping Study of the Distribution, Composition, and Dynamics of Water - Column and Bottom Sediments: Albemarle - Pamlico Estuarine System ". This study was conducted in 1988 by John T. Wells for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Data for this study was analyzed from 3300 previous grab samples taken from the Albemarle — Pamlico estuarine system between the mid 1950's and the mid 1970's. The study area has not been explored recently; therefore it is unknown if there have been any significant changes from the historical sedimentation conditions that existed 30 -years ago to those that exist today. Of the 3300 grab sample taken, 862 were subjected to sieve, pipette, or hydrometer analysis. Bottom sediment is primarily composed of fine sand. Modal grain sizes of the samples, following the Wentworth classification, range from 2(� to 4(� (0.25 mm - 0.0625 mm), while the percentage of calcium carbonate content (weight of shell fragments) ranges from 4 to 8 %. Results of each sample taken in the area of interest were not reported in the study. 4.0 Methodology For the purpose of this study, a subsurface investigation was performed using the USACE Vessel SNELL. The SNELL is fitted with a 3 7/8 -inch diameter, 20 -foot long, Alpine vibracore drill machine. The Vibracore drill machine consists of a metal barrel in which a plastic cylinder is inserted. After the plastic tube is inserted, a metal shoe is screwed onto the plastic tube and metal barrel. The shoe provides a cutting edge for the sampler and retains the plastic tube. An air - powered vibrator is mounted at the uppermost end of the vibracore barrel, and the vibrator and the vibracore barrel are mounted to a stand. The stand is lowered to the sediment surface by the SNELL's crane; the vibrator is activated and vibrates the vibracore barrel into the ocean bottom sediment. The disturbed sediment sample is retained in the plastic cylinder. All vibracore borings are drilled to a depth of 10 to 20 feet below the sediment surface, unless vibracore refusal is encountered. Vibracore refusal is defined as a penetration rate of less than 0.1 feet in 10 seconds. The SNELL's HYPACK navigation system is used to determine vibracore boring coordinates. Bottom elevation is determined by measuring water depth from the water line to the sediment surface, with water line datum as 0.0'. The tidal level is subtracted from the water depth to determine actual bottom elevation. The sediment in the plastic cylinders recovered from vibracore drilling is delivered to the USACE Engineer Yard for sampling. The cylinders are cut open with a power saw and the material inside is visually classified. Samples are taken at 2 foot intervals or at each change of material, whichever is lesser. Vertical datum for a specific coring sample is determined by taking the actual bottom elevation (correlating to the top of the plastic cylinder) and subtracting from that the depth of the sample from the distance to the top of the cylinder. The samples are stored in jars for grain size testing at a USACE certified soils laboratory. Vibracore samples are disturbed samples and cannot be tested for strength properties. All samples are visually and laboratory classified in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System (USCS) as required in Engineering Manual 1110 -1 -1804. E -3 A particle -size analysis was conducted on each sample in general accordance with ASTM Standard D 422, "Standard Test Method for Particle -Size Analysis of Soils" using the following U.S. Standard sieve sizes: ", 3/8 ", No. 4, No. 7, No. 10, No. 14, No. 18, No. 25, No. 35, No. 45, No. 60, No. 80, No. 120, No. 170, No. 200 and No. 230 sieve. These samples were classified in accordance with ASTM Standard D 2487, "Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System) ". 5.0 Subsurface Investigation Results A total of 27 vibracore borings were drilled in the study area on 15 and 16 March 2010 (Figure 3). Borings were advanced to elevations between -8.6 to -34.5 feet MLLW (Table 1). The results of the field exploration are summarized in soil boring logs, starting on page E -20 of this appendix. The results of the laboratory testing are presented on the grain size analysis sheets, summarized on the boring logs, and provided in Table E -2. The soil type boundaries presented in the boring logs are approximate and may be more gradual than shown. Figures E -4a - E -4c and Figure E- 6 show various soil cross sections in the Old House Channel, Range 2 and the dredged disposal and reef construction area. 5.1 Old House Channel, Range 2 The materials encountered in the northern portion of Old House Channel, Range 2 (MAN- 10 -V -23, MAN - 10-V-24, MAN- 10 -V -26, and MAN- 10- V -27), generally consist of fine sand (SP) and fine sand with silt (SP- SM). This material is suitable for use in the oyster reef construction because the composite percent silt content is less than 10 %. The materials encountered in the southern portion of Old House Channel, Range 2 (MAN- 10 -V -16, MAN- 10 -V -17, MAN- 10 -V -18, MAN- 10 -V -21, and MAN- 10 -V -22) generally consists of fine sand (SP), fine sand with silt (SP -SM), silty fine sand (SM), and elastic silt with sand (MH). This material is not suited for use in the study area. See Figure E- 3, A - A' for channel soil profile boring location. 5.2 Dredged Material Disposal and Reef Construction Area The material encountered in the recommended disposal and reef construction area (MAN -10 -V- 01, MAN- 10 -V -2, MAN- 10 -V -5, and MAN- 10 -V -6) generally consists of fine sand (SP). The materials encountered in the unusable placement area (MAN- 10 -V -04, MAN- 10 -V -08, MAN- 10 -V -10, MAN -10 -V- 13, and MAN- 10 -V -15) generally consists of fine sand (SP), fine sand with silt (SP -SM), silty fine sand (SM), and elastic silt with sand (MH). Soil profile borings locations in the vicinity of the recommended reef area are shown in Figure E -3, B - B', while soil profile borings locations in the vicinity of the unusable placement area are shown in Figure E -3, C - C'. 6.0 Recommendations Based on the limited sampling and testing, the composite silt content was used as a determinate in the oyster reef placement (Table E -3). Samples with a composite silt percentage of less than 10% were considered acceptable for placing heavier loads (i.e., rock, riprap, and confined material) at those boring locations. Also, samples with a composite silt percentage of 15% or less were considered acceptable for E -4 use of material placed inside reef containment structures. The oyster reef placement should be located in general proximity to the borings MAN- 10 -V -1, MAN- 10 -V -2, MAN- 10 -V -05, MAN- 10 -V -06, and MAN - 10-V-08 (Figure E -5). Based on Material dredged from Old House Channel, Range 2, and utilized for the oyster reef placement would be limited to boring areas MAN- 10 -V -18, MAN- 10 -V -23, MAN- 10 -V -24, MAN- 10 -V -26, and MAN- 10 -V -27. These borings have high sand, low silt content. However, future dredging along Old House Channel (Range 2) is likely to concentrate on shoaling "hot spots" where silt content would be lower. Additional soil sampling is recommended in the Design & Implementation phase to obtain undisturbed samples when a finalized design is presented. Analysis of the undisturbed soil samples will determine quantitative values for compressibility, strength, and settlement. The soil samples collected for this project are disturbed samples and are used for identifying soil types only. The soil in the study area consists mainly of fine sand with some silt. This type of soil generally performs well under stresses and strains applied by large loads; however, compressibility and strength values cannot be determined from disturbed samples and therefore was not quantified due to insufficient information from the collected soil samples. If geotubes or riprap is to be used for this project, minor settlement may occur. A settlement analysis was not performed on the tested samples, so some settlement may occur when larger loads are placed on this type of soil. This is not expected to be enough to have a negative impact on the geotubes, riprap, or the confined material placed inside. In order to more accurately determine settlement, additional data is needed to quantify the amount of expected settlement. E -5 Sources Cited: Buckner, M., Mallinson, D., Riggs, S., Thieler, R., Foster, D., 2005, Quaternary Seismic Stratigraphy of the Southern Albemarle Embayment: The Sequence Stratigraphic Response to Evolving Paleotopography, Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, Volume 37, Issue 2, p. 16. Dolan, R. 1986, The Outer Banks of North Carolina, USGS Professional Paper; 1177 -B, 49p. Riggs, S., 2000, Holocene Coastal Response to Small -Scale Climatic /Sea -Level Fluctuations in Northeastern North Carolina, Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, Volume 32, Issue 2, p. 71. Riggs, S., Hoffman, C.W., Boss, S., 2001, Role of Geologic Framework, Physical Dynamics and Sand Resource Potential for Beach Renourishment on the North Carolina Outer Banks. Wehmiller, J., 2006, Geochronology of Quaternary Coastal Units, Albemarle Embayment, North Carolina Coastal Plain, Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, Volume 38, Issue 3, p. 26. Wells, John T., 1988, A Scoping Study Of The Distribution, Composition, and Dynamics of Water - Column and Bottom Sediments: Albemarle - Pamlico Estuarine System, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, A/P Project No. 89 -05. E -6 IUS Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District R X 2989432.6 Y 734562 Roanoke` Oregon Sound , Inlet Pamlico o Sound Old House Range 2 X 3000764.4 Y 752384.6 Oregon ., Inlet Morehead City , Wilmington 0 15 ® R I Miles Figure E -1. Manteo 204 Study Area E -7 Oregon Inlet _ Fishing Center & USCG X 3018586.9 Y 741052.8 Survey Limits Manteo Section 204 Old House Channel Oyster Restoration Map # s awgi s-200 9-0 37-02b Map Date: May 25, 2010 Imagery Date: May 8, 2010 Imagery Copydght 2010 Digital Globe E) 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Fieure 2a. Old House Channel Ranee #2 Station 0 +00 — 84 +00 E -8 ��Oregon CONDITION SURVEY Survey Date(*) Old House Channel: 7 April 2010 Surveyed By: JTH, BRJ >r _ \ °.'t µ U.B. ENGINEER OIBTRICT Map Date: 12 April 2010 Mapped By: MSA �� Inlet CORPS - . ENGINEERS WILMINGTON. NORrM CAROLINA Scale: 1:0000 Y EtoMwW OLD HOUSE CHANNEL Map File a MB 106- 10-46a \ ," CM - Range 2 014 Nousa a,eQ,z Map File Nana: oh2 2010 -04-07 oa_2a.mxtl ry Gale: Gec u, zoos Olpllede Glaee zoo9 Fieure 2a. Old House Channel Ranee #2 Station 0 +00 — 84 +00 E -8 75 °33'0 "W 75'37'O"W AIDO TO NAVIGATION - _ US Army Corps of Engineers �f a Wilmington District i �6e wa m xu se�omaa wa�zmw aua��a zsvvzuaw vu -wco -x nssacar ss�six - r�aoa�e rae�erz -z _�_ Typical Section tl - - _ -" ELEVATIONS - - Depths Teel below MS. " 12 R M117 1� so'xomcs waT TxrnTSSrn xu rcTT wxo ToxTxswxo RTrTa To x.F.w.. Al D ENGE DUE TO Fmt Ex[WSrvE",NTHE NFDRNATwX RRDVIDED 'ERE. ARIxER S'oVLD xoT RELY o 5 75 "38'0 "W 75 "3T0 "W z CONDITION SURVEY Survey Date(.) Old House Channel 7 Apnl 2010 3—yetl By JTH, 13 . Oregon T Map Date' 12 April 2010 Mapped By MSA _ (� / Inlet WILMN —N NO— I—INA Scale: 1 :5500 OLD HOUSE CHANNEL Map File# MB 10540 461, M Range 2 O " ° "` R RaH.— Map File Name: oh2_2010-04 -07_- 2b.mxtl ew Is#e: cec ta. zoos oiglMlxe Gighe zoos Figure 2b. Old House Channel Range #2 Station 84 +00 — 263 +99.5 E -9 N -�_ \ e __ V-1 I - ■ � 6m - Ran, A 427 M dow41 2R / .t \ 2 z -V-03 - - - - - � 40-v %– ~ 0_ 4 / AN-10-V-14 -13 AN- G• / A �� 1� _0- 1 AN-10- r AN-10-V-18 m ~ AN-10-V-17 MAN-10-V-2 . 62 A -104-116 : \ ski 0 1,25M.500 5,000 fqB '10:000 F� Legend . 64 S Gectechnical Ba *p PaectL_kn Channel Ta met ` \ �i Oyster Shell " ManteoOHC204 Geotech S amMeA ma \v P am nt Area . Figure 3 v|bnc r Boring L £k|ons E -10 Table E -1. Vibracore Boring Locations and Depths Boring ID Date of Boring Boring Coordinates State Plane NAD 83 Channel Bottom Elevation (feet, MLLW) Total Depth of Boring Below Channel Bottom (feet) Bottom of Boring Elevation (feet, MLLW) Easting Northing MAN- 10 -V -01 3/15/2010 2998073 745215 -9.3 10.0 -19.3 MAN- 10 -V -02 3/15/2010 2998043 743301 -11.0 10.0 -21.0 MAN- 10 -V -03 3/15/2010 2996535 743299 -14.0 10.0 -24.0 MAN- 10 -V -04 3/15/2010 2994943 742532 -15.7 10.0 -25.7 MAN- 10 -V -05 3/15/2010 2997768 741440 -12.2 10.0 -22.2 MAN- 10 -V -06 3/15/2010 2999495 739963 -10.0 10.0 -20.0 MAN- 10 -V -07 3/15/2010 2996690 740245 -15.2 10.0 -25.2 MAN- 10 -V -08 3/15/2010 2993762 740145 -14.8 10.0 -24.8 MAN- 10 -V -09 3/16/2010 2994952 731109 -14.5 20.0 -34.5 MAN- 10 -V -10 3/16/2010 2993558 733117 -14.0 16.0 -30.0 MAN- 10 -V -11 3/16/2010 2994758 734054 -14.0 15.0 -29.0 MAN- 10 -V -12 3/16/2010 2992362 735375 -13.6 12.0 -25.6 MAN- 10 -V -13 3/16/2010 2993815 736010 -13.6 12.0 -25.6 MAN- 10 -V -14 3/16/2010 2995705 736791 -14.8 10.0 -24.8 MAN- 10 -V -15 3/16/2010 2993679 737545 -14.0 12.0 -26.0 MAN- 10 -V -16 3/16/2010 2998149 728610 -17.0 10.0 -27.0 MAN- 10 -V -17 3/16/2010 2999371 730531 -14.3 10.0 -24.3 MAN- 10 -V -18 3/16/2010 3000416 732183 -11.5 10.0 -21.5 MAN- 10 -V -19 3/16/2010 2999458 734976 -11.6 10.0 -21.6 MAN- 10 -V -20 3/16/2010 3000012 735018 -8.6 10.0 -18.6 MAN- 10 -V -21 3/16/2010 3001522 733832 -12.5 10.0 -22.5 MAN- 10 -V -22 3/16/2010 3002518 735505 -14.0 10.0 -24.0 MAN- 10 -V -23 3/16/2010 3003565 737128 -14.8 10.0 -24.8 MAN- 10 -V -24 3/16/2010 3005010 739424 -16.7 10.0 -26.7 MAN- 10 -V -25 3/16/2010 3006087 730531 -14.2 10.0 -24.2 MAN- 10 -V -26 3/16/2010 3007143 742755 -15.3 10.0 -25.3 MAN- 10 -V -27 3/16/2010 3009755 746877 -14.8 10.0 -24.8 E -11 m N N Table E -2. Summary of Sample Depths and Classification Boring Name Sample No. Elevation (ft) Classification MAN- 104-01 1 9.3 -9.8 SP 2 12.0 -12.5 SP 3 15.0 -15.5 SP MAN- 104-02 1 11.0 -11.5 SP 2 13.5 -13.5 SP 3 15.0 -15.5 SP MAN- 104-03 1 14.0 -14.5 SM 2 17.0 -17.5 MH 3 19.5 -20.0 MH MAN- 104-04 1 15.7 -16.2 SP 2 17.5 -18.0 SP -SM 3 19.2 -19.7 MH 4 22.1 -22.6 SP -SM MAN- 104-05 1 12.2 -12.7 SP 2 14.0 -14.5 SP 3 16.0 -16.5 SP -SM MAN- 104-06 1 10.0 -10.5 SP 2 12.0 -12.5 SP 3 14.0 -14.5 SP MAN- 104-07 1 15.2 -15.7 SM 2 18.0 -18.5 SM 3 21.2 -21.7 SP -SM MAN- 10 4-08 1 14.8 -15.3 SP -SM 2 17.0 -17.5 SP -SM 3 19.5 -20.0 SP 4 21.5 -22.0 SW -SM MAN- 10 -V -09 1 14.5 -15.0 SP -SM 2 17.0 -17.5 SM 3 19.0 -19.5 SP 4 21.0 -21.5 SP 5 24.0 -24.5 SP 6 26.5 -27.0 SP Boring Name Sample No. Elevation (ft) Classification MAN- 10 4-10 1 14.0 -14.5 SP -SM 2 16.0 -16.5 SM 3 17.0 -17.5 SP -SM 4 18.8 -19.3 SP -SM 5 20.8 -21.3 SP -SM 6 23.0 -23.5 SP MAN- 10 4-11 1 14.0 -14.5 SP -SM 2 16.0 -16.5 SM 3 17.3 -17.8 SP -SM 4 18.5 -19.0 SP 5 20.5 -21.0 SM 6 23.0 -23.5 SP MAN- 10 4-12 1 13.6 -14.1 SP -SM 2 17.1 -17.6 MH 3 18.1 -18.6 SP 4 20.6 -21.1 SP -SM MAN- 10 4-13 1 13.6 -14.1 SP -SM 2 15.6 -16.1 MH 3 16.6 -17.1 SP 4 19.3 -19.8 SP MAN- 10 4-14 1 14.8 -15.3 SP 2 16.8 -17.3 MH 3 19.3 -19.8 SM 4 21.6 -22.1 SM MAN- 104-15 1 14.0 -14.5 SM 2 16.0 -16.5 SM 3 18.4 -18.9 SP 4 20.0 -20.5 SP -SM 5 22.0 -22.5 SP MAN- 104-16 1 17.0 -17.5 MH 2 20.0 -20.5 MH 3 23.3 -23.8 SP 4 25.0 -25.5 SP MAN- 104-17 1 14.3 -14.8 SM 2 16.3 -16.8 SM Boring Name Sample No. Elevation (ft) Classification MAN- 10 -V -18 1 11.5 -12.0 SP -SM 2 13.5 -14.0 SP -SM 3 16.0 -16.5 SM MAN- 104-19 1 11.6 -12.1 SP -SM 2 13.5 -14.0 SP -SM 3 15.6 -16.1 MH MAN- 104-20 1 8.6 -9.1 SP 2 11.0 -11.5 SP -SM 3 13.6 -14.1 SM MAN- 104-21 1 12.5 -13.0 SM 2 14.5 -15.0 SM 3 16.2 -16.7 SM MAN- 104-22 1 14.0 -14.5 MH 2 15.5 -16.0 SM 3 16.7 -17.2 SP -SM 4 18.3 -18.8 SP -SM MAN- 10 -V -23 1 14.8 -15.3 SP -SM 2 17.0 -17.5 SP -SM 3 19.5 -20.0 SP -SM 4 21.8 -22.3 SM MAN- 10 -V -24 1 16.7 -17.2 SP -SM 2 18.7 -19.2 SP 3 21.0 -21.5 SP 4 23.7 -24.2 SP -SM MAN- 104-25 1 14.2 -14.7 SM 2 16.0-16.51 SP 3 18.0 -18.5 SP 4 20.0 -20.5 SP MAN- 10 -V -26 1 15.3 -15.8 SP 2 17.5 -18.0 SP 3 19.0 -19.5 SP MAN- 10 -V -27 1 14.8 -15.3 SP 2 16.8 -17.3 SP 3 17.6 -18.1 SP 4 19.5 -20.0 SP -SM m Figure E -4a. Channel Soil Profile A - A' 5 4 3 2 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 1 BOR. MAN- 10 -V -16 BOR. MAN- 10- V -80R. MAN- 10- V -1BOR. MAN- 10- V -2MOR. MAN- 10- V -23E1R. MAN- 10 -V -23 BOR. MAN- 10 -V -24 BOR. MAN- 10 -V -26 BOR. MAN- 10 -V -27 _ STA.LAT N STA.LAT N STA.LAT N STA.LAT N STA.LAT N STA.LAT N STA.LAT N STA.LAT N STA.LAT N LONG W LONG W LONG W LONG W LONG W LONG W LONG W LONG W LONG W D DATE: 3 /16/2009 DATE: 3 /16/2009 DATE: 3/16/2009 DATE: 3 /16/2009 DATE: 3/16/2009 DATE: 3 /16/2009 DATE: 3 /16/2009 DATE: 3 /16/2009 DATE: 3 /16/2009 D GROUND ELEV. O.OGROUND ELEV. GROUND ELEV. GROUND ELEV. GROUND ELEV. GROUND ELEV. 0.0 GROUND ELEV. 0.0 GROUND ELEV. 0.0 GROUND ELEV. 0.0 0 0 -2 -2 -q -4 -6 -6 -g -8 C C m J -10 -10 < O W LL -12 SP -SM -12 _ Z SM Z U) m Z -14 m -14 Q MH SM W SPSM SPSM r W SM S < SPM -16 sM SP -SM SP -SM -16 SM SP 18 MH sP -sM -18 B SP �MH SP -SM SPSM SPSM B -20 -20 -22 SM P -22 -24 SP sM -24 -26— - -26 -28— - -28 A MH - Inorganic Silt A SP - Sand, Poorly Graded Zones of Core Loss SM - Silty Sand SP -SM - Poorly Graded Sand with 0 982 0 1964 3928 5892 Silt Horizontal Scale in Feet 5 4 3 2 1 m Figure E -4b. Recommended Reef Area Soil Profile B - B' 5 4 3 2 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 1 BOR. MAN- 10 -V -O6 BOR. MAN- 10 -V -05 BOR. MAN- 10 -V -02 BOR. MAN- 10 -V -01 _ STA.LAT N STA.LAT N STA.LAT N STA.LAT N LONG W LONG W LONG W LONG W D DATE: 3/15/2009 DATE: 3/15/2009 DATE: 3/15/2009 DATE: 3/15/2009 D GROUND ELEV. 0.0 GROUND ELEV. 0.0 GROUND ELEV. 0.0 GROUND ELEV. 0.0 0 0 -2 -2 -q -4 -6 -6 C C $ $ r- J J G 0 i F SP -SM 0 w-10 SP -SM LL -10 Z Z U) SP -SM m Z -12 -12 m Q SP -SM r > W w -14 -14 B -16 -16 B -18 -18 -20 -20 -22— - -22 -24— - -24 A Silt 61 SP -SM - Poorly Graded Sand with A Zones of Core Loss 0 246 0 491 982 1473 Horizontal Scale in Feet 5 4 3 2 1 T (I Figure E -4c. Unusable Placement Area Soil Profile C - C' 5 4 3 2 0 I I 1,000 2,000 3,000 I I I I I I 4,000 I 5,000 I I I 6,000 7,000 I I I BOR. MAN- 10 -V -09 BOR. MAN- 10- V- 10BOR. MAN- 10 -V -11 BOR. MAN- 10 -V -13 BOR. MAN- 10 -V -15 STA.LAT N STA.LAT N STA.LAT N STA.LAT N STA. LAT N LONG W LONG W LONG W LONG W LONG W D DATE: 3 /16/2009 DATE: 3 /16/2009 DATE: 3/16/2009 DATE: 3 /16/2009 DATE: 3/16/2009 D GROUND ELEV. 0.0 GROUND ELEV. 0.GROUND ELEV. 0.0 GROUND ELEV. 0.0 GROUND ELEV. 0.0 0 0 -5 -5 -10 -10 C C M J J G i 0 SP-SM W W SM SM SM Z Z LL -15 sM -15 Cf)_ Z MH Z m Z Z Q SPSM SP -SM SP-SM m � F Q SP -SM � r W W Sp GM P W SP S -20 -20 SP SM SPSM SP-SM SP -SM B B SP -25 -25 -30 -30 -35— - -35 A SM - Silty Sand A SP -SM - Poorly Graded Sand with Silt SP - Sand, Poorly Graded Zones of Core Loss GM - USCS Silty Gravel 0 313 0 625 1250 1875 MH - Inorganic Silt Horizontal Scale in Feet 5 4 3 2 1 m N Fieure E -6. Fence Diaeram of Vibracore Data In Studv Area GM Silty Gravel OL Organic Sit Core Loss 0 -V -27 m N Table E -3. Composite Silt Content Boring ID Geographic Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Sample 6 Thickness Thickness Thickness Thickness Thickness Thickness Total Composite Location of Represented %Silt Represented %Silt Represented %Silt Represented %Silt Represented %Silt Represented %Silt Silt ( %) Vibracore Boring (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Potential Reef MAN- 10 -V -01 Placement Area 2.7 0.9 3.0 0.4 1.8 3.8 1.4 Potential Reef MAN- 10 -V -02 Placement Area 2.0 1.2 2.0 2.1 1.0 2.7 1.9 Manteo 204 MAN- 10 -V -03 Study Area 3.0 17.4 2.5 71.2 1.2 90.7 50.6 Manteo 204 MAN- 10 -V -04 Study Area 2.8 4.1 1.7 10.6 1.9 68.0 2.9 9.7 20.1 Potential Reef MAN- 10 -V -05 Placement Area 1.8 4.4 2.0 3.0 0.7 9.7 4.6 Potential Reef MAN- 10 -V -06 Placement Area 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.3 1.1 1.7 Manteo 204 MAN- 10 -V -07 Study Area 2.8 37.7 3.2 27.8 1.0 7.3 28.8 Potential Reef MAN- 10 -V -08 Placement Area 2.2 6.7 2.5 6.4 2.0 4.3 1.8 11.1 7.0 Manteo 204 MAN- 10 -V -09 Study Area 2.5 7.9 2.0 16.3 2.0 2.3 3.0 2.3 2.5 1.0 2.0 1.6 5.0 Manteo 204 MAN- 10 -V -10 Study Area 2.0 8.2 1.3 47.2 1.2 5.8 2.0 5.5 2.5 6.2 1.7 2.4 10.8 Manteo 204 MAN- 10 -V -11 Study Area 2.0 9.1 1.0 35.0 1.8 7.3 2.0 3.4 2.2 23.0 1 0 1.6 10.7 Manteo 204 MAN- 10 -V -12 Study Area 3.5 11.5 1.0 55.9 2.5 2.5 1.8 6.9 13.0 Manteo 204 MAN- 10 -V -13 Study Area 2.0 10.6 1.0 52.0 2.7 4.1 3.3 4.0 10.8 m N co Table E -3. Composite Silt Content (cont.) Boring ID Geographic Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Sample 6 Thickness Thickness Thickness Thickness Thickness Thickness Total Composite Location of Represented %Silt Represented %Silt Represented %Silt Represented %Silt Represented %Silt Represented %Silt Silt ( %) Vibracore Boring (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Manteo 204 MAN- 10-V-15 Study Area 2.0 27.8 2.4 49.8 1.6 3.7 2.0 7.7 2.0 4.3 20.5 Old House MAN- 10 -V -16 Channel Range 2 3.0 58.6 1 3.3 80.0 1 1.7 1.4 1.5 2.6 1 1 47.0 Old House MAN- 10 -V -17 Channel Range 2 2.0 38.1 0.5 22.7 35.0 Old House MAN- 10-V-18 Channel Range 2 2.0 6.2 2.5 6.2 3.0 35.2 17.8/ 6.2* Manteo 204 MAN- 10-V-19 Study Area 1.9 5.6 2.1 11.2 3.0 81.7 39.9 Manteo 204 MAN- 10-V-20 Study Area 2.4 2.6 2.6 6.5 2.2 12.9 7.2 Old House MAN- 10-V-21 Channel Range 2 2.0 33.1 1.7 24.8 2.5 12.7 22.6/ 33.1* Old House MAN- 10 -V -22 Channel Range 2 1.5 66.4 2.2 13.7 1.6 5.4 2.2 7.7 20.7 Old House MAN- 10 -V -23 Channel Range 2 2.2 11.5 2.5 5.3 2.3 6.4 0.9 17.9 8.8 Old House MAN- 10 -V -24 Channel Range 2 2.0 6.7 1.3 2.7 2.7 4.0 1.8 6.7 5.1 Manteo 204 MAN- 10-V-25 Study Area 1.8 21.3 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.1 1.6 2.8 7.4 Old House MAN- 10 -V -26 Channel Range 2 2.2 1.0 1.5 1.5 3.7 2.4 2.7 Old House MAN- 10 -V -27 Channel Range 2 2.0 3.1 0.8 1.2 1.9 3.5 0.9 9.3 4.0 *Total Composite Silt Content above authorized dredging depth Figure E -5. Recommended Reef Placement Area E -19 Boring Logs E -20 HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -01 DRILLING LOG DIVISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS 1. ACT 10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 4" Dia. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT It DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWWW or AW MLLW 2. LOCATION OwdbWn drSWW NC COORD N 745215 E 2998073 NAD83 g, MANUFACTURERS DESIGNATION OF DRILL VIBRA CORE SNELL 3. DRILLING AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT 13• TOTAL NO.OF OVER- DISTURBED UNDISTURBED BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 3 0 4. HOLE �. fAir ~ do drmft Mk: MAN-10-V-01 14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A 5. NAME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A 6. DRECTION OF BOLE VERTICAL ❑ INCLINED DEG. FROM VERT. 16. DATE BOLE :STARTED COMPLETED • 3/15/2009 :3/15/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF FIOLE 0.0' MLLW 7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN N/A ( 9.3' Of Water) 18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORNG N/A X S. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0,0' 19. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR CARL BAYNARD CIVIL ENGINEER 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 19.3' ° ELEVATION DEPTH LEGEND CLASSIFICATION OF %ATERALS X CORE RE V• BOX OR 5 ND E REMIARKS (Domes*" = mar M6LW feet e d • I 0.0 0.0' TO 9.3' WATER Time begin vibracoring: 1352 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. -9.3 9.0 9.3 OCEAN BOTTOM AT 9.3' 9,3' NOTE: TOP OF HOLE is de- •.• SP-SM Tan, fine, poorly - graded 1 fined as surface of water silty sand and compensation is made 9.8' for the tide such that top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. VIBRACORE BORING 11 From 0.0' to 10.0' ' Ran 10.0' Rec: 7.5' 12.0' 2 • op of vibracore soil 12.5' ••• sample is logged as be- 13. ginning at Ocean Bottom. ' When Run is greater than Recovery, the difference •'• is depicfed as Assumed • Not Recovered. 15. 15.0' OTE: Soils Commercial Lo 3 Classified in Accordance • With ASTM -D2487 15.5' LAB CLASSIFICATION '.• 16.8' Jar ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED 17. Number ('Inssificntion 1 SP Z SP 3 SP 19. -19.3 19.3 BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 19.3' SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY NOTE HOLE CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE TERMINATED AT WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM PREDETERMINED DEPTH AT 10.0' ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PROJECT MANTEO 204 I.MEMU. _10_V -01 MAR 71 PROJECT HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -02 DRILLING LOG OWISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS 1. PROJECT O. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 4" Dio. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT 11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHiOWIl or YSu MLL W 2. LOCATION tCas11111ilaMes or SMS W NC COORD N 743301 E 2998043 NAD83 12, MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL VIBRA CORE SNELL 3. DRILLING AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT 13. TOTAL NO.OF OVER- 'DISTURBED 'UNDISTURBED BURDEN SIMPLES TAKEN 3 0 4. HOLE NO. (As IN an 4Yasrop ATq: MAN-10-V-02 011101111i oM fib 011101111i U. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A 5. NAME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A G. DIRECTION OF HOLE VERTICAL ❑ INCLINED DEG. FROM VERT. 15. DATE HOLE :STARTED COMPLETED • 3/15/2009 :3/15/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0,0' MLLW 7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN N/A ( 11.0' of Woter) B. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N /A X S. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0,0' M. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR CARL BAYNARD CIVIL ENGINEER 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 21.0' ELEVATION DEPTH LEGEND CLASSIFICATION TERIALS RECOV- SSAAMMPLE to�p IAe�Ewal�er SbtRa40fnIf M6LW f C e ERY • NO. I IIIHfi 6064HG/r IbdrA 1 0.0 0.0' TO 11.0' WATER Time begin vibracoring: 1421 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. -11.0 11.0 OCEAN BOTTOM AT 11.0' 11.0' SP -SM Grayish -tan, fine, poorly- 1 NOTE: TOP OF HOLE is de- graded, silty sand fined as surface of water 11.5' and compensation is made • for the tide such that ' top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. 13.0' VIBRACORE BORING 13 2 ' From 0.0' to 10.0' • Ran 10.0' Rec: 5.0' 13.5' ' op of vibrocore soil sample is logged as be- 15. ••• 15.0' inning at Ocean Bottom. 3 ••• When Run is greater than Recoveryy, the difference 15.5' 16.0' is depicfed as Assumed Not Recovered. ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED 17. OTE: Soils Commercial La Classified in Accordance with ASTM -D2487 LAB CLASSIFICATION Jar 19. Numhar C:Incsifinntinn 1 SP 2 SP 3 SP -21.0 21. BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 21.0' NOTE: HOLE SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY TERMINATED AT CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL PREDETERMINED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM DEPTH AT 10.0' ENG FORM1836 PmvIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PROJECT MANTEO 204 "0Llii4"A°j;1- 10 -V -02 MAR 71 PROJECT F HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -03 DRILLING LOG DiViSiON SOUTH ATLANTIC NSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS 1. PROJECT M. SIZE AM TYPE OF BIT 4" Dio. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT 11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOW IW or MSu 2. LOCATION V Whiii or SWW MLLW NC COORD N 743299 E 2996535 NAD83 12, MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL 3. DRILLING AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT VIBRA CORE SNELL 13. TOTAL NO.OF OVER- :DISTURBED :UNDISTURBED BURBEN SAMPLES TAKEN 3 0 '• HO Rail Dom~ an �: MAN-10-V-03 U. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A 5. NAME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A 6. DIRECTION OF HOLE VERTICAL ❑ INCLINED DEC. FROM VERT. 15. DATE HOLE :STARTED COMPLETED • 3/15/2009 :3/15/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0,0' MLLW 7. TFICI NESS OF OVERBURDEN N/A ( 14.0' of Woter) >a. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BaraNC N/A x S. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0,0' M. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 24.0' CARL BAYNARD, CIVIL ENGINEER ELEVATION M6LW DEPTH feet LEGEND • CLASSIFICATION TERIALS mambim • RE • E I � � S or 0.0 0 0.0' TO 14.0' WATER Time begin vibracoring: 1440 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. -14.0 14.G OCEAN BOTTOM AT 14.0' 14.0' SM Dark -gray, fine, silty sand 1 NOTE: TOP OF HOLE is de- fined as surface of water and compensation is made 14.5' for the tide such that top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. 16 VIBRACORE BORING From 0.0' to 10.0' Ran 10.0' Rec: 6.7' 17.0' 17.0' MH Dark -gray, elastic silt 2 18. Top of vibracore soil sample is logged as be- Inning at Ocean Bottom. When Run is greater than 17.5' Recovery, the difference is depicted as Assumed Not Recovered. 19.5' 3 20. OTE: Soils Commercial LaIc Classified in Accordance 20 0 20.7' with ASTM -D2487 ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED LAB CLASSIFICATION Jar 22. Number C:Inssificotinn 1 SM 2 MH 3 MH -24.0 24. BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 24.0' NOTE: HOLE SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL TERMINATED AT PREDETERMINED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM DEPTH AT 10.0' ENG FORM1836 PREVVA EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PROJECT MANTEO 204 H AN_10 -V -03 MAR 71 PROJECT HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -04 DRILLING LOG DIVISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS 1. PROJECT 1D. SZE AND TYPE OF BIT 4" Dio. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT 11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHNOW BV or 113U 2. LOCATION CwdbW S or SMNbrH/ MLLW NC COORD N 742532 E 2994943 NAD83 Q. MANIFACTURERS DESIGNATION OF DRILL s. DRILLING AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT VIBRA CORE SNELL 13. TOTAL NO.OF OVER- 'DISTURBED 'UMDISTURBED BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 4 0 4. HOLE NOry�aN- on *voft Mk, MAN' 10' V' 04 ... TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A 5. NAME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A 6. DIRECTION OF HOLE VERTICAL ❑ INCLKO OED. FROM VERT. S. DATE HOLE :STARTED COMPLETED • 3/15/2009 :3/15/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0,0' MLLW 7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN N/A ( 15.7' of Water) 11S. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N/A x B. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0.0' 19. yCNATURE OF INSPECTOR 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 25.7' CARL BAYNARD CIVIL ENGINEER ° ELEVATION M6LW DEPTH f LEGEND a CLASSIFICATION OF iIATERUILS tAwNdAW IS X CORE RECOV- ERY • BOX OR NO. I REMARKS t A��p NMaIMHrkr°ad4prna/ �wrfaffHrMp,ef�ba1pll/ 1 0.0 0.0' TO 15.7' WATER Time begin vibracoring: 1456 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. 15. NOTE: TOP OF HOLE is de- -15.7 15.7: OCEAN BOTTOM AT 15.7' 15.7' fined as surface of water compensation is made for the tide such that top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. S Grayish -tan, fine, silty sand with trace shell fragments 1 16.2' 16 VIBRACORE BORING From 0.0' to 10.0' Ran 10.0' Rec: 8.3' 17.5' 17.5' SP -SM Tan, fine, poolry- graded silty sand 2 18. op of vibracore soil sample is logged as be- ginning at Ocean Bottom. When Run is greater than ____ 0, Recovery, the difference is depicfed as Assumed 19.2' 19.2' Not Recovered. MH Dark -gray, elastic silt 3 20.017- 19'7 OTE: Soils Commercial La Classified in Accordance with ASTM -D2487 LAB CLASSIFICATION Jar 22. 22.1' 22.1' NiimhPr C:InSSificntinn SM Dark -gray, fine, silty sand with trace shell fragments 4 1 SP 2 SP -SM 22.6' 3 MH 4 SP -SM 24. 24.0' ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED NOTE HOLE TERMINATED AT PREDETERMINED DEPTH AT 10.0' -25.7 25.7 BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 25.7' SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PROJECT MANTEO 204 IHOLEA - 10 -V -04 MBAR 71 PROJECT HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -05 DRILLING LOG DIVISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS 1. PROJECT 1D. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 4" Dig. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT 11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOW AWorAW MLLW 2. LOCATION CoardMINs or SAa W NC COORD N 741440 E 2997768 NAD83 12, MANAFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL VIBRA CORE SNELL 3. DRILLING AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT 13. TOTAL 40. OF OVER- DISTURBED UNDISTURBED BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 3 0 '- HHO EAaNO��'"� am �' MAN -10 - V - 05 U. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BMS N/A S. NAME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A 6. DIRECTION OF BOLE VERTICAL ❑ INCLINED DEG. FROM VERT. 16. DATE BOLE :STARTED COMPLETED • 3/15/2009 :3/15/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0,0' MLLW 7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN N/A ( 12.2' Of WOter) 18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR WRING N/A x B. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0,0' 19. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR 1 CARL BAYNARD, CIVIL ENGINEER 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 22.0' ELEVATION DEPTH LEGEND CLASSIFICATION TERIALS RECOV Sj�E 1� y �w�siidVM6 Off M6LW f a e ERY ND. agd/kvnA 0.0 0.0' TO 12.2' WATER Time begin vibracoring: 1518 hrs Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. OCEAN BOTTOM AT 12.2' 12,2' -12.2. NOTE TOP OF HOLE is de- SP -SM Tan, fine, poorly - graded 1 fined as surface of water silty sand made de is 12.7' ford therrt that top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. 14.0' VIBRACORE BORING 14.G- .•. 2 • From 0.0' to 10.0' • Ran 10.0' Rec: 4.5' 14.5' op of vbracore soil sample is logged as be- 16. .•. . 160' ginning at Ocean Bottom. 3 When Run is greater than 16.7' Recovery the difference 16.5' ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED is depicted as Assumed Not Recovered. 18. 0- \JOTE: Soils Commercial Lo Classified in Accordance with ASTM -D2487 LAB CLASSIFICATION Jar 20. Numhe Classification 1 SP 2 SP 3 SP -SM -22.2 ZZ: BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 22.2' NOTE HOLE SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY TERMINATED AT CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL PREDETERMINED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM DEPTH AT 10.0' ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PROJECT MANTEO 204 'EA- 10 -V -05 MAR 71 PROJECT F HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -06 DRILLING LOG DIVISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS 1- PRO.ECT 1D. SIZE AHD TYPE OF BIT 4" Dio. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT 11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHHOWMTBMI or AW 2. LOCATION Wa rdnses or $MAIN MLLW INC COORD N 739963 E 2999495 NAD83 12, MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL 3. DRILLED AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT VIBRA CORE SNELL 13. TOTAL NO.OF OVER- 'DISTURBED 'UNDISTURBED BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 3 0 4. HOLE 40. (As dIHtlIM1 an N►N: M� _ 10' V' 06 aw fib A~) 14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BORES N/A !S. NAME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A 6. DIRECTION OF HOLE VERTICAL ❑ INCLINED DEC. FROM VERT. 15. DATE HOLE :STARTED COMPLETED • 3/15/2009 :3/15/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0,0' MLLW 7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN N/A ( 10.0' of Water) 18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N/A x S. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0.0' 19. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 20.0' 1 CARL BAYNARD, CIVIL ENGINEER ' ELEVATION M6LW DEPTH feet LEGEND 1 c CLASSIFICATION OF %ATERAS e X CORE RY • Box OR SAMPLE I REMARKS p?� E a 0.0 0 0.0' TO 10.0' WATER Time begin vibracoring: 1535 hrs Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. -10.0 10.& OCEAN BOTTOM AT 10.0' 10.0' SP -SM Tan, fine, poorly - graded 1 NOTE: TOP OF HOLE is de- • silty sand fined as surface of water and compensation is made 10.5' for the tide such that ' top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. 12 12.0' VIBRACORE BORING From 0.0' to 10.0' 2 ••� Ran 10.0' Rec: 5.3' 12.5' 14 ' •' • * 14.0' op of yibracore soil sample is logged as be- inning at Ocean Bottom. When Run is greater than 3 • Recoveryy, the difference is depicted as Assumed 14.5' 15.3' Not Recovered. ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED OTE: Soils Commercial La 16. Classified in Accordance with ASTM -D2487 LAB CLASSIFICATION Jar 18. NiimhPr C Inssifir.ntinn 1 SP 2 SP 3 SP -20.0 20. BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 20.0' NOTE HOLE SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL TERMINATED AT PREDETERMINED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM DEPTH AT 10.0' ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PRO'ECT MANTEO 204 "0LEA- 10 -V -06 L MAR 71 PROJECT HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -07 DRILLING LOG DIVISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS L PROJECT 10. SIZE AD TYPE OF BIT 4" Dio. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT It DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWR'6M or AW MLLW Z. LOCATION WaWdINOW or SWW NC COORD N 740245 E 2996690 NAD83 u, MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL VIBRA CORE SNELL 3. OKLNG AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT 13. TOTAL NO.OF OVER- 'DISTURBED •LNDISTtABED WIDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 3 0 4. HOLE NO. (As Nq on Ww# ip TAN: MAN-10-V-07 a w /Ay 4/10!'1 14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A 5. NAME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A 6. DIRECTION OF HOLE VERTICAL ❑NCLNED DEG. FROM VERT. 16. DATE HOLE :STARTED 'COMPLETED 3/15/2009 :3/15/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0.0' MLLW 7. TH EXNESS OF OVERBURDEN N/A C 15.2' of Woter) IS. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N/A X S. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0.0' 19. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR CARL BAYNARD CIVIL ENGINEER 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 25.2' ELEVATION DEPTH LEGEND CLASSIFICATION TERUILS RREE� E �e M6LW f a e No H M a 0.0 0.0' TO 15.2' WATER Time begin vibrocoring: 1553 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. -15.2 �`_ OCEAN BOTTOM AT 15.2' 15.2' NOTE TOP OF HOLE is de- fined as surface of water SM Dark -gray, fine, silty sand 1 ments with trace shell fragments and compensation is made 15.7' for the tide such that top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. VIBRACORE BORING 17 From 0.0' to 10.0' Ran 10.0' Rec: 7.0' 18.0' 2 op of vibracore soil 18.5' sample is logged as be- 19 inning at Ocean Bottom. When Run is greater than Recovery, the difference is depicted as Assumed Not Recovered. 21.0--: 21.2' 21.2' OTE: Soils Commercial La Classified in Accordance a SP -SM Gray, fine, poorly graded, 3 silty sand with ASTM -D2487 21.7' a 22.2' LAB CLASSIFICATION ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED Jar 23. Numher ('In��ificn fin n 2 SM 3 SP -SM - 25.2 25: BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 25.2' NOTE: HOLE SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY TERMINATED AT CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL PREDETERMINED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM DEPTH AT 10.0' ENG F0011141836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PRD'ECT MANTEO 204 HD`Fj11IN, - - 10 -V -07 MAR 71 PROJECT HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -08 DRILLING LOG DIVISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS L PROJECT D. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 4" Dio. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT 11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHiOWW8M or AW 2. LOCATION (aHOrdWw or SWW MLLW NC COORD N 740145 E 2993762 NAD83 12. MANWACTUREWS DESIGNATION OF GRILL 3. DRILLING AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT VIBRA CORE SNELL 13. TOTAL ND.OF DVER- DISTURBED uKX5TURKD BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 4 0 4. HDLE NO. Ms MC11II on daft Ift, MAN-10-V-08 am IAb auH ) H. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A 9 NAME OF GRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 15• ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A 6. DIRECTION OF HOLE VERTICAL ❑ NCLI ED DEG FROM VERT. IL DATE HOLE :STARTED 'COMPLETED • 3/15/2009 -3/15/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0,0' MLLW 7. rHaCKNESS OF OVERBUIRDEN N/A t 14.8' of Woter) 1B. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N/A x & DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK D D' 19. yONATURE OF INSPECTOR 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 24.8' CARL BAYNARD, CIVIL ENGINEER ELEVATION MLLW DEPTH feet LEGEND a CS TERALS a xRECOOV- ERY • SSMFLE No I t IAII w JOar,aYprnd �wiragrcnapd/Jaorn 0.0 0.0' TO 14.8' WATER Time begin vibracoring: 1611 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. 14. NOTE: TOP OF HOLE is de- -14.8 14.8 OCEAN BOTTOM AT 14.8' 14.8' fined as surface of water and compensation is made for the tide such that top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. �.� SP -SM Tan, fine, poorly - graded, silty sand 1 15.3 ' VIBRACORE BORING From 0.0' to 10.0' 16 '•' ' Ran 10.0' Rec: 8.5' 17.0' 2 18.0- ••• op of vibracore soil sample Is logged as be- Inning at Ocean Bottom. When Run is greater than 17.5' ' Recovery, the difference .•. is depicfed as Assumed Not Recovered. 19.5' 3 OTE: Soils Commercial La Classified in Accordance with ASTM -D2487 20. •'� • 20 0' LAB CLASSIFICATION �.� 21.5' 21.5' SM Grayish -tan, fine, silty sand 4 Jar 22. and pea-gravel 2.0' -22 umher C Inssifir.ntinn 1 SP -SM 2 SP -SM 3 SP 23.3' 4 SW -SM ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED 24. -24.8 24.8 BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 24.8' NOTE HOLE SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL TERMINATED AT PREDETERMINED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM DEPTH AT 10.0' ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EMTMS ARE OBSOLETE. PROJECT MANTEO 204 1"A -10-V-08 MAR 71 PROJECT HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -09 DRILLING LOG DIVISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 of 2 SHEETS I. PROJECT D. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 4" Dio. Vibroccre MANTEO 204 PROJECT It DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWTBV or AW MLLW Z. LOCATION Cordnahr or 910W NC COORD N 731109 E 2994952 NAD83 12- MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL VIBRA CORE SNELL 3. DRILLNC AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT 13. TOTAL ND.OF OVER- DSTURBED UNDISTURBED BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 6 0 4' aim �,r:; � p° �: MAN _ 10 - V - 09 14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A 5. NAME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A 6. DIRECTION OF HOLE VERTICAL ❑ INCLINED DEG. FROM VERT. 16. DATE HOLE :STARTED COMPLETED ' 3/16/2009 • 3/16/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0,0' MLLW 7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN N/A ( 14.5' of Water) B. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N/A x 8. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0,0' 19, SIGNRATURE OF INSPECTOR CARL BAYNARD, CIVIL ENGINEER 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 34.5' ° ELEVATION DEPTH LEGEND CLASSIFICATION OF LATERIALS 1AR51vamw Z CORE RECOV- ERY BOX OR SAMPLE N0. REMARKS 108�iIp 1Arrwaror�Nft.oUpM0, M M6LW . ° . I redlMMp eRG 4pNIAaoM1 0.0 _LfgaL 0.0' TO 14.8' WATER Time begin vibracoring: 0856 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. 14. OCEAN BOTTOM AT 14.5' 14.5' NOTE: TOP OF HOLE is de- -14.5 14.5 fined as surface of water SM Gray, fine, silty sand 1 and compensation is made for the tide such that 15.0' top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. VIBRACORE BORING 16 From 0.0' to 20.0' Ran 20.0' Rec: 14.0' 17.0' ' SP -SM Tan, fine, poorly - graded, 2 silt sand y op of vibrocore soil 17.5' sample is logged as be- 18. inning at Ocean Bottom. When Run is greater than Recovery, the difference 19.0' 19.0' is depicted as Assumed Not Recovered. ' SP Tan, coarse, poorly-graded, 3 • sand with trace shell ' '• fragments OTE: Soils Commercial La 20.0-3 Classified in Accordance . with ASTM -D2487 21.0' 21.0' ' SP -SM Greenish -tan, fine, poorly 4 LAB CLASSIFICATION • - graded, silty sand with 21.5' trace shell fragments Jar 22.G- Numbp C:Inssification 1 SP -SM 2 SM 3 SP • 4 SP • 5 SP • ' 24.0' 6 SP 24. • • SP Greenish -tan, medium - coarse, 5 poorly - graded, sand 24.5' 26.0-Z Continued on Sheet 2 ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PROJECT MANTEO 204 BEM%_ _10 -V -09 MAR 71 PROJECT DRILLING LOG (Cont Sheet) ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE MAN- 10 -V -09 0.0 MLLW Hole No. PROJECT INSTALLATION SHEET 2__ MANTEO 204 PROJECT WILMINGTON DISTRICT OF 2-- S1jEETS ELEVATION DEPTH LEGEND CLASSFIGIw MATERIALS xRECOV SAMPLE ! rA dprnd e 26DO a e ERY • NO. I =ohv zvr dyN/kmq ' ' SP Greenish -tan, medium - coarse, 26.5' poorly - graded, sand 6 ' . . • 27.0' 28. '•'• ' 28.5' ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED 30. 32. 34. -34.5 34.5 BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 34.5' NOTE HOLE TERMINATED AT PREDETERMINED DEPTH AT 20.0' SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ENG FORMIS36 -A PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. ACT MANTEO 204 HOLE NO. .s .. oon icrr MAN-10-V-09 HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -10 DRILLING LOG DIVISION! SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 aF 1 SHEETS 1. PROJECT D. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 4" Dio. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT 11, DATUM FOR ELEVATION SH DWITBM or AW MLLW z. LOCATION CaldihOW or SMftV NC COORD N 733117 E 2993558 NAD83 12. MANUFACTURERS DESGNATON OF DRILL VIBRA CORE SNELL 3. DRILLING AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT 13, TOTAL NO. OF OVER- DSTURBEO UNDISTURBED BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 6 0 4. HO %AI A de drmft Mk• MAN-10-V-10 14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A 5. NAME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A L DIRECTION OF HOLE VERTICAL [3 INCLINED DEG FROM VERT. 15. DATE HOLE :STARTED COMPLETED • 3/16/2009 :3/16/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0,0' MLLW 7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN N/A ( 14.0' of Woter) 18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N/A X B. DEPTH ORILLED INTO ROCK 0,0' 19, SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR CARL BAYNARD, CIVIL ENGINEER 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 30.0' ° ELEVATION DEPTH LEGEND CLASSIFICATION OF SIATERIALS X CORE REECOV- BOX OR SASE REMARKS t A�p rI�slNOlr NA°ra;allrnd �wloRi� 4bV5 M6LW foet e tAICAAHbN e • R INt: b edprHMkvn1 0.0 0 0.0' TO 14.0' WATER Time begin vibracoring: 0920 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. -14.0 14.G OCEAN BOTTOM AT 14.0' 14.0' SM Gray, fine, silty sand with 1 NOTE: TOP OF HOLE is de- trace shell fragments ' fined as surface of water 14.5 and compensation is made for the tide such that top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. 16.0' VIBRACORE BORING 16. 2 From 0.0' to 16.0' Ran 16.0' Rec: 10.7' 16.5' 17.3' 17.3' op of Vibrocore soil • SP -SM Tan, fine, poorly - graded, 3 silty sand sample is logged as be- 17.8' 18. ginning at Ocean Bottom. 18.5' 18.5' When Run is greater than • Recoveryy, the difference SP Tan, coarse, poorly-graded raded P y -9 4 is depicfed as Assumed �••• sand Not Recovered. 19 .0' 20.0,7- .•. OTE: Soils Commercial La 20.5 20.5' Classified in Accordance with ASTM -D2487 SM Gray, fine, silty sand with 5 trace shell fragments 21.0' LAB CLASSIFICATION Jar 22. Niimher Classification 1 SP -SM 2 SM 23.0' 23.0' 3 SP -SM SP -SM Tan, fine, poorly - graded, trace 6 4 SP -SM 5 SP -SM silty sand with 23.5' 6 SP shell fragments 24, Continued on Sheet 2 NOTE: HOLE TERMINATED AT REFUSAL DEPTH OF 16.0' ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PROJECT MANTEO 204 HOLEM%_ _10_V -10 MAR 71 PROJECT DRILLING LOG (Cont Sheet) ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE MAN- 10 -V-10 0.0 MLLW Hole No. PROJECT INSTALLATION SHEET 2__ MANTEO 204 PROJECT WILMINGTON DISTRICT OF 2_—SHEETS ELEVATION DEPTH LEGEND CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS RECOV SAMPLE tlyglhp Ail wda bsa,dYpMd e 240 e fDssovw e ERY • NO. I wAaRirdg M TIpMAlnnl SP-Sly Tan, fine, poorly- graded, silty sand w /trace shell fragmynt�, ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED 26. 28. -30.0 30. BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 30.0' NOTE HOLE TERMINATED AT PREDETERMINED SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE DEPTH AT 16.0' WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ENG FORMIS36 -A PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PRO.ECT MANTEO 204 HOLE NO. oon H: /`T MAN-10-V-10 HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -11 DRILLING LOG DIVISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 GF 1 SHEETS 1. PROJECT 10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 4" Dio. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT It DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWWBM or AW 2. LOCATION C ordaW or SWW MLLW NC COORD N 734054 E 2994758 NAD83 12, MANUFACTUREWS DESGNATION OF DRILL 3. DRILLING AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT VIBRA CORE SNELL 13. TOTAL NO. OF OVER- 'DISTURBED 'UNDISTURBED BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 6 0 4. HOLE NO. (AF -Ip on oUv*ft ATN: MAN-10-V-11 om IAr mneea U. TOTAL MILDER CORE BOXES N/A 9. NAME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGIIF CRANE OPERATOR 16. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A 6. DIRECTION OF HOLE VERTICAL [3 INCLINED DEG FROM VERT. X. DATE HOLE :STARTED COMPLETED .3/16/2009 :3/16/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0.0' MLLW 7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN N/A ( 14.0' Of Water) 18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N/A X 8. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0.0' 19. SDNATURE OF INSPECTOR 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 29,0' CARL BAYNARD, CIVIL ENGINEER ELEVATION M6LW DEPTH f LEGEND CLASSIFICATION OF TERIALS RECSR ERY SSAAMPLE NO. I REMARKS rp/AlnpMII w bsAdYpMd woonlNruq oae >r apraAxnl 0.0 0 0.0' TO 14.0' WATER Time begin vibracoring: 0939 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. -14.0 14.G OCEAN BOTTOM AT 14.0' SM Gray, fine, silty sand with trace shell fragments 14.0' 1 NOTE TOP OF HOLE is de- fined as surface of water and compensation is made 14.5 ' for the tide such that top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. 16. 16.0' VIBRACORE BORING From 0.0' to 15.0' 2 Ran 15.0' Rec• 12.0' 16.5 17.0' 17.0' • ••• SP SM sinae� poorly- graded, silty 3 18 op of vibracore soil sample is logged as be- ginning at Ocean Bottom. When Run is greater than 17.5' • 18.8' 18.8' Recovery the difference is depicted as Assumed Not Recovered. GM Gray, fine, silty gravel 4 19.3' OTE: Soils Commercial La 20. Classified in Accordance 20 8' 20.8' with ASTM -D2487 SM Gray, fine, silty sand with 5 trace shell fragments LAB CLASSIFICATION 21.3' Jar 22. Numher C:Inssificntinn 1 SP -SM 23.0' 23.0' 2 SM 3 SP -SM • • • • SP -SM Tan, fine, poorly - graded, silty sand 6 4 SP 5 SM 6 SP 23.5' 24. Continued on Sheet 2 NOTE: HOLE TERMINATED AT REFUSAL DEPTH OF 15.0' ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITDNS ARE OBSOLETE. PRO'ECT MANTEO 204 "OL�&- 10 -V -11 MAR 71 PROJECT DRILLING LOG (Cont Sheet) ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE MAN-10-V-11 0.0 MLLW Hole No. PROJECT INSTALLATION SHEET 2__ MANTEO 204 PROJECT WILMINGTON DISTRICT 2__ OF SLEETS N ELEVATION DEPTH LEGEND OF MATERIALS tDwww v 11 COREI RERY 802 OR SAMPLE Rr"01S fQ9rAno d a 240 e IS • I raoffer SP -SM Tan, fine, poorly - graded, silty sand 26. 26.0' ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED 28. -29.0 29. BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 29.0' NOTE HOLE TERMINATED AT PREDETERMINED SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE DEPTH AT 15.0' WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ENG FORM1836 ...e .. -A PREVOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. SOT MANTEO 204 HOLE NO. oon Wf-T MAN-10-V -11 I HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -12 DRILLING LOG DIVISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS 1. PROJECT 10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 4" pia. Vibracore MANTEO 204 PROJECT 11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHIDW Mf or 6W MLLW 2. LOCATION (Carob o ea or SWW NC COORD N 735375 E 2992362 NAD83 12. MANUFACTURER'S OESIDNATIM OF ORaLL VIBRA CORE SNELL 3. DRILLING AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT 11 TOTAL NO.OF OVER- 'DISTURBED UNDISTURBED BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 4 0 +. mtl E NO. .wev� an & Whg "N°' MAN-10-V-12 14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A 5. NAME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A S. DIRECTION OF HOLE VERTICAL ❑ INCLINED DEG. FROM VERT. 18 DATE HOLE :STARTED 'COMPLETED ' 3/16/2009 • 3/16/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0,0' MLLW 7. THiCIMSS OF OVERBURDEN N/A ( 13.6' of Woter) 11L TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N/A X 8. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0.0' 19. SGNATURE OF INSPECTOR CARL BAYNARD CIVIL ENGINEER 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 25.6' ELEVATION' DEPTH LEGEND CLASSIFICATION TERIALS RECO�V- SSA LE 011 /hleHwaNr by aggoMa/ M6LW f e e E.Y N0. woofhrhg Me II opnFAa7M1 0.0 0 0.0' TO 13.6' WATER Time begin vibracoring: 1002 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. 13. -13.6 13.6- OCEAN BOTTOM AT 13.6' 13.6' NOTE: TOP OF HOLE is de- fined as surface of water SM Grayish -tan, fine, silty sand 1 and compensation is made with trace shell fragments for the tide such that 14.1' top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. VIBRACORE BORING 15 From 0.0' to 12.0' Ran 12.0' Rec: 8.8' Top of vibracore soil sample is logged as be- 17 17.1' 17.1' ginning at Ocean Bottom. MH Dark gray elastic silt 2 When Run is greater than 18.1' Recovery, the difference is depicfed as Assumed �•��� SP Tan, coarse, poorly - graded 3 Not Recovered. sand 18.6' • OTE: Soils Commercial La Classified in Accordance with ASTM -D2487 LAB CLASSIFICATION �.�. •' 20.6' 20.6' SP -SM Gray. fine - medium, poorly 4 Jar 21. - graded sand with shell Number Classification 21.1' fragments and pea gravel 1 SP -SM 2 MH 3 SP • 22.4' 4 SP -SM ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED 23. NOTE HOLE TERMINATED AT REFUSAL DEPTH OF 12.0' 25. -25.6 25.6 BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 25.6' SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PROJECT MANTEO 204 "Fjy1%- 10 -V -12 MAR 71 PROJECT HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -13 DRILLING LOG DIVIR10N SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS 1• PRMCT 12. M. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 4" Dia. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT 111. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWII or I19., MLLW LOCATION Cwdh&W or Slob NC COORD N 736010 E 2993815 NAD83 12- MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL VIBRA CORE SNELL 3. DRILLING AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT 13. TOTAL NO.OF OVER- 'DISTURBED UNDISTURBED BURDEN SABLES TAKEN 4 0 '' HOLE NO. (AN - I 1 an °'0oft �' MAN_ 10_V_ 13 &V TAU f&NW) ... TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A S. NAME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 16. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A 6. DIRECTION OF HOLE VERTICAL ❑ INCLINED DEG. FROM VERT. 16. DATE HOLE 'STARTED COMPLETED :3/16/2009 :3/16/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0,0' MLLW 7. THCOIESS OF OVERBURDEN N/A ( 13.6' of Woter) 18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N/A x B. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0,0' V. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR CARL BAYNARD, CIVIL ENGINEER 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 25.6' ELEVATION DEPTH LEGEND CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS I CORE CO 8011 OR 8AMPL REMARKS =&.Z_ 1d�dyoMd o s e lOesvlpAW e ERY • NO. I 1I agMlbarY, 0.0 0.0' TO 13.6' WATER Time begin vibrocoring: 1018 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. 13. NOTE: TOP OF HOLE is de- -13.6 13.6 OCEAN BOTTOM AT 13.6' 13.6' fined as surface of water SP -SM Gray, fine, poorly - graded 1 and compensation is made •' • silty sand with trace roots for the tide such that top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. 14.1' • VIBRACORE BORING 15. From 0.0' to 12.0' 15.6' 15.6' Ran 12.0' Rec: 9.0' MH Dark gray elastic silt 2 16.6' op of vibracore soil sample is logged as be- SP -SM Gray, oorl raded Y. P . Y 9 3 17. ginning at Ocean Bottom. silty sand with trace shell fragments When Run is greater than 171' Recovery the difference is depicted as Assumed Not Recovered. 19. NOTE: Soils Commercial La 19.3' 19.3' Classified in Accordance SP Tan, coarse, poorly - graded 4 with ASTM -D2487 sand with shell fragments 19.8' ' LAB CLASSIFICATION 21.0- 21.0' Jar Number Classification trace shell fragments ' 1 MH . 21. 8' 2 SP no shell fragments 3 SP S 4 P 22.6' ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED 23 NOTE HOLE TERMINATED AT REFUSAL DEPTH OF 12.0' 25. -25.6 25.6 BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 25.6' SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PROJECT MANTEO 204 H1oL F1AdW-10 -V -13 MAR 71 PROJECT F HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -14 DRILLING LOG DIVISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS t PR"CT b• SEE AID TYPE OF BIT 4" Dio. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT 11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWWW or AW 2. LOCATION Cwdeeae or Sahara MLLW INC COORD N 736791 E 2995705 NAD83 tt, MUINUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL 3. DRILLING AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT VIBRA CORE SNELL 13. TOTAL NO.OF OVER- DISTURBED UNDISTURBED UR DAMN SMILES TAKEN 4 0 4. HOLE NO. (At eaaee on ouft IArM; aw fib MOW) MAN -10 - V -14 U. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A 5. NME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A 6. DIRECTION OF HOLE VERTICAL ❑ INCLINED DEG. FROM VERY. 16. DATE HOLE 'STARTED COMPLETED :3/16/2009 :3/16/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0,0' MLLW 7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN N/A ( 14.8' Of Woter) 1B. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N/A X B. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0.0' 19. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 24.8' CARL BAYNARD, CIVIL ENGINEER ELEVATION' M6LW DEPTH f LEGEND a CLASSIFICATION TERUILS e RECCV • BOX N0ERY I fDrATgq /hIe<Ie by dlpMd M 4ljMnMA�arA 0.0 0.0' TO 14.8' WATER Time begin vibracoring: 1041 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. 14. NOTE: TOP OF HOLE is de- -14.8 14.8 OCEAN BOTTOM AT 14.8' 14 8' fined as surface of water and compende sation is made for the ti such that top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. SM Grayish -tan, fine, silty sand with trace shell fragments 1 15.3' VIBRACORE BORING From 0.0' to 10.0' 16 16.8' 16.8' Ran 10.0' Rec: 9.5' MH Dark gray elastic silt 2 18 Top of vibracore soil sample is logged as be- ginning at Ocean Bottom. When Run is greater than 17.3' Recovery, the difference is depicfed as Assumed 19.3' 19.3' Not Recovered. OL Gray organic soil, slight 3 20. rust discoloration 19.8' OTE: Soils Commercial La III Classified in Accordance III with ASTM -D2487 LAB CLASSIFICATION III 21.6' 21.6' 22• SM Gray, fine silty sand with shell fragments 4 Jar Numbe Olnssificntion 22. 1' 1 SP 2 M 3 SM 4 SM 24. 24.3' ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED -24.8 24.8 BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 24.8' NOTE: HOLE SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY TERMINATED UPON CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE REFUSAL DEPTH WITH THE SOIL CLASSIFICAT OINIESYSTTEM 10.01 ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PRO.ECT MANTEO 204 HOL�"g- - 10 -V -14 MAR 71 PROJECT F HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -15 DRILLING LOG DIVISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS 1. PROJECT 12. 10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 4" Dio. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT 11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOW M( orJW LOCATION 0wdir W or SWW MLLW INC COORD N 737545 E 2993679 NAD83 g, MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL 3. DRILLING AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT VIBRA CORE SNELL 13. TOTAL NO.OF OVER- DISTURBED UNDISTURBED BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 4 0 4. HOLE NO. (As -oc an o v*ft ` b, MAN -10 - V -15 &V fib 14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A 5. NAME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A 6. DIRECTION OF HOLE j vERTICAL ❑ INCLINED DEC. FROM VERT. 16. DATE HOLE 'STARTED COMPLETED :3/16/2009 :3/16/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0,0' MLLW 7. THiGMESS OF OVERBURDEN N/A ( 14.0' Of Woter) 18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N/A X 8. DEPTH DRILLED INTO RDCK 0,0' 19. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF H10LE 26.0' CARL BAYNARD, CIVIL ENGINEER a ELEVATION M6LW DEPTH f LEGEND a CLASSIFICATION OF 1AATERIALS (DOW>dAW a X CORE IRO„- a BOX OR SAMPLE I REMARKS tOrA�p j: =1d w4affr 0.0 U 0.0' TO 14.0' WATER Time begin vibrocoring: 1101 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. -14.0 14. OCEAN BOTTOM AT 14.0' 14.0' SM Tan, fine, silty sand 1 NOTE: TOP OF HOLE is de- 14.5' fined as surface of water and compensation is made for the tide such that top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. 16.0 VIBRACORE BORING From 0.0' to 12.0' Ran 12.0' Rec: 10.0' 16.0' 2 18 18.4' op of vibracore soil sample is logged as be- inning at Ocean Bottom. When Run is greater than 16.5' 18.4' Recoveryy, the difference is depicfed as Assumed Not Recovered. ' ' ' SP Tan, coarse, poorly - graded sand 3 18.9' 20. ••• 20'0 OTE: Soils Commercial Lo 4 •••• Classified in Accordance • with ASTM -D2487 20.5' LAB CLASSIFICATION •.�.• 22. •••• . • •• 22.0' Jar Numher Classification 1 SM 5 •. • 2 SM 3 SP _T2_ -5' ' 4 SP -SM •'•' S SP 24. 24.0' ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED -26.0 26. BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 26.0' NOTE HOLE SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL TERMINATED UPON REFUSAL DEPTH CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 12.0' ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PRO.ECT MANTEO 204 "0LEA- 10 -V -15 MAR 71 PROJECT HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -16 DRILLING LOG DIVISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 of 1 SHEETS L PROJECT 10. SIZE AID TYPE OF BIT 4" Dig. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT 1L DATUM FOR ELEVATION SIDWIrBM or AW T. LOCATION tQIOdIIa w or SWW MLLW NC COORD N 728610 E 2998149 NAD83 12. MANUFACTUREWS DESIGNATION OF DRILL 3. DRILLING AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT VIBRA CORE SNELL 13. TOTAL ND.OF OVER- DISTURBED UNDISTURBED BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 4 0 4. HOLE N0. !As -1 c an o whq nnb: MAN-10-V-16 &W rAV nrlEr! U. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A 9 NAME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A 6. DIRECTION OF IDLE VERTICAL ❑ INCLINED DEC. FROM VERT. B. DATE HOLE :STARTED COMPLETED • 3/16/2009 :3/16/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF IDLE 0.0' MLLW 7. THMNESS OF OVERBURDEN N/A ( 17.0' Of Woter) 18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N/A X B. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0.0- 19. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 27,0' 1 CARL BAYNARD, CIVIL ENGINEER ELEVATION M6LW DEPTH f LEGEND C CLASSIFICATION � TERIALS a RECD ERY • E�parAwdba.Jprnd NO. I �waRiw V01jr,albd/A1arIIJ 0.0 0 0.0' TO 17.0' WATER Time begin vibracoring: 1154 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. -17.0 17. OCEAN BOTTOM AT 17.0' 17.0' NOTE: TOP OF HOLE is de- MH Dark gray elastic silt 1 fined as surface of water and compensation is made 17.5' for the tide such that top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. 19 VIBRACORE BORING From 0.0' to 10.0' Ran 10.0' Rec: 9.5' 20.0' 2 20.5' 21. Top of vibrocore soil sample is logged as be- inning at Ocean Bottom. When Run is greater than Recoveryy, the difference is depicfed as Assumed Not Recovered. 23. 23.3' 23.3' OTE: Soils Commercial La Classified in Accordance with ASTM -D2487 '•'• •• SP Grayish -tan, medium - coarse, 3 • •• .• poorly- graded sand with shell fragments 23.8' LAB CLASSIFICATION 25. • 25.0' Jar Numher C:Inssificntinn 4 . •••• 1 MH 2 MH 25.5' • 3 SP 26.5' 4 SP ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED -27.0 27. BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 27.0' SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM NOTE HOLE TERMINATED AT PREDETERMINED DEPTH AT 10.0' ENG FORMIS36 PREVIOUS EOITIGNS ARE OBSOLETE. PROJECT MANTEO 204 1"A -10-V-16 MAR 71 PROJECT HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -17 DRILLING LOG DIVISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS 1. PROJECT 10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 4° Dio. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT 11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWTBM or Mu 2. LOCATION 0wilhWa or SWW MLLW NC COORD N 730531 E 2999371 NAD83 12. MANUFACTURER'S DES04ATON OF DRILL 3. DRILLING. AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT VIBRA CORE SNELL 13. TOTAL NO.OF OVER- :DISTURBED :UNDISTURBED BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 2 0 4. HO � 1Ax , 0, on RIME MAN-10-V-17 U. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A S. NAME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A 6, DIRECTION OF HOLE VERTICAL r_3 INCLINED DEG. FROM VERT. 16. DATE HOLE :STARTED COMPLETED ' 3/16/2009 • 3/16/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0,0' MLLW 7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN N/A t 14.8' of Woter> 18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N/A % 8. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0,0' V. SICNATURE OF INSPECTOR 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 24.3' CARL BAYNARD CIVIL ENGINEER ° ELEVATION M6LW DEPTH feet LEGEND • CLASSIFICATION OF 9j1ATERUILS (08§W Nbv • % CORE RERIV- • SAM LE SAMPLE E I RIO. p REMARKS9 BIerIHaler 'aYpNAOr , 0.0 0.0' TO 14.3' WATER Time begin vibracoring: 1216 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. -14.3 14.G 14.3-- OCEAN BOTTOM AT 14.3' 14.3' NOTE TOP OF HOLE is de- fined as surface of water and compensation is made for the tide such that SM Blackish -gray, fine silty sand 1 14.8' top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. 16 16.3' VIBRACORE BORING From 0.0' to 10.0' 2 16.8' Ran 10.0' Rec: 2.5' ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED 16.8' 18 Fop of vibrocore soil sample is logged as be- Inning at Ocean Bottom. When Run is greater than Recovery, the difference is depicted as Assumed Not Recovered. 20. OTE: Soils Commercial La Classified in Accordance with ASTM -D2487 LAB CLASSIFICATION Jar 22 Numher Cllassificntion 1 SM 2 SM 24. 24.3 -24.3 BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 24.3' NOTE HOLE SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY TERMINATED AT CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM PREDETERMINED DEPTH AT 10.0' ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PRO'ECT MANTEO 204 IHI - 10 -V -17 MAR 71 PROJECT HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -18 DRILLING LOG DIVISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS t PROJECT 10. SEE AM TYPE OF BIT 4" Dio. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT 11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWWBV Or MSG T. LOCATION Cardeft or SMHNHM MLLW NC COORD N 732183 E 3000416 NAD83 12, MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF GRILL 3. DRILLING AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT VIBRA CORE SNELL 13. TOTAL NO.OF OVER- 'DISTURBED 'UNDISTURBED BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 3 0 o 4. HOLE NO. (As NiW M dimoft NMI: M� _ 10' V' 1$ ow ra A~) U. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BORES N/A 5. NAME OF GRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A 6. DIRECTION OF HOLE VERTICAL [3 NCLIED DEC FROM VERT. 1& DATE HOLE :STARTED COMPLETED .3/16/2009 :3/16/2009 17, ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0.0' MLLW 7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN N/A ( 11.5' Of Woter) 11& TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N/A x & DEPTH ORILLED INTO ROCK 0,0' 19. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR 1 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 21.5' CARL BAYNARD, CIVIL ENGINEER ELEVATION M6LW DEPTH f LEGEND c rxASSrlcr+ rERU1LS e RECOOV- ERY • [S8AM P L No I rDrTAmpMHI whir REMARKS9 dIIMd waArhp.rGU yyMrkan 0.0 0.0' TO 11.5' WATER Time begin vibracoring: 1235 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. 11. -11.5 11.5 OCEAN BOTTOM AT 11.5' 11.5' P NOTE: TO OF HOLE is de- fined as surface of water and compensation is made for the tide such that top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. SP -SM Grayish -tan, fine, poorly - graded silty sand 1 12.0' 13 . . 13.5' VIBRACORE BORING From 0.0' to 10.0' Ran 10.0' Rec: 7.5' 2 • 14.0' 15 �•� �.� Top of vibracore soil sample is logged as be- Inning at Ocean Bottom. When Run is greater than 16.0' 16.0' Recovery, the difference is depicted as Assumed Not Recovered. SM Gray, fine silty sand 3 16.5' OTE: Soils Commercial La 17. 17.5' Classified in Accordance grayish -tan color with ASTM -D2487 LAB CLASSIFICATION 19. 19.0' Jar Numher C:Inssificntinn ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED 1 SP -SM 2 SP -SM 3 SM 21. -21.5 21.5 BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 21.5' NOTE HOLE SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY TERMINATED AT CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM PREDETERMINED DEPTH AT 10.0' ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PROJECT MANTEO 204 1"A -10-V-18 MAR 71 PROJECT HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -19 DRILLING LOG DIVISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 of 1 SHEETS 1. PROJECT 1D. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 4" DIo. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT 11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHNO*WBY or SW z. LOCATION Cawd/i&w or SWW MLLW NC COORD N 734976 E 2999458 NAD83 12. MANUFACTUREWS DESIGNATION OF ORAL 3. DRILLING AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT VIBRA CORE SNELL 13. TOTAL NO.OF OVER- 'DISTURBED UNDISTURBED BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 3 0 4. HOLE NO. o1I awn m ovwft Ob, MAN -10 - V -19 7,o aN , miller, 14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A S. NAME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 1D. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A B. DIRECTION OF HOLE 14 VERTICAL ❑ INMINED DEG. FROM VERT. X. DATE HOLE :STARTED 'COMPLETED ' 3/16/2009 •3/16/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0,0' MLLW 7. TH ICMSS OF OVERBURDEN N/A ( 11.6' of Water) 18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N/A x 8. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0.0- 19. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 21.6' 1 CARL BAYNARD CIVIL ENGINEER • ELEVATION DEPTH feet LEGEND a CLASSIFICATION OF iAATERUILS ,MfAON X CORE RED - EM6LW • BOX OR SAMPLE No I REMARKS !Q=s ff 61 0.0 0 0.0' TO 11.6' WATER Time begin vibrocoring: 1256 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. 11.0 -11.6 11.6 OCEAN BOTTOM AT 11.6' 11.6' NOTE TOP OF HOLE is de- fined as surface of water and compensation is made for the tide such that top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. SP -SM Tan, fine, poorly graded silty sand 1 12 1' 13.G- • 13.5' VIBRACORE BORING From 0.0' to 10.0' Ran 10.0' Rec: 7.0' 2 • . • 14.0' 15. • ••• • 15.6' Fop of vibrocore soil sample Is logged as be- inning at Ocean Bottom. When Run is greater than Recovery, the difference MH Dark gray elastic silt with large shell fragments 3 is depicted as Assumed Not Recovered. 16.1' 16.0' 17. no shell fragments OTE: Soils Commercial La Classified in Accordance with ASTM -D2487 LAB CLASSIFICATION 18.6' 19. NaimhPr C Inssifirntinn ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED 1 SP -SM 2 SP -SM 3 MH 21. -21.6 21.6 BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 21.6' NOTE HOLE SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY TERMINATED AT CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL PREDETERMINED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM DEPTH AT 10.0' ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PROJECT MANTEO 204 HOLEM%_ 10 -V -19 MAR 71 PROJECT F HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -20 DRILLING LOG DIVISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 or 1 SHEETS L PROJECT 10. SIZE AND TYPE Or BIT 4" Dio. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT SL DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOW MIF orAW 2. LOCATION Ca rdhWi s or SWW MLLW NC COORD N 735018 E 3000012 NAD83 12. MANUFACTURERS DESIGNATION Or DRILL 3. DRILLING AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT VIBRA CORE SNELL 13. TOTAL NO.Or OVER- DISTURBED UNDISTURBED BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 3 0 4. HOLE NO. JAI aI- an 0111 MAN -10 - V - 20 ow fib 14~) U. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A 5. NAME Or DRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A 6. DIRECTION OF HOLE VERTICAL ❑ INCLINED DEG. rROM VERT. X. DATE HOLE :STARTED COMPLETED ' 3/16/2009 • 3/16/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP Or HOLE 0,0' MLLW 7. THOCINESS Or OVERBURDEN N/A ( 8.6' of Woter) 18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N/A X S. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0,0' 19. SIGNATURE Or INSPECTOR 9. TOTAL DEPTH Or HOLE 18.6' CARL BAYNARD CIVIL ENGINEER ° ELEVATION M6LW DEPTH foet LEGEND ° CLASSFICATDN OF YAATERUILS R . X CORE RECOV- ERY ° 'SAMPLE BOX OR 140 I REMARKS rA1�ryp r11l0.rnl1Aoa.dpA0, wsafferNq, eeG U' sgNJ'AsnJ 0.0 U 0.0' TO 8.6' WATER Time begin vibrocoring: 1315 hrs Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. 8. -8.6 8.6- OCEAN BOTTOM AT 8.6' 8.6' NOTE: TOP OF HOLE is de- fined as surface of water and compensation f made for the tide such that top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. • SP -SM Tan, fine, poorly - graded silty sand 1 g 1' 10 • VIBRACORE BORING From 0.0' to 10.0' Ran 10.0' Rec: 7.2' • 11.0' 2 12. 131 • • op of vibracore soil sample Is logged as be- ginning at Ocean Bottom. When Run is greater than 11.5' • Recoveryy, the difference is depicfed as Assumed • Not Recovered. 13.6' 13.6' 14.0-: SM Gray, fine silty sand 3 OTE: Soils Commercial La 14.1' Classified in Accordance with ASTM -D2487 LAB CLASSIFICATION 15.8' Jar ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED 16. Ntimhar ('Inssifirntinn 1 SP 2 SP -SM 3 SM 18. -18.6 18.6 BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 18.6' NOTE: HOLE SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY TERMINATED AT CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL PREDETERMINED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM DEPTH AT 10.0' ENG OORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PROJECT MANTEO 204 IHOLEA - 10 -V -20 L MAR 71 PROJECT HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -21 DRILLING LOG DIVISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 aF 1 SHEETS 1. PROJECT 10. SIR AND TYPE OF BIT 4" Dia. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT It DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHDWNTBY or AW MLLW 2. LOCATION Aaordiwn or S bV NC COORD N 733832 E 3001522 NAD83 12, MANUFACTURER'S DESGNATION OF DRILL VIBRA CORE SNELL 3. DRILLING AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT 13. TOTAL NO.OF OVER- DISTURBED UNDISTURBED BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 3 0 4. HOLE NO. tAs - I, an d oft Ob, MAN-10-V-21 am /Rb IgMH ) 14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A 5. NAME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGIIF CRANE OPERATOR 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A 6 DNECTION OF HOLE VERTICAL ❑ INCLINED DEC. FROM VERT. 16. DATE HOLE 'STARTED COMPLETED :3/16/2009 • 3/16/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0,0' MLLW 7. THMNESS OF OVERBURDEN N/A ( 12.5' of Water) 18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N/A Ot 8. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0,0' 19. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR 1 CARL BAYNARD, CIVIL ENGINEER 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 24.8' ELEVATION' DEPTH LEGEND CLASSFHG►T TERHALS RECOOV- SSAAIPLE tp/alnpfAlH i REMARKS'Nr,d4oMd M6LW f e a E.Y N0. abaaarAHp aHe >r dNpM/laNral 0.0 U 0.0' TO 12.5' WATER Time begin vibracoring: 1337 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. 12. OCEAN BOTTOM AT 12.5' 12 5' NOTE: TOP OF HOLE is de- -12.5 12.5 fined as surface of water SM Dark gray, fine silty sand 1 and compensation is made for the tide such that 13.0' top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. VIBRACORE BORING 14 14.5' From 0.0' to 10.0' Ran 10.0' Rec: 6.2' 2 15.0' Fop of vibracore soil sample is logged as be- 16. 16.2' ginning at Ocean Bottom. When Run is greater than • SP -SM Tan, fine, poorly - graded 3 Recoveryy, the difference • silty sand is depicfed as Assumed 16.7' Not Recovered. 18. OTE: Soils Commercial Lo Classified in Accordance 18.7' with ASTM -D2487 ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED LAB CLASSIFICATION Jar 20 plumhe Olassificntion 1 SM 2 SM 3 SM 22. -22.5 22.5 BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 22.5' NOTE: HOLE SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY TERMINATED UPON CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE REFUSAL DEPTH WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL 10.01 CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PROJECT MANTEO 204 "aEA- 10 -V -21 MAR 71 PROJECT HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -22 DRILLING LOG DIVISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS 1. PROJECT O. Sa AND TYPE OF BIT 4" Dio. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT 11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWTBM of AW MLLW 2. LOCATION ICwWfiaw or SWUM NC COORD N 735505 E 3002518 NAD83 12. MANUFACTURERS DESIGNATION OF DRILL VIBRA CORE SNELL 3. DRILLNG AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT 13. TOTAL ND.OF OVER- DISTURBED UNDISTURBED BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 4 0 4. HOLE ND. /AF seam w *v*ft Jft, MAN-10-V-22 aw rAb It~ 14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A 5. NAME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A 6. DIRECTION OF HOLE VERTICAL ❑ INCLINED DEG.FROM VERT. 16. DATE HOLE 'STARTED COMPLETED :3/16/2009 :3/16/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0,0' MLLW 7. TH "NESS OF OVERBURDEN N/A i 14.0' of Woter> B. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORNC N/A x 8. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0,0' 19. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR CARL BAYNARD, CIVIL ENGINEER 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 24.0' ELEVATION DEPTH LEGEND CLASSIFICATION TERUILS RRECOV SAMPLE fG1Ariq Moe r laa agomd M6LW f c . ERY No raeMrrhp efe Ur aAArYA1xM1 0.0 0.0' TO 14.0' WATER Time begin vibracoring: 1353 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. -14.0 14.G OCEAN BOTTOM AT 14.0' 14.0' MH Dark gray elastic silt 1 NOTE: TOP OF HOLE is de- 14.5' fined as surface of water and compensation is made for the tide such that 15.5' 15.5' top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. SM Grayish -tan, fine 2 VIBRACORE BORING 16. silty sand 16.0' From 0.0' to 10.0' 16.7' 16.7' Ran 10.0' Rec• 6.5' SP -SM Tan, fine, poorly - graded 3 silty sand 17.2' Top of vibracore soil sample is logged as be- 18 inning at Ocean Bottom. 18.3' 18.3' When Run is greater than SP Tan, coarse, poorly - graded 4 Recovery, the difference sand is depicfed as Assumed 18.8' Not Recovered. 20.G- �'�'� 20.0' trace shell and pea- gravel OTE: Soils Commercial La 20.5' Classified in Accordance with ASTM -D2487 ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED LAB CLASSIFICATION Jar 22 Nlimbp Classification 1 MH 2 SM 3 SP -SM 4 SP -SM -24.0 24. BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 24.0' NOTE: HOLE SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY TERMINATED UPON CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE REFUSAL DEPTH WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 10.0' ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITONS ARE OBSOLETE. PROJECT MANTEO 204 "DLEA- 10 -V -22 MAR 71 PROJECT HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -23 DRILLING LOG DIVISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS 1. PROJECT 10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 4" Dio. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT 11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHO*WIW or &W MLLW 2. LOCATION tCawdhOw or SHOW NC COORD N 737128 E 3003565 NAD83 12, MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF GRILL VIBRA CORE SNELL 3. DRILLING AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT 13. TOTAL NO.OF OVER- :DISTURBED :UNDISTURBED N SAMPLES TAKEN : 4 0 '- aerie %AINO. AS I I an draft Ift: MAN-10-V-23 U. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A 5. NAME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A B. DIRECTION OF HOLE VERTICAL ❑ INCLINED DEC. FROM VERT. 15. DATE MOLE :STARTED :COMPLETED -3/16/2009 • 3/16/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0.0' MLLW 7. THCOESS OF OVERBURDEN N/A ( 14.8' Of Water) 18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N/A x S. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0,0' 19. SG NATURE OF INSPECTOR CARL BAYNARD CIVIL ENGINEER 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 24.8' ° ELEVATION DEPTH LEGEND CLASSIFICATION OF %ATERIALS R CORE REROV- SAMPLE SAM LE REMARKSq tOr /AllA aroler AteR da0lAd M6LW f • tQ�jpNbN e ° I r'aolfir0h;z 1 0.0 0.0' TO 14.8' WATER Time begin vibrocoring: 1410 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. 14. NOTE: TOP OF HOLE is de- -14.8 14.8- OCEAN BOTTOM AT 14.8' 14.8' fined or surface of water compensation is made SP -SM Tan, fine, poorly - graded 1 for the tide such that • silty sand top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. 15.3' •' VIBRACORE BORING • • 16 • From 0.0' to 10.0' ' Ran 10.0' Rec: 7.9 17.0' 2 • op of vibracore soil __ 17.5' sample is logged as be- 18. ginning at Ocean Bottom. '•' When Run is greater than • 18.6' Recoveryy the difference MH interlayer is depicfed as Assumed • Not Recovered. 19.5' 3 20. OTE: Soils Commercial Lo 20 0' Classified in Accordance • with ASTM -D2487 LAB CLASSIFICATION 21.8' 21.8' Jar SM Gray, fine silty sand 4 22.017-_M Numher C:Inssificotinn with shell fragments 1 SP -SM 2.3' 2-2- 22 7' 2 SP -SM 3 SP -SM ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED 4 SM 24. -24.8 24.8 BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 24.8' NOTE HOLE SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY TERMINATED UPON CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE REFUSAL DEPTH WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 10.01 ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PROJECT MANTEO 204 "O EM"RN- 10 -V -23 MAR 71 PROJECT HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -24 DRILLING LOG annsim SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS 1. PROJECT O. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 4" Dio. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT It DATUM FOR ELEVATION SH10WIiBM or 6W 2. LOCATION Cwd*w or SWW MLLW INC COORD N 739424 E 3005010 NADf33 12, MMIUFACTUREWS DESIGNATION OF DRILL 3. DRILLING AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT VIBRA CORE SNELL 13. TOTAL NO.OF OVER- DISTURBED UNDISTURBED BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 4 0 4. HOLE NO. Ga a►am an aadnp Mk: MAN-10-V-24 am fft nM101r1 U. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A S. NAME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A 6, DIRECTION OF HOLE VERTICAL ❑ INCLINED DEC. FROM VERT. X. DATE HOLE :STARTED COMPLETED ' 3/16/2009 • 3/16/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0,0' MLLW 7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN N/A ( 16.7' of WOteri 18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N/A x S. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0.0' 19. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 26.7' CARL BAYNARD CIVIL ENGINEER ELEVATION M6LW DEPTH f LEGEND f CLASSIFICATION TERUILS a RECO�V. ERY f SA LE No. 1 /Q/AMp1AIe�w badpad wedhr1961 AIayrY/batll 0.0 U 0.0' TO 16.7' WATER Time begin vibrocoring: 1430 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. 16. NOTE TOP OF HOLE is de- -16.7 16.7 OCEAN BOTTOM AT 16.7' 16,7, fined as surface of water and compensation is made for the tide such that SM Gray, fine, silty sand 1 top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. 17 2, 18 VIBRACORE BORING From 0.0' to 10.0' 18.7' Ran 10.0' Rec: 7.9 SP -SM Tan, fine - medium poorly - graded silty sand 2 19.2' 20. ' ' . with trace shell fragments Top of vibracore soil sample is logged as be- inning at Ocean Bottom. When Run is greater than Recoveryy the difference • 21.0' 21.0' is depicfed as Assumed Not Recovered. ' • • SP Tan, coarse, poorly - graded trace 3 • • sand with shell fragments 21.5' OTE: Soils Commercial La 22. •.*.' . . Classified in Accordance . with ASTM -D2487 LAB CLASSIFICATION ' 24. ' 23.7' 23.7' Jar Niimhe r Classification 1 SP SM Grayish -tan, fine, silty sand with shell fragments 4 24.2' 2 SP 3 SP -SM 25.5' 4 SM ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED 26. -26.7 26.7 BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 26.7' NOTE HOLE SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY TERMINATED UPON CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM REFUSAL DEPTH 10.01 ENG FORM1836 PREVOIS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PROJECT MANTEO 204 FIIIIIAfV_10 -V -24 MAR 71 PROJECT HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -25 DRILLING LOG DIVISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS t PROJECT O. SIR AND TYPE OF BIT 4" DiO. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT n. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SH OWHrer or 6W 2. LOCATION O or SWW MLLW NC COORD N 730531 E 3006087 NAD83 12, MANUFACTURERS DESIGNATION OF DRILL 3. DRILLING AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT VIBRA CORE SNELL 13. TOTAL NO.OF OVER- DISTURBED UNDISTURBED BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 4 0 4. HOLE ND. `AF ~ a* „r~: MAN-10-V-25 am fsu nrlHar, 14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A 5. NAME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A 6. DIRECTION OF HOLE VERTICAL ❑ INCLINED DEG. FROM VERT. 15. DATE HOLE 'STARTED COMPLETED :3/16/2009 • 3/16/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0,0' MLLW 7. TH "ESS OF OVERBURDEN N/A ( 14.2' of Woter) IL TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N //\ X S. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0.0' 19. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 24.2' CARL BAYNARD, CIVIL ENGINEER ELEVATION M6LW DEPTH f LEGEND e CLASSIFICATION TERUILS . RECOVV ERY SAMPLE NO. 010V 0100 1V WSW U&dwhof IHa4NANrft Ilk- ,f &Wkad, 0.0 0.0' TO 14.2' WATER Time begin vibracoring: 1447 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. -14.2 �4: OCEAN BOTTOM AT 14.2' 14'2 NOTE TOP OF HOLE is de- fined as surface of water SM Dark gray, fine, silty sand 1 and compensation is made for the tide such that 14 7' top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. 16 16.0' 16.0' VIBRACORE BORING From 0.0' to 10.0' SP -SM Tan, fine, poorly - graded 2 silty sand Ran 10.0' Rec: 7.4' 16. 5' 18. ' •'• 18.0' op of vibracore soil sample Is logged as be- Inning at Ocean Bottom. When Run is greater than 3 �.� 21.0' Recovery, the difference is depicfed as Assumed Not Recovered. 18.5' 20.017- �.� 20'0 OTE: Soils Commercial La Classified in Accordance 4 ' • 21.0' 20.5' with ASTM -D2487 LAB CLASSIFICATION '•� with shell fragments 21.6' Jar 22. ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED Niimher Clnssifir.ntinn 1 SM 2 SP 3 SP 4 SP 2q -24.2 BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 24.2' NOTE: HOLE SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY TERMINATED UPON CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM REFUSAL DEPTH 10.01 ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PR"CT MANTEO 204 "OL M%4- 10 -V -25 - MAR 71 PROJECT HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -26 DRILLING LOG DIVISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS 1. PR"CT O. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 4" Dia. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT 11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWMr611 or AW MLLW 2. LOCATION Mwdfhow or SisftV NC COORD N 742755 E 3007143 NAD83 12. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL VIBRA CORE SNELL 3. DRILLING AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT 13. TOTAL NO.OF OVER- DISTURBED UNDISTURBED BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 3 0 4. HOLE NO. at &Vn on &eAV Ift, MAN-10-V-26 Div fib ft~) U. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A 5. NAME OF DRILLER 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 6. DIRECTION OF HOLE VERTICAL [3 INCLINED DEG. FROM VERT. 16. DATE HOLE 'STARTED COMPLETED :3/16/2009 :3/16/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0,0' MLLW 7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN N/A t 15.3' of Woter) 18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N/A X B. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0,0' 19. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR CARL BAYNARD, CIVIL ENGINEER 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 25.3' ELEVATION DEPTH LEGEND CLASSIFICATION OF iMATERUILS RECCOVV SAMPLE fQAMnp /ill4wder lbtlr,dyoMa/ M6LW f . lOelC/plonl . ERY ND. I wsafAHriq aly AI aA7NAlmnq 0.0 0.0' TO 15.3' WATER Time begin vibracoring: 1505 hrs. Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. -15.3 15. 15.3 OCEAN BOTTOM AT 15.3' 15.3' NOTE: TOP OF HOLE is de- SP-SM Tan, fine - medium, poorly 1 fined as surface of water - graded silty sand and compensation is made 15.8' • for the tide such that top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. VIBRACORE BORING 17 • 17.5' 17.5' From 0.0' to 10.0' • fine - grained sand Ran 10.0' Rec 7.4' 2 18.0' Top of yibracore soil sample is logged as be- 19. 19.0' ginning at Ocean Bottom. 3 When Run is greater than Recovery, the difference 19.5' ••• • is depicfed as Assumed Not Recovered. 21.0- OTE: Soils Commercial La •'• Classified in Accordance • with ASTM -D2487 LAB CLASSIFICATION •.• 22.7' Jar 23. ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED Numbe Olnssifinntion 1 SP 2 SP 3 SP 25. -25.3 25.3 BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 25.3' NOTE: HOLE SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY TERMINATED UPON CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE REFUSAL DEPTH WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 10.0' ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PRO.ECT MANTEO 204 1' A"�' - 10 -V -26 MAR 71 PROJECT F HOLE NO. MAN- 10 -V -27 DRILLING LOG DIVISION SOUTH ATLANTIC INSTALLATION WILMINGTON DISTRICT SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS 1. PROJECT 10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT 4" Dia. Vibrocore MANTEO 204 PROJECT 11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SNDWITBM or AW Z. LOCATION ChwigOWn or SNOW MLLW NC COORD N 746877 E 3009755 NAD83 12. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF GRILL 3. DRILLNG AGENCY WILMINGTON DISTRICT VIBRA CORE SNELL 13. TOTAL NO.OF OVER- :DISTURBED :UNDISTURBED BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 4 0 4. HOLE N0 4A111n On Ormft mrr MAN-10-V-27 H. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES N/A 5. NAME OF DRILLER LESTER GAUGHF CRANE OPERATOR 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER N/A 6. DIRECTION OF LADLE VERTICAL ❑ NCLNED OEG. FROM VERT. DATE LADLE :STARTED :COMPLETED -3/16/2009 • 3/16/2009 17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 0.0' MLLW 7. rNNICKNESS OF ovERBURDEN N/A ( 14.8' of Water) 18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING N/A x S. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK 0.0' Xi. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR 9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 24.8' CARL BAYNARD CIVIL ENGINEER ELEVATION' M6LW DEPTH feet LEGEND . CLASSIFICATION TERUILS e REV. ERY . E NO I REMARKS y 0.0 0 0.0' TO 14.8' WATER Time begin vibracoring: 1528 hrs Soils described by Larry Benjamin, Civil Engr. Tech. 14. NOTE: TOP OF HOLE is de- -14.8 14.8 OCEAN BOTTOM AT 14.8' 14.8' fined as surface of water and compensation is made for the tide such that top of Hole is 0.0 EL MLLW. ••• SP -SM Grayish -tan, fine, poorly - graded silty sand 1 15.3' VIBRACORE BORING From 0.0' to 10.0' 16 ••• • 16.8' Ran 10.0' Rec: 5.6' • SP Tan, coarse, poorly - graded 2 • • sand 17.6' Top of vibracore soil sample is logged as ginning t Ocean Bottom. g When Run is greater than Recovery, the difference -47.3' • SP -SM Tan, fine - medium, poorly - graded silty sand 18.6' 3 18. 1' fine - grained sand is depicfed as Assumed Not Recovered. • 19.5' 4 20. 20.4' OTE: Soils Commercial La Classified in Accordance 20 0' with ASTM -D2487 ASSUMED NOT RECOVERED LAB CLASSIFICATION Jar 22. Number ('In,.;- ifinntion 1 SP 2 SP 3 SP 4 SP -SM 24.e- -24.8 24.8 BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 24.8' NOTE HOLE SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY TERMINATED UPON CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM REFUSAL DEPTH 10,0' ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PR"CT MANTEO 204 "OLEA- 10 -V -27 L MAR 71 PROJECT Laboratory Data E -21 PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -01 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 9.3 -9.8 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 91.4 60.9 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 492.8 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.5 95.6 91.4 60.9 9.2 1.7 0.9 0.6 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -01 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 12.0 -12.5 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 93.7 41.1 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 483.0 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 98.7 97.3 93.7 41.1 3.1 0.7 0.4 0.4 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -01 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 15.0 -15.5 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 93.8 73.6 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 508.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.3 98.7 98.3 97.8 96.9 93.8 73.6 17.5 5.9 3.8 2.8 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -02 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 11.0 -11.5 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 96.0 58.4 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 441.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 98.8 97.7 96.0 58.4 7.0 1.9 1.2 1.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -02 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 13.0 -13.5 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 89.9 61.8 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 492.2 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.1 98.3 97.6 97.1 96.6 96.0 94.6 89.9 61.8 17.4 3.6 2.1 1.4 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -02 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 15.0 -15.5 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 97.2 83.9 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 504.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.4 99.0 98.3 97.2 83.9 17.0 5.0 2.7 2.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -03 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 14.0 -14.5 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Silty Sand, SM DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 81.0 75.7 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 283.5 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.5 98.8 97.1 94.7 91.9 88.6 85.1 81.0 75.7 46.7 22.6 17.4 13.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -03 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 17.0 -17.5 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Silt with Sand, MH DATE REPORTED 5/29/2010 90.7 84.4 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 259.0 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.5 99.1 98.5 97.2 94.8 90.7 84.4 80.2 74.2 71.2 67.8 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -03 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 19.5 -20.0 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Silt, MH DATE REPORTED 5/29/2010 96.4 94.8 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 200.0 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.6 99.4 99.1 98.7 97.9 96.4 94.8 93.5 91.8 90.7 89.2 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -04 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 15.7 -16.2 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 82.9 72.0 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 461.2 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.6 98.8 96.4 92.5 82.9 72.0 24.5 6.4 4.1 3.6 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -04 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 17.5 -18.0 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 36.7 22.1 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 581.0 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.3 98.6 97.2 93.9 86.5 75.9 63.4 36.7 22.1 16.3 11.8 10.6 9.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -04 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 19.2 -19.7 DATE TESTED 5/26/2010 DESCRIPTION Sandy Silt, MH DATE REPORTED 5/26/2010 87.2 80.7 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 376.4 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.5 99.1 98.5 97.9 96.9 95.6 93.0 87.2 80.7 77.0 71.3 68.0 65.0 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -04 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 4 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 22.1 -22.6 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 53.8 29.8 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 482.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.2 98.4 97.2 94.5 90.3 82.8 72.0 53.8 29.8 18.3 12.8 9.7 7.5 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -05 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 12.2 -12.7 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 95.8 79.6 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 474.5 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.6 99.4 99.0 98.3 95.8 79.6 28.1 7.2 4.4 2.9 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -05 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 14.0 -14.5 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 91.9 45.5 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 489.4 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.6 99.5 99.3 98.2 97.0 91.9 45.5 11.6 4.1 3.0 2.4 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -05 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 16.0 -16.5 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 94.9 89.3 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 447.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.4 98.9 98.3 97.5 96.6 94.9 89.3 36.5 14.1 9.7 6.6 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -06 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 10.0 -10.5 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 97.0 88.2 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 448.4 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.2 98.5 97.0 88.2 18.4 3.8 1.9 1.0 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -06 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 12.0 -12.5 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 94.1 79.1 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 452.8 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.7 99.6 99.4 99.3 98.9 97.2 94.1 79.1 16.6 3.8 2.0 1.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -06 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 14.0 -14.5 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 97.5 74.4 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 401.8 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.2 97.5 74.4 14.2 2.8 1.1 0.5 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -07 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 15.2 -15.7 DATE TESTED 5/26/2010 DESCRIPTION Silty Sand, SM DATE REPORTED 5/26/2010 95.3 93.5 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 286.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.7 99.3 99.0 98.5 97.9 96.8 95.3 93.5 74.6 44.4 37.7 32.5 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -07 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 18.0 -18.5 DATE TESTED 5/26/2010 DESCRIPTION Silty Sand, SM DATE REPORTED 5/26/2010 81.1 76.0 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 363.6 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 99.8 98.8 97.6 96.7 95.7 94.5 92.8 90.0 86.5 81.1 76.0 49.6 31.2 27.8 25.5 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -07 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 21.2 -21.7 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 24.0 13.7 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 520.4 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.3 97.7 96.3 94.5 90.6 82.1 67.0 47.3 24.0 13.7 9.6 8.0 7.3 6.9 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -08 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 14.8 -15.3 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 32.4 19.8 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 526.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 99.8 99.5 99.2 98.9 98.1 95.8 89.5 75.6 54.7 32.4 19.8 13.4 8.1 6.7 5.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -08 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 17.0 -17.5 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 40.7 17.5 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 547.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.6 99.1 97.5 93.1 87.5 78.7 65.7 40.7 17.5 9.4 7.3 6.4 5.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -08 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 19.5 -20.0 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 27.7 10.3 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 631.0 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 98.6 96.1 92.5 87.2 70.4 27.7 10.3 5.9 4.8 4.3 3.9 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -08 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 4 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 21.5 -22.0 DATE TESTED 5/26/2010 DESCRIPTION Well Graded Sand with Silt, SW -SM DATE REPORTED 5/26/2010 26.7 16.9 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 642.5 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 95.3 86.5 78.8 70.6 64.0 58.6 51.6 38.8 26.7 16.9 12.5 11.5 11.1 10.6 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -09 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 14.5 -15.0 DATE TESTED 5/26/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 5/26/2010 50.9 23.9 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 436.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.8 98.5 97.5 96.5 95.4 93.7 85.3 69.8 50.9 23.9 11.3 8.5 7.9 7.5 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -09 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 17.0 -17.5 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Silty Sand, SM DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 43.6 27.9 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 524.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.6 99.3 98.5 95.8 91.5 83.5 70.6 43.6 27.9 21.2 17.6 16.3 15.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -09 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 19.0 -19.5 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 36.3 7.5 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 557.9 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.6 98.9 97.3 95.4 92.3 83.3 36.3 7.5 3.0 2.5 2.3 2.2 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -09 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 4 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 21.0 -21.5 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 29.0 7.7 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 544.4 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.0 96.0 93.0 90.2 86.8 80.7 71.2 61.6 29.0 7.7 3.3 2.5 2.3 2.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -09 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 5 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 24.0 -24.5 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 42.7 11.5 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 594.4 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.4 98.9 97.2 93.9 89.0 83.1 42.7 11.5 3.5 1.3 1.0 0.8 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -09 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 6 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 26.5 -27.0 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 50.7 18.0 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 527.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.5 99.1 98.1 96.5 92.8 87.7 82.8 50.7 18.0 5.9 2.1 1.6 1.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -10 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 14.0 -14.5 DATE TESTED 5/26/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 5/26/2010 55.9 31.3 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 405.4 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 97.7 95.2 94.0 93.1 92.4 90.9 86.2 79.1 70.2 55.9 31.3 16.0 9.2 8.2 7.8 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -10 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 16.0 -16.5 DATE TESTED 5/26/2010 DESCRIPTION Silty Sand, SM DATE REPORTED 5/26/2010 90.5 81.7 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 443.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.6 99.1 97.9 95.6 90.5 81.7 67.9 52.2 47.2 42.8 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -10 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 17.0 -17.5 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 24.3 10.9 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 571.6 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.4 98.5 96.4 93.2 86.8 73.6 24.3 10.9 7.5 6.2 5.8 5.5 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -10 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 4 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 18.8 -19.3 DATE TESTED 5/26/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt & Gravel, DATE REPORTED 5/26/2010 13.5 SP -SM TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 510.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 97.2 82.4 67.4 56.4 48.4 41.3 33.2 24.8 18.9 13.5 8.8 6.4 5.8 5.5 5.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -10 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 5 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 20.8 -21.3 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 5/25/2010 25.2 12.0 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 492.4 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 94.0 85.4 74.2 66.3 59.0 53.8 49.7 45.9 40.4 25.2 12.0 7.7 6.7 6.2 5.8 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -10 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 6 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 23.0 -23.5 DATE TESTED 5/25/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 74.9 48.0 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 481.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.6 99.0 98.5 97.6 95.6 92.7 89.4 86.3 74.9 48.0 12.6 3.4 2.4 2.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -11 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 14.0 -14.5 DATE TESTED 5/26/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 5/26/2010 48.6 20.8 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 425.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 99.9 99.2 98.3 97.6 96.7 95.2 91.7 82.2 69.5 48.6 20.8 12.5 9.6 9.1 8.8 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -11 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 16.0 -16.5 DATE TESTED 5/26/2010 DESCRIPTION Silty Sand, SM DATE REPORTED 5/26/2010 76.7 53.1 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 445.6 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.7 99.4 98.9 97.6 93.9 76.7 53.1 43.9 38.6 35.0 31.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -11 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 17.3 -17.8 DATE TESTED 5/25/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 37.1 17.0 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 551.9 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.7 98.8 97.0 93.2 81.1 37.1 17.0 10.1 8.4 7.3 6.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -11 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 4 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 18.5 -19.0 DATE TESTED 5/25/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 51.4 9.4 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 541.6 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.5 98.7 97.0 94.9 92.9 89.7 51.4 9.4 4.2 3.6 3.4 3.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -11 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 5 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 20.5 -21.0 DATE TESTED 5/26/2010 DESCRIPTION Silty Sand, SM DATE REPORTED 5/27/2010 53.1 37.8 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 533.2 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 99.3 95.8 89.3 82.4 75.2 70.0 66.0 62.8 60.1 53.1 37.8 26.6 24.2 23.0 21.6 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -11 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 6 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 23.0 -23.5 DATE TESTED 5/25/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 32.2 14.6 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 486.8 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.5 98.6 97.3 95.1 90.1 80.1 67.8 57.1 32.2 14.6 5.6 2.0 1.6 1.4 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -12 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 13.6 -14.1 DATE TESTED 5/26/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 5/26/2010 41.0 21.7 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 454.0 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.4 99.0 98.8 98.5 97.8 92.5 76.4 41.0 21.7 15.5 12.1 11.5 11.2 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -12 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 17.1 -17.6 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Sandy Silt, MH DATE REPORTED 5/26/2010 86.3 80.2 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 311.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.4 98.9 98.5 97.6 95.2 86.3 80.2 69.0 59.1 55.9 53.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -12 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 18.1 -18.6 DATE TESTED 5/25/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 31.4 6.7 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 586.4 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.6 98.9 97.5 95.8 94.1 87.5 31.4 6.7 3.4 2.7 2.5 2.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -12 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 4 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 20.6 -21.1 DATE TESTED 5/25/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 23.1 13.6 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 613.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 96.4 87.4 72.5 61.4 52.1 46.6 42.6 38.3 33.7 23.1 13.6 8.6 7.6 6.9 6.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -13 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 13.6 -14.1 DATE TESTED 5/26/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 5/27/2010 39.6 19.2 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 387.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 99.9 99.6 99.2 98.9 98.4 97.9 96.8 90.9 74.6 39.6 19.2 13.3 11.2 10.6 10.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -13 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 15.6 -16.1 DATE TESTED 5/26/2010 DESCRIPTION Sandy Silt, MH DATE REPORTED 5/27/2010 71.1 57.7 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 305.4 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.4 99.1 98.6 97.7 95.3 88.0 71.1 57.7 53.9 52.6 52.0 51.5 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -13 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 16.6 -17.1 DATE TESTED 5/26/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 53.4 11.3 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 529.4 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.4 98.6 97.3 95.6 93.6 90.5 53.4 11.3 5.3 4.4 4.1 4.0 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -13 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 4 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 19.3 -19.8 DATE TESTED 5/26/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 35.9 18.8 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 518.9 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 99.6 93.7 85.0 78.1 73.1 68.1 63.5 58.9 53.9 48.0 35.9 18.8 6.0 4.4 4.0 3.5 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -14 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 14.8 -15.3 DATE TESTED 5/26/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 32.0 11.3 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 479.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.7 98.8 98.0 97.2 96.1 95.0 91.1 74.1 32.0 11.3 6.9 5.0 4.6 4.4 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -14 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 16.8 -17.3 DATE TESTED 5/28/2010 DESCRIPTION Silt, MH DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 93.9 91.5 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 262.9 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.4 99.0 98.8 98.6 98.1 97.6 96.2 93.9 91.5 88.8 87.1 86.5 85.8 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -14 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 19.3 -19.8 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Silty Sand, SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 54.5 47.8 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 135.8 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 96.8 85.2 78.9 73.1 69.1 65.8 62.7 59.6 54.5 47.8 41.8 38.1 36.6 35.4 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -14 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 4 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 21.6 -22.1 DATE TESTED 5/26/2010 DESCRIPTION Silty Sand, SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 31.3 20.8 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 578.6 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 99.7 96.0 87.8 82.0 75.6 70.0 65.1 59.6 49.9 31.3 20.8 16.5 14.4 13.6 13.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -15 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 14.0 -14.5 DATE TESTED 5/24/2010 DESCRIPTION Silty Sand, SM DATE REPORTED 5/27/2010 44.7 36.1 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 543.2 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 99.3 99.2 98.8 98.4 97.6 95.5 90.6 80.9 64.5 44.7 36.1 32.5 29.3 27.8 26.5 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -15 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 16.0 -16.5 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Silty Sand, SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 77.5 66.6 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 361.9 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.6 99.3 98.8 97.5 94.4 88.0 77.5 66.6 59.5 53.7 49.8 46.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -15 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 18.4 -18.9 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 35.6 9.4 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 468.8 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.3 98.4 97.1 95.3 90.2 35.6 9.4 4.6 3.9 3.7 3.5 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -15 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 4 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 20.0 -20.5 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 48.3 21.3 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 590.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 99.8 96.7 91.0 86.8 83.1 79.8 77.1 73.9 65.9 48.3 21.3 10.3 8.3 7.7 7.2 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -15 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 5 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 22.0 -22.5 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 50.5 20.9 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 518.2 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.2 98.5 97.5 95.2 91.5 86.8 81.2 50.5 20.9 9.3 4.8 4.3 4.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -16 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 17.0 -17.5 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Sandy Silt, MH DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 85.7 80.1 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 270.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.6 98.2 97.2 96.0 94.8 93.5 92.1 89.8 85.7 80.1 70.4 60.8 58.6 56.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -16 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 20.0 -20.5 DATE TESTED 5/28/2010 DESCRIPTION Silt with Sand, MH DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 95.3 92.6 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 285.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.5 99.1 98.7 98.4 98.1 97.9 97.6 97.1 95.3 92.6 87.7 82.1 80.0 77.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -16 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 23.3 -23.8 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 5.2 2.4 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 576.6 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 96.0 90.6 81.1 70.2 57.6 45.3 31.8 19.0 11.6 5.2 2.4 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -16 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 4 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 25.0 -25.5 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 10.6 4.0 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 530.9 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 97.2 91.2 83.8 73.5 62.7 51.3 34.9 22.6 10.6 4.0 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.5 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -17 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 14.3 -14.8 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Silty Sand, SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 96.0 95.2 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 382.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6 99.1 98.5 98.0 97.4 96.9 96.5 96.0 95.2 82.7 47.1 38.1 31.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -17 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 16.3 -16.8 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Silty Sand, SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 98.4 97.5 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 403.2 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.6 99.4 99.2 99.1 98.9 98.7 98.4 97.5 58.7 29.2 22.7 18.4 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -18 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 11.5 -12.0 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 97.1 82.5 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 460.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.7 99.5 99.3 99.1 98.9 98.4 97.1 82.5 23.1 8.8 6.2 4.6 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -18 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 13.5 -14.0 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 98.1 89.5 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 477.5 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.6 99.5 99.4 99.3 99.0 98.1 89.5 27.5 9.2 6.2 4.5 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -18 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 16.0 -16.5 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Silty Sand, SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 95.1 92.7 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 417.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.5 99.2 98.8 98.4 97.9 96.8 95.1 92.7 66.2 40.9 35.2 31.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -19 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 11.6 -12.1 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 98.4 87.6 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 514.8 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.7 99.4 98.4 87.6 28.0 8.7 5.6 3.9 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -19 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 13.5 -14.0 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 97.7 92.8 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 512.4 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.6 99.4 98.8 97.7 92.8 38.6 14.8 11.2 8.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -19 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 15.6 -16.1 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Silt with Sand, MH DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 87.7 85.9 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 272.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 94.1 94.0 93.1 91.7 91.1 90.6 90.2 89.9 89.5 89.0 87.7 85.9 84.2 82.4 81.7 80.9 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -20 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 8.6 -9.1 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 98.6 52.8 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 491.0 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.7 98.6 52.8 13.5 4.3 2.6 1.8 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -20 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 11.0 -11.5 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 97.7 83.3 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 473.4 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.7 99.5 99.4 99.2 98.8 97.7 83.3 23.3 8.6 6.5 5.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -20 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 13.6 -14.1 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Silty Sand, SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 80.9 62.5 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 460.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.1 98.5 98.0 97.7 97.3 96.3 92.3 80.9 62.5 22.7 14.2 12.9 12.2 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -21 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 12.5 -13.0 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Silty Sand, SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 98.0 97.3 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 404.9 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.6 99.3 99.1 98.8 98.6 98.3 98.0 97.3 79.8 42.8 33.1 26.0 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -21 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 14.5 -15.0 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Silty Sand, SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 96.1 90.5 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 393.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.3 99.0 98.7 98.5 98.1 97.3 96.1 90.5 48.9 30.1 24.8 21.8 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -21 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 16.2 -16.7 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Silty Sand, SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 92.4 77.9 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 499.0 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.5 99.3 99.1 98.5 96.5 92.4 77.9 31.6 16.4 12.7 10.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -22 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 14.0 -14.5 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Sandy Silt, MH DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 93.6 92.5 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 251.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.2 98.4 97.5 96.6 95.8 95.1 94.4 93.6 92.5 87.1 72.8 66.4 58.9 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -22 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 15.5 -16.0 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Silty Sand, SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 96.5 87.6 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 415.8 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.6 99.2 98.9 98.6 98.4 98.0 97.7 96.5 87.6 38.4 17.5 13.7 11.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -22 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 16.7 -17.2 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 96.8 81.6 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 335.8 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.6 99.4 99.3 98.9 98.3 96.8 81.6 21.7 7.7 5.4 4.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -22 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 4 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 18.3 -18.8 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 21.0 12.3 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 619.5 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.4 98.8 97.2 93.3 83.1 67.7 45.0 21.0 12.3 9.3 8.3 7.7 7.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -23 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 14.8 -15.3 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 95.1 74.0 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 457.8 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.5 99.1 98.8 98.6 98.4 98.1 97.1 95.1 74.0 29.8 14.8 11.5 9.2 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -23 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 17.0 -17.5 DATE TESTED 5/28/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 82.7 45.9 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 522.9 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.6 99.3 99.0 98.5 96.2 89.8 82.7 45.9 15.2 6.9 5.3 4.2 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -23 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 19.5 -20.0 DATE TESTED 5/28/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 85.7 66.1 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 506.5 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.5 99.0 98.4 97.6 96.6 95.0 91.9 85.7 66.1 17.1 8.2 6.4 5.2 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -23 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 4 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 21.8 -22.3 DATE TESTED 5/28/2010 DESCRIPTION Silty Sand, SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 53.0 36.3 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 559.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 96.8 90.6 86.3 82.5 79.1 75.3 70.1 64.6 53.0 36.3 23.4 19.5 17.9 16.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -24 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 16.7 -17.2 DATE TESTED 5/28/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 93.7 79.9 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 476.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.5 99.1 98.6 97.9 97.1 95.7 93.7 79.9 22.8 9.1 6.7 5.4 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -24 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 18.7 -19.2 DATE TESTED 5/28/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 79.6 48.8 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 575.2 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.6 99.3 98.9 98.1 95.0 88.4 79.6 48.8 11.6 3.9 2.7 2.2 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -24 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 21.0 -21.5 DATE TESTED 5/28/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 7.6 7.0 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 632.0 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6 98.9 96.6 89.8 71.9 32.3 9.3 7.6 7.0 6.1 5.0 4.0 3.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -24 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 4 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 23.7 -24.2 DATE TESTED 5/28/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 16.3 11.4 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 596.0 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 96.0 89.8 83.9 76.2 66.6 55.6 42.1 28.8 16.3 11.4 9.1 7.6 6.7 5.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -25 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 14.2 -14.7 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Silty Sand, SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 94.3 79.8 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 412.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.4 98.9 98.6 98.3 97.8 97.0 94.3 79.8 42.4 26.2 21.3 17.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -25 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 16.0 -16.5 DATE TESTED 5/28/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 90.6 51.9 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 518.9 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.5 99.3 99.1 98.9 98.7 98.3 96.8 90.6 51.9 13.8 5.5 4.0 3.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -25 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 18.0 -18.5 DATE TESTED 5/28/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 81.4 33.7 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 564.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.6 99.3 97.2 81.4 33.7 10.0 3.2 2.1 1.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -25 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 4 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 20.0 -20.5 DATE TESTED 5/28/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 92.8 53.4 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 529.5 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.6 99.5 99.3 99.0 97.9 92.8 53.4 11.8 3.9 2.8 2.2 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -26 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 15.3 -15.8 DATE TESTED 5/27/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 92.4 24.5 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 511.0 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.4 92.4 24.5 4.9 1.4 1.0 0.9 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -26 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 17.5 -18.0 DATE TESTED 5/28/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 95.9 34.2 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 496.6 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.7 99.6 99.4 95.9 34.2 8.0 2.3 1.5 1.2 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -26 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 19.0 -19.5 DATE TESTED 5/28/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 96.6 55.2 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 488.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.5 96.6 55.2 13.3 3.9 2.4 1.7 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -27 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 1 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 14.8 -15.3 DATE TESTED 5/28/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 97.0 82.7 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 458.8 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.5 99.3 99.2 99.0 98.9 98.5 97.0 82.7 18.1 4.9 3.1 2.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -27 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 2 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 16.8 -17.3 DATE TESTED 5/28/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 28.6 16.3 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 562.4 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.2 98.9 98.4 97.7 96.1 89.5 60.9 28.6 16.3 4.2 1.6 1.2 1.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -27 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 3 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 17.3 -18.1 DATE TESTED 5/28/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand, SP DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 77.7 48.4 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 554.9 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.7 99.6 99.4 99.1 98.0 91.8 77.7 48.4 10.2 4.5 3.5 2.8 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE PROJECT NAME Manteo (Old House Channel) 204 Study Area SILT CLIENT US Army Corps of Engineers BORING # MAN- 10 -V -27 PROJECT NO. 70105034 SAMPLE # 4 DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED 5/20/2010 DEPTH, ft 19.5 -20.0 DATE TESTED 5/28/2010 DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, SP -SM DATE REPORTED 6/1/2010 83.9 33.7 TEST PROCEDURES ASTM STANDARD D 422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils WEIGHT OF DRY SOLIDS (grams) 571.3 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT ( %) #N /A 0 t7 z U) U) a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE PERCENT FINER (dry weight basis) GRAVEL COARSE SAND MEDIUM SAND FINE SAND SILT / CLAY 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.7 No. 10 No. 14 No. 18 No. 25 No. 35 No. 45 No. 60 No. 80 No. 120 No. 170 No. 200 No. 230 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.6 99.3 98.9 97.8 94.9 83.9 33.7 14.6 10.4 9.3 8.1 VISUALLY ESTIMATED SHELL CONTENT (percent) #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A I #N /A Shell Content <5 % (Amount not visually estimated) TESTED BY: S.E. Hardison / B.S. Junker CHECKED BY: S.E. Hardison Irerracon 5240 Green's Dairy Road - Raleigh, NC 27616 P:919.873.2211 F:919.873.9555 www.terracon.com APPROVED BY: R.L. Denton, II, PE APPENDIX F US Army Corps of Engineers® Engineer Research and Development Center Old House Channel Bathymetric and Side Scan Survey Michael Forte WA' December 2009 View looking over the antennas of the motion and bathymetry sensor, south towards Old House Channel, Pamlico Sound, North Carolina. Table of Contents Sections Page 1. Introduction ..................................................................... ..............................3 2. Methods ............................................................................ ..............................5 3. Data Processing ................................................................ ..............................6 4. Results and Conclusions ................................................... .............................10 5. Appendix A ........................................................................ .............................ii Figures and Tables Figure1 ................................................................................... ..............................4 Figure2 .................................................................................. ..............................6 Figure3 .................................................................................. ..............................7 Figure4 .................................................................................. ..............................8 Figure5 .................................................................................. ..............................9 Table1 ..................................................................................... .............................io 2 i. Introduction The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District and the State of North Carolina are partnering to develop a Beneficial Use of Dredged Material project. The project would address operational dredging needs for the Old House Channel portion of the Manteo, Shallowbag Bay project (Figure i). This proposal would also address oyster reef restoration needs in North Carolina's Pamlico Sound, part of the Albemarle- Pamlico National Estuary. The Manteo Shallow Bag Bay — Old House Channel Project would use sandy material dredged from Old House Channel to build submerged shoals to be topped with cultch for oyster reefs. Accurate bathymetry and mapping of the existing submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) was required for assisting in the design of this project. 3 Figure 1. Old House Channel Project Survey Area (Red box = 17.25 square miles) FIG 4s 15#4M "1" I 1 5 i'* ` Piles 3 • a 7 5 E ABLE i1` � 2 fi 5 SY 5 jth a 7 6 Ppp6 '�',' 2 1 �s 1 o- I�t G 45 4M 1✓Velieo� � :1 �� 6 3 &r"Tf 1 R° °R 7" 8 r4 •�2Ss 6 •9„ m -° `^�s"53:�2/❑�2 Q 3 1 41' �Q 1 4 S„b i z s b 1 2 i . ? 4s 7 1 1 1 !19^ 11 Ft 1$ 2 6� 2 G R „48''PA t: 1 Q G 15(t 4M "�41" 10 11 13 (� F�► 4...::rx�_�___ -- 2 z 0 1 +7bstn P/• n 2 f� 3° 2 :had 12206) 10 2 5 g D m f o ` (Sne more Hl ° ' Ob"M Pile Spai Aram .... 1�ev DWG, 10 10 11 12 h FtR2.5%AB'R4W6' 1 1 ' 2� { G V.c _, Pile 2 '.. 4 Q "7' 1 •:.. �i;' D QR13ft3M 2 2 we 3 �,oJ`' 3 •..• onsrri -1•. 11 13 7 7 FIR41�R ° , �d 1 4 r,f 3 .2 3 3 BW 7 5 PA 4 °rG "1 6111 14 14 12 12 / 3 r ' " 5 PIle s 16ft3M'14', ,fYG IT `'fV 14 $ 12 1g+� T? 3 2 ,12� 2 g 3 ft rep 4 1983 j3e. g 03�����6 15 4 3 St9n i � �1JA/ 5 4 4 13 16 9 i`� 2 4 4 " 12 FI R 4s 17ft 3M 7 3 Ra Ref 7 !chard l22Q5J 8 „201-YQA /lr o Mar er 7 4 2 r ; ; fib, et 5 5 1 15 h 7 9; FIG 2.55 1 3 2 3M `2i° 'Marker • ! 11 5 12 4s 18it 4M'24OR' PA Ra Ref 6s 7 12 10 3 Ra Rats 14 ! 10 s3 s2 4 4 13 L`2 12 12 13 ; Y 10 1 13 5 f r , 13 13 %7 ,' 1 13 7 12 i2 15 13 h 5 S S 13 .5 '1 p 13 3 14 12 9 7 4 M 13 12 14 0 �� pike Miles 0 1 2 N w E s Figure 1. Old House Channel Project Survey Area (Red box = 17.25 square miles) 2. Methods The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Field Research Facility (USACE FRF) used a 26 -ft pontoon boat that is capable of surveying in water as shallow as —0.5 ft. A Real -Time Kinematic Global Positioning Satellite (RTK -GPS) system was used to correct incoming satellite information at a known location (Base- Station) and then transmit the corrections in real time to the vessel via radio transmission (Figure 2). RTK -GPS error range is typically less than 3 inches in the x, y, and z planes. Depth soundings were directly referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) and any variations in the water level surface during the survey had no impact. NAVD88 is approximately o.66 ft above Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's Tidal Station (8652587) Oregon Inlet Marina, Pamlico Sound, NC. A control monument was established and surveyed in at U.S. Coast Guard Facility Oregon Inlet. The station served as the reference (GPS Base Station) for the entire survey region. The control station provided a clear line of sight between the base station and the vessel. Accuracy checks were performed daily throughout the survey on surrounding NGS survey monuments to verify the position data. The accuracy checks did not exceed ( +/- 2.5 inches) during the entire survey. The pontoon boat was outfitted with Geo- Acoustics' GeoSwath® Phase measuring bathymetry system which measures both bathymetry and seabed acoustic backscatter from a hull mounted transducer, providing co- registered depth soundings and side scan sonar information in water depths ranging from 1.5 to 3ooft. An Applanix Position & Orientation for Marine Vessels (POSMV ®) inertial measurement unit was used to record vessel motion and heading. An Ocean Sensors® conductivity, temperature, density (CTD) sensor was used to measure the speed of sound through the water column (Figure 2) in order to adjust the Geoswath data for water temperature and density. Hypack survey software was used to navigate the boat along 132 pre- programmed survey lines and to log the position data. During the survey, which began on 18 June and was completed on 14 September 2009, approximately 48o miles of data were recorded. Although the survey spanned nearly 4 months only 16 field days were necessary to complete the field data collection. Windy conditions creating choppy seas, and summertime thunderstorms were the cause of many down days. Having a vessel that could operate in very shallow waters (- 0.5ft) and be seaworthy posed a challenge for this field survey region. 5 radio correction ntenna GPS An enna Pontoon Boat with bow mounted swath sonar CTD RTK -GPS Figure 2. Equipment used during survey 3. Data Processing The GeoSwath data were processed using Geo- Acoustics Geo -Swath Plus software that combines the GeoSwath, motion, and positioning data. The software corrects for errors associated with speed of sound and vessel motion, then incorporates these into the depth measurements. The resulting depths are relative to NAVD88, which can be related to MLLW level in Pamlico Sound. Processed swath sonar files were then gridded within Geo -Swath Plus using the weighted mean gridding algorithm, which computes depths in a regularly spaced 15 x 15 ft rectilinear grid. These data were then imported into IVS 3 -D Fledermaus using a natural neighbor weighted gridding algorithm which yielded the final position and depth data. The side -scan data were processed using Geo- Acoustics Geo - Texture® software to remove the effects of things other than seabed material from the image, thus improving the interpretability of the texture information in the image. Swath files were imported into the software at a resolution of 2.5 ft and a series of process steps were applied. These processes included: seabed locate, filter bathymetry, trace normalization, and finally a slant range correction to remove the nadir and the water column effects. Figure 3 is a close -up detail of processed side -scan data. Swaths from individual days were merged to create a mosaic of the entire survey area. The mosaic was then exported out of the software as a geo- referenced jpeg for analysis in GIS. Figure 4 shows the bathymetry and Figure 5, the side -scan mosaic. 0 • ,,'is .ice ��`�'. 1' :� ��t _ I y 4 � -.ti ''� }'_ k� r Y' f: ' ' +� ' • - y� fit{ +�R JI'Pr . NL f. dh hA � r R yr, ! r - -- f�� •' - r,�� �. ., t 4 ly:. ti +, - Figure 3. Processed side -scan mosaic of multiple survey lines showing areas of SAV (darker rough areas) and fine sand (light colored smooth areas) 7 6 R 11 1 0 15ft4M 2 � 13 � 4 2 2.r f13� 3a 2 Ob, 10 p,scon r 2 5 0 [5 5paff Area 1 3 ti4 ,f 1=1R2.5s18ft 2 $ .`0B i p 10 fG V 0 8n f pile 1 10 R13ft3M i�1�, 8 0� 2 r , O UWm did � 3 1� 12 5 12 7 NAVD88 -t z 13 � - ll� Y � 13 13 ,�l7 !' 13 ,d 1 L [ !f 1 r •_� is 13 2 -2C 13 S� S 13 A Legend = Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 0 7--7 High backscatterlshells v 1 2 £ Miles W* S Figure 4. Old House Channel Bathymetry with areas of SAV and high backscatter identified by polygons 8 6 R "4B� " PAS 1 Q G S 5f14 M "41' i 13 4 2 2 1:: r13•� CJti L; D� Spoil Area i o t 4 fs�e RR2.551At4M f. "B` D / 1'�r1� c 1 10 io 2� 12 O G 9' 5-� €� -3m3M f4 � $ D� 2 2 '8" rerr 5 2 14':. 1^ �o J - .Fa 12 7 4 1 7 62 13 13 ff -' 13 13 :7i 13 j i 12 15 13 13 5 13 14 7 Legend Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Q 1 2 W High backscatter /shells Miles s Figure S. Old House Channel Side -Scan mosaic with areas of SAV and high backscatter identified by polygons 9 4. Results and Conclusions Table 1 shows bottom type and percent coverage found throughout the survey area. Approximately 2.25 square miles of SAV (13 percent) were identified and marked by color coded polygons in GIS (Figure 5, black polygons). The SAV produced a distinct signature on the side - scan record and was easily identified during analysis. In certain areas during the survey, the hydrographer could see the top of the grasses at the water surface, thus confirming that the side - scan return was detecting SAV. There appears to be a correlation between depth and SAV as displayed in Figure 4. SAV is generally found in depths less than 6 ft. SAV growth is often light limited and thus correlates with water depth. There was an estimated o.19 square miles (1 percent) of "high - backscatter" area that likely contains oyster shells or coarse sediment material (Figure 5, pink polygons). These areas were found in deeper water (14 to 17ft). The majority (86 percent) of the survey area had a uniform bottom composed primarily of fine sands, which has a "low backscatter" due to signal absorbance. These areas are the more uniform light colored regions in Figure 5. Table 1. Bottom Type And Coverage Percentage Material Type Area (sq mi) Coverage ( %) SAV 2.26 13 High backscatter /shells 0.20 1 Fine Sand 14.79 86 Project area 17.25 10 Appendix A (Deliverables) The survey data are referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) State Plane North Carolina Zone 3200 with units of survey feet. Depths are referenced to NAVD88 with units of survey feet. A Federal Geographic Data Committee approved metadata file has been created for the survey, which documents the geodetic parameters of the survey and provides a reference for the data. The report and data files have been uploaded to the following ftp site. ftP: //134.164, 4.99 /SAW /OHC 2004. A list of the final files on the ftp site is provided below. For more information regarding this project or to provide comments or recommendations, contact Mr. Michael Forte, Research Physical Scientist, at 252- 261 -6840, ext. 228, or by email: Michael.f.fortePusace.army.mil. Final Files 1. OHC_2009_ss_mosaics.zip — Old House Channel side scan mosaic geo- referenced jpegs at high (12oodpi) and low (3oodpi) resolutions. 2. OHC_ 2oo9 _NAD83sp_NAVD88_feet.shp.zip — ESRI shape file of Old House Channel Bathymetry point data at the 15ft resolution 3. OHC_2oo9_shape_files — ESRI shape file polygons of Old House Channel SAV and high backscatter areas. 4. OHC_2oo9_report.pdf —Written survey report describing acquisition methodology, data processing techniques, and results. 5. OHC_2oo9_metadata.met — Old House Channel metadata file 6. SAV_sidescan.jpg — image of sidescan mosaic with areas of SAV and high backscatter identified by polygons 7. SAV_bathy.jpg — image of bathymetry data with areas of SAV and high backscatter identified by polygons 11 APPENDIX G Beneficial Use of Dredge Material: Old House Channel, Manteo, NC Sediment Sampling and Analysis: Old House Channel Proposed Dredge Disposal Site Final Report Heidi M. Wadman Michael F. Forte Field Research Facility U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center 1261 Duck Rd Kitty Hawk, NC 27949 Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District and the State of North Carolina Wilmington, NC ABSTRACT The USACE Wilmington District and the State of North Carolina are partnering to develop a Beneficial Use of Dredged Material project to, in part, support oyster reef restoration needs in North Carolina's Pamlico Sound. A potential restoration site was previously identified in 2009 and a further investigation of sediment composition was required in 2012 to verify the sidescan reflectance data in the proposed reef area. Twenty -five samples were collected within the site to characterize the surficial sediment grain size. Overall, the samples were predominantly muddy sand, with varying weight percentages of mud (39.75% to 1.52 %). The higher mud percentages were predominantly found in the deeper portion of the site. However, 64% of the samples contained sufficient clay -sized material to be considered weakly cohesive, and the relative weight percent of silt vs. clay -sized material in the mud fraction indicate that the region as a whole may act somewhat cohesively in response to shear stress. Sediment data did not suggest that this site was suitable for winter habitat for mature female blue crabs, but use of the area by juvenile crabs could not be ruled out by this study alone. List of Figures Figure 1: Location of proposed dredge disposal site east of the navigation channel. Figure 2: Bathymetry of the proposed dredge site with sample locations. Figure 3: Original sidescan survey of the site, with sample locations plotted in red. Figure 4: Ponar grab. Figure 5: Distribution of weight percentage sand throughout the study site. Figure 6: Distribution of weight percentage mud throughout the study site. Figure 7: Distribution of weight percentage clay throughout the study site. Figure 8: Distribution of weight percentage silt throughout the study site. Figure 9: Reprocessed sidescan sonar data from the proposed dredge site Figure A -1: Location of the reef sediment samples as well as the original sediment samples. Figure B -1: Distribution of percent moisture throughout the site. List of Tables Table 1: Sediment grain size distribution Table 2: Weight percent silt vs. clay in the mud content of the sediment samples. Table A -1: Sediment grain size distribution of the reef samples Table A -2: Weight percent silt vs. clay in the mud content of the reef samples Table B -1: Percent moisture and calculated porosity of the sediment samples. Appendices: 4.0: Surficial Sediment Associated With Nearby Oyster Reefs 5.0: Porosity of the Seabed 1.0 Overview The Old House Channel portion of the Manteo - Shallowbag Bay navigation channel requires periodic maintenance dredging by the USACE Wilmington District (USACE -SAW). Recently, USACE -SAW has partnered with the State of North Carolina to develop a project that will use the surplus sandy, dredged material from Old House channel, contained in a submerged rock enclosure, to create new shoals which will be subsequently be topped with clutch to construct a sustainable, high - relief oyster reef habitat. A proposed dredge disposal and oyster restoration site was identified in 2009 but concerns were raised by the NCDMF that the site may contain areas of muddy bottom that provide significant winter habitat for blue crabs. Covering this site with dredge disposal could thus potentially result in a loss of blue crab habitat. Previous research by Schaffner and Diaz (1988) identified blue crab winter habitat in the Chesapeake Bay and found that mature, female blue crabs were more abundant at depths exceeding 9 m where sediment was characterized as silty -fine sand (40 -80% sand). Crabs were less common, however, when sediments were finer ( <40% sand) or coarser ( >80% sand), and the most significant crab populations were found associated with sediments that contained between 41% and 60% sand. Since a review of the previously collected sidescan data could not discern varying percentages of sand vs. mud in the selected area, grab samples were collected in order to characterize surficial bottom sediment. 1.1 Study Site The proposed dredge disposal site is located to the west of the Manteo - Shallowbag Bay navigation channel (Figure 1). The bathymetry slopes gently from west to east, dropping from 11.6 ft to 14 ft in just over 800 ft (horizontal distance; —0.3% slope), and then flattens, dropping approximately 1 ft in 1300 ft (horizontal distance; —0.08% slope; Figure 2). The original sidescan data indicated that the bottom was relatively featureless, supporting the original hypothesis that the region likely had little to no variation in bottom type (Figure 3). Figure 1: Location of proposed dredge disposal site west of the navigation channel. Inset shows a close -up of the proposed dredge site, with preliminary sample locations shown in red. /i X= 2,996,358. Y= 749,549 �w Y •x— Y Legend Q3 -Reef Complex 0 Grab Sample Box Proposed Reef Area Navigation Channel SAV C3 Existing Oyster Shell Disposal Area Side -Scan Survey • Overview Terrain 6--2 -2-4 4­6 Grab Sample Box -2too' x 2100' - -8 NA❑ 7983 NC State Plane Feet -8--16 P[No x Y N 1 2995308 740499 2 2995308 742599 -12--14 3 2997408 742599 _ -14 --16 4 2997408 740499 _ -16 - -18.17 Grab Sample Box 0 05 1 z o�ra_rce lAiles Duck Reu Cemer -JWr -Sea mob Mantes 204 I t Y ."'t agnl Glc ?d11R] @ Map Date: 24120110 Figure 1: Location of proposed dredge disposal site west of the navigation channel. Inset shows a close -up of the proposed dredge site, with preliminary sample locations shown in red. Old House Channel Proposed Dredge Disposal Site: Bathymetry 742600+ + s� OHC -01 OHC 06 O C 1 742400 .Q w 742200 + 742000 OHC_02 +OHC_07 O C_1 „ ai ro 741800 a 741600+ + C OH 13 U OHC_03 — Z 741400 c L 0 741200 Z 741000 HC-01 OHC 09 SOH 1 740800 X. X 740600 HC 05 � OHC_10 + 2995400 2995800 2996200 2996600 1 w H -11 -11.4 -11.8 -12.2 c6 co -12.6 j Q z -13 >, -13.4 E a L -13.8 m -14.2 14.6 -15 w — 0 H 2997000 2997400 Easting (NC State Plane, ft) Feet 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Figure 2: Bathymetry of the proposed dredge site. Grab sample locations are indicated by black crosses. Red circles indicate the presence of various polychaetes in the sediment samples. • o 0 0 0 V uE 0 350 700 '1,400 Feet I Figure 3: Original sidescan survey of the site, with sample locations plotted in red. 1.2 Methods In order to assess the surficial sediment bottom type, a grid of 25 equally spaced samples was created for the proposed dredge disposal site. At each site, a ponar grab was deployed to collect a bottom sample (Figure 4), the locations of which are shown on Figures 2 & 3. Up to 5 attempts were made at each site and only 1 site resulted in a rejection (OHC 21). Samples were immediately bagged and stored on ice until returned to the laboratory. Figure 4: A ponar grab. Wet - pipette grain size analysis was performed on each sample (e.g. Gee and Bauder, 1986). Briefly, each sample was homogenized and —10 -15 grams were sub - sampled for analysis. Ten ml of dispersant (sodium bicarbonate and sodium metaphosphate) was added to each sample and the samples were allowed to sit overnight. The dispersed sediments were then washed through a 63 µm stainless steel sieve (No. 230) using DI water into 1000ml graduated cylinders. The sand fraction was retained and the silt and clay sized fractions were extracted via pipetting based on standard temperature tables. All samples were dried and weighed to the thousandth of a gram, and weight percentages calculated. Gravel was not observed in any of the samples, so all sediment >_63 µm was considered to be sand - sized. 2.0 Sediment Characteristics For the purposes of this report, "sand" indicates sediment equal to or larger than 63 µm and "mud" indicates sediment smaller than 63 µm according to the Wentworth Classification Scale. Mud is further differentiated between "silt" ( <63 µm to :53.9 µm) and "clay" ( <3.9 µm) sized fractions. The data presented below do not include site OHC 21, which is interpreted to be packed sand. The ponar grab was rejected 5 times at this site, typical of hard, sandy bottoms. Sediment in the dredge disposal site is predominantly muddy sand, with varying amounts of mud (Table 1; Figures 5, 6). Sand weight percentages range from 98.48% to 60.25 %, with the most sand found in the shallower region of the site (Figure 5), and ultimately comprises the majority of the surficial sediment size fraction. Mud weight percentages range from 39.75% to 1.52 %, and percentages increase with increasing depth (Figure 6). A variety of polychaetes were found in 18 of the 25 samples (72 %), including several large tube worms with tube diameters of up to 3 cm (red circles, Figure 2). Although a biological assessment of the site is beyond the scope of this project, the field descriptions suggest that mud is not ephemeral in this region but rather is stable enough to allow the development of an established benthic community. It is worth noting that the mud content at this site was less than that of sediment immediately adjacent to the closest existing oyster reef site (Appendix A). 742600 742400 742200 742000 di 741800 Q_ N 741600 U Z 74140 rn c o 74120 Z 74100 74080 74060, 2995400 2995800 Old House Channel Proposed Dredge Disposal Site Weight Percent Sand 1� 80 0 500 w a t W �o � w 2996200 2996600 2997000 Easting (NC State Plane, ft) Feet 1000 1500 2997400 2000 Figure 5: Distribution of weight percent sand. Bathymetric contours are in blue, NAVD88. 2.1 Influence of mud 100 Wt c 85 U) c m U 80 a`) a 75 .2) a) 70 65 M The influence of mud within sediment impacts, among other factors, the cohesive properties of the sediment. As little as 5 -10% clay has been shown to impart cohesive properties to otherwise non - cohesive sandy sediment (e.g. Van Ledden et al., 2004; Hir et al., 2008). Accordingly, the clay vs. silt percentages of the mud in this site were quantified (Figures 7 and 8). Significant ( >_5 %) weight percents of clay were primarily found in the deepest regions of the site (water depths of >_13 ft; Figure 7). Silt -sized sediments were more equally distributed throughout the site, with higher weight percentages in the deeper, central region (Figure 8). With respect to the mud fraction alone, silt was the dominant size class, with a weight percent range from 53.33% to 100 %. It should be noted, however, that clay averaged —1/3 of the total mud fraction, even in samples with little weight percent mud (up to 46.67 %; Table 2), and was only absent in 1 of the 25 samples. In addition, 64% of the samples (16 of 25) had a clay weight percent of 5% or higher. Accordingly, with the possible exception of the sandier, shallower region (e.g. samples OHC_22 through OHC_25), the sediments in the proposed dredge disposal site should be considered at least weakly cohesive. 742600 742400 742200 742000 U7 741800 m 741600 U Z �- 741400 0 741200 z 741000 740800 740600 Old House Channel Proposed Dredge Disposal Site Q N R 20 Weight Percent Mud 20 r0 w y A � W � w 2995400 2995800 2995200 N 40 35 30 .25 C J20 15 2996600 2997000 2997400 Easting (NC State Plane, ft) Feet ern 10nn 1.900 2000 110 5 0 Figure 6: Distribution of weight percent mud. Bathymetric contours are in blue, NAVD88. z High concentrations of suspended sediment have been shown to have a detrimental effect on shellfish both via reduced bivalve pumping rates as well as potential burial of sensitive egg and larval stages (e.g. Clarke and Wilber, 2000 and references therein; Henley et al., 2000; Wilbur and Clarke, 2001). Specifically, negative impacts to oyster egg development have been observed at suspended silt concentrations of 188 mg /I (Davis, 1960; Davis and Hidu, 1969). When suspended sediment concentrations exceed the threshold of bivalve filtering rates, food dilution, and subsequent oyster decline, can occur (e.g. Widdows et al., 1979). This study did not quantify suspended sediment concentrations in the dredge disposal site. Given that the presence of muddy surface sediments typically results in higher concentrations of suspended fine - grained sediments, the possibility that increases in water column turbidity in this region due to resuspension during sand disposal might reach levels detrimental to shellfish cannot be ruled out from this study alone. However, it is also possible that the natural cohesion found in these sediments will serve to minimize resuspension more so than if the sediments were non - cohesive. Disposal- induced, sediment suspension modeling efforts should be pursued if resuspension during disposal is indeed a potential concern. Sample ID Weight % Sediment Sand Mud Silt Clay OHC 01 66.97 33.03 22.10 10.94 OHC 02 79.14 20.86 15.56 5.30 OHC 03 85.82 14.18 11.11 3.07 OHC 04 82.27 17.73 9.46 8.27 OHC 05 83.44 16.56 13.25 3.31 OHC 06 74.73 25.27 18.29 6.98 OHC 07 81.73 18.27 11.13 7.14 OHC 08 72.26 27.74 20.92 6.82 OHC 09 76.36 23.64 16.82 6.82 OHC 10 60.25 39.75 25.56 14.19 OHC 11 83.73 16.27 12.60 3.67 OHC 12 74.70 25.30 16.38 8.92 OHC 13 76.78 23.22 16.61 6.61 OHC 14 70.81 29.19 23.60 5.59 OHC 15 67.91 32.09 20.12 11.97 OHC 16 71.63 28.37 16.05 12.32 OHC 17 86.19 13.81 11.27 2.54 OHC 18 83.51 16.49 9.88 6.61 OHC 19 74.42 25.58 16.28 9.30 OHC 20 78.06 21.94 13.40 8.54 OHC 22 95.29 4.71 3.96 0.75 OHC 23 98.48 1.52 1.14 0.38 OHC 24 93.87 6.13 4.71 1.42 OHC 25 95.26 4.74 4.74 0.00 Table 1: Sediment grain size distribution. Weight percent mud = silt + clay size fractions. Sample ID Weight % Mud % silt % clay OHC 01 66.89 33.11 OHC 02 74.58 25.42 OHC 03 78.33 21.67 OHC 04 53.33 46.67 OHC 05 80.00 20.00 OHC 06 72.38 27.62 OHC 07 60.92 39.08 OHC 08 75.41 24.59 OHC 09 71.15 28.85 OHC 10 64.30 35.70 OHC 11 77.42 22.58 OHC 12 64.73 35.27 OHC 13 71.53 28.47 OHC 14 80.85 19.15 OHC 15 62.69 37.31 OHC 16 56.58 43.42 OHC 17 81.60 18.40 OHC 18 59.91 40.09 OHC 19 63.64 36.36 OHC 20 61.07 38.93 OHC 22 84.13 15.87 OHC 23 75.00 25.00 OHC 24 76.83 23.17 OHC 25 100.00 0.00 Table 2: Weight percent silt vs. clay in the mud content of the sediment samples. A complete assessment of the suitability of this site as potential winter habitat for blue crabs is beyond the scope of this project. However, some basic conclusions can be drawn from the sediment data. Variations in habitat quality can affect the density and survival rates of both juvenile and adult crabs, including unvegetated mud habitats (Pile et al., 1996; Seitz et al., 2005). Schaffner and Diaz (1988) indicated that blue crabs were significantly more abundant in winter habitat characterized by sediment containing 41 -60% sand, and in water depths exceeding 9 -m (^'29.5 feet). This site is both sandier (weight percent sand ranges from 98.48% to 60.25 %; averages -80 %), and much shallower (11.6 - 14 ft, or 3.5 - 4.3 m) than the optimal habitat described by Schaffner and Diaz (1988). Their study population was, however, dominated by mature females and thus cannot be used as a standard for all crab life stages, as juvenile crabs frequently stay in shallower waters to avoid cannibalistic predation by older crabs (e.g. Dittel et al., 1995; Hines and Ruiz, 1995; Pile et al., 1996). Whether it is suitable for juvenile blue crabs cannot be discerned from the available data. No blue crabs were noted in the sediment samples but that is likely because a ponar grab is not the proper sampling equipment to assess blue crab population densities (compared to a dredge survey). If the high percentage of sand alone is insufficient to assess the suitability of the site as winter blue crab habitat, further, more detailed biological sampling will need to be performed. 742600 742400 742200 742000 m 741800 a_ w 741600 U Z 741400 c 0 741200 Z 741000 740800 740600 Old House Channel Proposed Dredge Disposal Site Weight Percent Clay il 1 % * — 1% N 2995400 2995800 2996200 2996600 w ti 1 :s W � 1 2997000 2997400 Easting (NC State Plane, ft) Feet 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Figure 7: Distribution of weight percent clay. Bathymetric contours are in blue, NAVD88. 14 12 10 ?. U 8 m U a� o_ 6 � 4 Ii 742600 742400 742200 742000 m 741800 a 741600 U Z 741400 C) 741200 Z 741000 740800 740600 2995400 2995800 Old House Channel Proposed Dredge Disposal Site 1 Weight Percent Silt 1 =1 0 500 w 1 0 W Q w 2996200 2996600 2997000 2997400 Easting (NC State Plane, ft) Feet 1000 1500 2000 Figure 8: Distribution of weight percent silt. Bathymetric contours are in blue, NAVD88. 2.2 Reexamining the 2009 sidescan data 24 20 16 Fn C a) U 12 L 8 � 4 0 The sidescan data collected in 2009 did not indicate variations in bottom type in the proposed dredge disposal site (Figure 3) but rather that the region was relatively featureless. In 2010, the USACE -FRF obtained new software for sidescan processing (SonarWiz.MAP; Chesapeake Technology). The original sidescan data from the dredge disposal region were re- processed using this more advanced software suite. From these new images, very little to no differences in amplitude (where brighter colors indicate higher reflection and denser sediment) are found between the sandier vs. muddier regions of the site (see red and green circles for examples; Figure 9). Ultimately, the co- registered sidescan sonar data collected via the 234 kHz swath interferometric system are too low of a frequency to distinguish the observed variations in mud content at this site. While it is possible that variations in moisture content could impact the return amplitudes of the sidescan data, an assessment of the moisture content variability of this site did not suggest that was the case (Appendix B). If the mud concentrations ultimately are high enough to cause a concern for the proposed use for this site, additional sidescan mapping with a higher frequency sonar would likely yield better results in terms of mapping subtle variations in sediment type, than re- processing the existing data alone. Figure 9: Reprocessed sidescan sonar data. Red circle indicates a sandy sample (OHC 24: 93.87% sand); green circle indicates a muddy sample (OHC 15: 67.91% sand). 3.0 Conclusions Twenty -five locations were selected to characterize the surficial sedimentary bottom type of the proposed dredge disposal site near Old House Channel, Manteo, NC. The dominant sediment type was muddy sand, and the finer - grained regions were generally found in the deeper region of the site. On average, —30% of the mud fraction was comprised of clay, and 64% of the samples contained sufficient weight percent clay to be considered to be at least weakly cohesive. The sediment overall was less muddy, and had a higher percentage of sand, than sediment samples taken on either side of the nearest oyster reef complex (^'5000 ft to the south; Appendix A). The abundance of various species of polychaetes collected throughout the site suggests that the mud has been stable in this region long enough to allow development of a benthic community. The previously collected sidescan sonar shows little evidence of these grain size variations, even when re- processed with superior software. If a different region needs to be identified in order to better select a disposal site, it is recommended that higher frequency sidescan sonar be used. A thorough assessment of the suitability of this site as future oyster habitat, or determining if it is currently winter blue crab habitat, is beyond the scope of this report. However, a few general conclusions can be drawn. First, the sediment at this site is weakly cohesive and might potentially resuspend less during the sand disposal process than non - cohesive sediment, thus potentially posing less risk to existing oyster, and other species', nearby habitat. Numerical modeling of potential sediment resuspension should be considered if this is a concern. In addition, the water depths ( <9 m) and sand content (60% or greater) suggest that this is not optimal winter habitat for mature female blue crabs, but the possibility of its use by juvenile blue crabs could not be assessed by this study. Determining the nature, extent and thickness of the mud at the site might prove useful in assessing the site's habitat potential. This could be done by: (1) high- frequency (i.e. 800 -1000 kHz) sidescan sonar surveys over the site, and adjacent regions, groundtruthed by sediment grabs; (2) chirp sub - bottom profiles to determine the thickness (which will help assess long -term stability) of the muddy sediment; and /or (3) geochemical analyses (e.g. radioisotopes) to determine if the mud is either actively accreting or represents an older, no longer accreting sediment unit. The above suggestions would be greatly complimented by numerical modeling of sediment suspension potential, as well as a proper study of the existing benthic community. These additional tasks would be both costly and time - consuming and should only be considered if the sediment data on its own is insufficient to establish the site's current benthic use and future suitability. 4.0 References Clarke, D. G., and Wilber, D. H. (2000). Assessment of potential impacts of dredging operations due to sediment resuspension, DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN- DOER -E9), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. www.wes. army, mil /el /dots /doer Davis, H. C. (1960). "Effects of turbidity - producing materials in sea water on eggs and larvae of the clam (Venus (Mercenaria) mercenaria)," Biological Bulletin 118, 48 -54. Davis, H. C, and Hidu, H. (1969). "Effects of turbidity producing substances in sea water on eggs and larvae of three genera of bivalve mollusks," The Veliger 11, 316 -323. Dittel, A.I., Hines, A.H., Ruiz, G.M. and Ruffin, K.K., 1995. Effects of shallow water refuge on behavior and density- dependent mortality of juvenile blue crabs in Chesapeake Bay. Bulletin of Marine Science, 57 (3), 902 -916. Gee, G.W. and Bauder, J.W., 1986. Particle -size analysis. In: A. Klute (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Agronomy. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, USA, pp. 383 -411. Hines, A.H. and Ruiz, G.M., 1995. Temporal variation in juvenile blue crab mortality: Nearshore shallows and cannibalism in Chesapeake Bay. Bulletin of Marine Science, 57 (3), 884 -901. Hir, P.L., Cann, P., Waeles, B., Jestin, H. and Bassoullet, P., 2008. Erodibility of natural sediments: experiments on sand /mud mixtures from laboratory and field erosion tests. Sediment and Ecohydraulics — INTERCOH 2005, 9, 137 -153. Officer, C.B., Lynch, D.R., Setlock, G.H., and Helz, G.R., 1984. Recent sedimentation rates in Chesapeake Bay. In The Estuary as a Filter. Academic Press, Orlando, FL, 131 -157. Pile, A., Lipcius, R., van Montfrans, J. and Orth, R., 1996. Density- dependent settler-recruit- juvenile relationships in blue crabs. Ecological Monographs, 66, 277 -300. Sanford, M.W., Kuehl, S.A., and Nittrouer, C.A., 1990. Modern sedimentary processes in the Wilmington Canyon area, U.S. East Coast. Marine Geology, 92 (3 -4), 205 -226. Schaffner, L.C. and Diaz, R.J., 1988. Distribution and abundance of overwintering Blue Crabs, Callinectes sapidus, in the lower Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries, 11 (1), 68 -72. Seitz, R.D., Lipcius, R.N. and Seebo, M.S., 2005. Food availability and growth of the blue crab in seagrass and unvegetated nurseries of Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 319, 57 -68. Van Ledden, M., Van Kesteren, W.G.M. and Winterwerp, J.C., 2004. A conceptual framework for the erosion behavior of sand -mud mixtures. Continental Shelf Research 24(1), 1 -11. Widdows, J., Fieth, P., and Worrall, C. M. (1979). "Relationships between seston, available food, and feeding activity in the common mussel Mytilus edulis, " Marine Biology 50, 195 -207. Wilber, D.H. and Clarke, D.G., 2001. Biological effects of suspended sediments: A review of suspended sediment impacts on fish and shellfish with relation to dredging activities in estuaries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 21, 855 -875. 4.0 Appendix A — Surficial Sediment Associated With Nearby Oyster Reefs 4.1 Description In an effort to characterize the surficial sediment immediately adjacent to the existing oyster reef near Old House Channel (^'5000 ft south of study site), two additional ponar grabs were collected (Figure A -1). Samples were collected from the east and west of the northern edge of the main oyster reef and grain size analyses were performed on both samples. Although linking these sedimentary characteristics of these samples to turbidity conditions on the oyster reef is beyond the scope of this report, the samples do provide a first -order approximation of surficial sediment type associated with the oyster reefs. Similar to the original study site, both reef samples were composed of muddy sand (48 vs. 61 &% sand, OHC_Reef01 and OHC_Reef02, respectively; Table A -1). The remaining mud fraction was split —60 -40 between silt and clay, indicating that these sediments are cohesive (Table A -2). On average, these samples had higher mud and clay contents than all of the samples from the original study site. o sample locations, original site o sample locations, reef site sf A y a ^r a "` v �.wo zvvv a,00vFer Figure A -1: Location of the reef sediment samples as well as the original sediment samples. Sample ID Weight % Sediment Sand Mud Silt Clay OHC Reef01 48.41 51.59 32.38 19.21 OHC Reef02 61.22 38.78 23.15 15.63 Table A -1: Sediment grain size distribution of the reef samples. Sample ID Weight % Mud % Silt % Clay OHC Reef01 62.76 37.24 OHC Reef02 59.69 40.31 Table A -2: Weight percent silt vs. clay in the mud content of the reef samples. 5.0 Appendix B — Percent Moisture of Seabed 5.1 Description In addition to grain size data, we calculated both the water content, and the percent moisture of the samples to illustrate any patterns in moisture content or porosity. Percent moisture (P) was calculated by: M wet weight — dry weight wet weight * 100 Porosity (p) was derived from the water content of the sample as described in Sanford et al. (1990) and Officer et al. (1984) by: (sed y * P) P ((sedy * P) + (watery * (1 — P)) where sed, is the density of the sediment (assumed 2.65 g /cm3) and water, is the density of water (assumed 1 g /cm3). The assumption of sediment density is based on: (1) the high percentage of sand (predominantly quartz in the outer banks) in the samples; and (2) the fact that most common clay minerals are hydrous aluminum layer silicates and thus have a very similar density to quartz. Although the actual mineralogy would have varied in the study site, without a mineralogical study it is not possible to vary sediment density in any meaningful or defendable way. Overall, percent moisture varied, as would be expected, by the grain size of the sediment sample (Table B -1). The distribution map shown in Figure B -1 clearly shows that the higher percent moisture values correlate to regions of higher mud content (plotted as yellow contour lines). Porosity, however, varied very little over the study site, likely due to the assumption of a single density for all samples. If accurate and detailed porosity data is needed for disposal - related concerns, a mineralogical analysis of the samples is needed in order to more accurately determine variations in sediment density. Sample ID Percent Moisture Porosity OHC 01 0.48 1.59 OHC 02 0.36 1.58 OHC 03 0.31 1.58 OHC 04 0.36 1.58 OHC 05 0.32 1.58 OHC 06 0.42 1.58 OHC 07 0.32 1.58 OHC 08 0.36 1.58 OHC 09 0.30 1.57 OHC 10 0.46 1.59 OHC 11 0.30 1.57 OHC 12 0.43 1.58 OHC 13 0.40 1.58 OHC 14 0.37 1.58 OHC 15 0.42 1.58 OHC 16 0.46 1.59 OHC 17 0.34 1.58 OHC 18 0.34 1.58 OHC 19 0.39 1.58 OHC 20 0.39 1.58 OHC 22 0.28 1.57 OHC 23 0.28 1.57 OHC 24 0.36 1.58 OHC 25 0.34 1.58 Table 6 -1: Percent moisture and calculated porosity of the sediment samples. 742600 742400 742200 742000 (i 741800 n 741600 U) U Z 741400 C r-• 0 741200 Z 741000 740800 740600 Old House Channel Proposed Dredge Disposal Site Percent Moisture 2995400 2995800 2996200 2996600 2997000 2997400 Easting (NC State Plane, ft) Feet 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Figure 6 -1: Distribution of percent moisture. Weight percent mud contours are in yellow. 0.5 m 0.42 �3 in 0 0.38 U 0.34 0.3 0.26 D_ APPENDIX H srarec North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor Office of Archives and History Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary Division of Historical Resources Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director September 8, 2011 John Mayer US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District 69 Darlington Avenue Wilmington, NC 28403 RE: Manteo 204 (Shallowbag) Bay Project — Dredge Material Disposal and Oyster Reef Construction, Dare County, ER 09 -1280 Dear Mr. Mayer, We have received the survey report for the above project conducted by the USACE Field Research Facility in Duck, NC, and believe it adequately addresses our concerns for historic resources. Based on the information provided, we believe the project is unlikely to affect any significant submerged resources. We therefore recommend no further remote sensing or archaeological work be conducted for this project as proposed. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, North Carolina legislation (G.S. 121 -22 to 28, Article 3), and the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (P.L. 100- 298). 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, �'� %a�La-�QA� ,&p%IRamona M. Bartos Location: 109 East Jones Street Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone /Fax: (919) 807 - 6570/807 -6599 ACCOMPLISHMENTS - 2001 to present day APPENDIX I Attribute Table of the State Oyster Sanctuaries Oyster Sanctuary Sanc. No. LOCATION YEAR MATERIAL AMOUNT # of Mounds Size of sanctuary (acres) Percent developed 1 Croatan Sd. 1996 Class B rip rap 600 tons 1 leg 7.7 50.1 1998 Class B rip rap 600 tons 1 leg 2003 Class B rip rap 600 tons 1 leg 2003 Oyster Shells 4,000 bus. Overplanting 2003 Surf Clam Shells 2,640 bus. Overplanting 2003 #4 Limestone Marl 4,000 bus. Overplanting 2 Deep Bay 1996 Class B rip rap 700 tons 1 leg 17.2 23.3 2003 Class B rip rap 600 tons 1 leg 2003 Oyster Shells 4,620 bus. Overplanting 2003 Surf Clam Shells 3,600 bus. Overplanting 2003 #4 Limestone Marl 4,000 bus. Overplanting 3 West Bay 1996 Class B rip rap 700 tons 1 leg 6.6 59.1 1998 Class B rip rap 700 tons 1 leg 2003 Class B rip rap 600 tons 1 leg 2003 Oyster Shells 3,380 bus. Overplanting 2003 Surf Clam Shells 5,760 bus. Overplanting 2003 #4 Limestone Marl 4,000 bus. Overplanting 4 Clam Shoal (AR -296) 1996 Class B rip rap 600 tons 1 leg 47.7 21.9 2002 Class B rip rap 600 tons 6 2004 Class B rip rap 600 tons 6 2005 Class B rip rap 2,300 tons 14 2009a Class B rip rap 4,056 tons 27 2010a Class B rip rap 4,202 tons 28 5 Crab Hole 2003 Class B rip rap 3,000 tons 21 30.5 100.0 2004 Class B rip rap 600 tons 4 2006 Class B rip rap 8,070 tons 55 2008 Class B rip rap 4,500 tons 26 2009a Class B rip rap 21,688 144 6 Ocracoke (AR 298) 2004 Class B rip rap 600 tons 4 28 32.3 2004- 05 Class B rip rap 2,300 tons 13 2006 Class B rip rap 3,816 tons 23 2008 Class B rip rap 1,096 tons 6 2009 Class B rip rap 3,600 tons 24 7 Middle Bay 2004 Class B rip rap 900 tons 45 4.6 8.7 8 Neuse River 2005 Class B rip rap 2,300 tons 15 5.7 94.2 2006 Class B rip rap 3,062 tons 21 2008 Class B rip rap 1,900 tons 13 9 West Bluff Pt. 2005 Class B rip rap 3,000 tons 22 19.9 42.2 2005 Class B rip rap 440 tons 3 2006 Class B rip rap 1,650 tons 11 2008 Class B rip rap 1,096 tons 6 2009 Class B rip rap 3,450 tons 23 2010 Class B rip rap 1,350 tons 9 Updated 1/22/10 75,768 tons 573* Totals 36,000 bus ** * does not include the legs as mounds ** Bushels of overplanting on the legs a Funding was from the ARRA stimulus money REAL ESTATE APPENDIX Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Beneficial Use of Dredged Material For Oyster Reef Restoration Project Table of Contents REAL ESTATE APPENDIX .................................................................................. ............................... I Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 ......................................................... ............................... i Beneficial Use of Dredged Material .......................................................................... ............................... i For Oyster Reef Restoration Project ........................................................................ ............................... i REAL ESTATE SUMMARY ...... ............................... ......................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. SECTION 1. THE REAL ESTATE REPORT ...................................................... ..............................1 1.1 Statement of Purpose ..................................................................................... ..............................1 1.2 Study Authority ................................................................................................ ..............................1 1.3 Project Location .............................................................................................. ..............................1 1.4 Project Description .......................................................................................... ..............................1 1.5 Real Estate Requirements .............................................................................. ..............................4 1.6 Utility /Facility Relocation ................................................................................. ..............................4 1.7 Existing Projects ............................................................................................ ............................... 4 1.8 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................... ..............................4 1.9 Project Sponsor Responsibilities and Capabilities ........................................ ............................... 5 1.10 Government Owned Property ......................................................................... ..............................6 1.11 Historical Significance ..................................................................................... ..............................6 1.12 Mineral Rights ................................................................................................. ..............................6 1.13 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) ...................................... ..............................6 1.14 Navigation Servitude ....................................................................................... ..............................6 1.15 Zoning Ordinances .......................................................................................... ..............................6 1.16 Induced Flooding ............................................................................................ ..............................6 1.17 Public Law 91 -646, Relocation Assistance Benefits ....................................... ..............................6 1.18 Attitude of Property Owners ........................................................................... ..............................7 1.19 Acquisition Schedule ...................................................................................... ..............................7 1.20 Estates for Proposed Project ......................................................................... ............................... 7 1.21 Real Estate Estimate ..................................................................................... ............................... 7 1.22 Chart of Accounts .......................................................................................... ............................... 8 Exhibits.................................................................................................................... .............................10 Figures: Figure 1.3 -1 — Project Location ...................................................................... ............................... 2 Figure 1.3 -2 — Project Area in Relation to Pamlico Sound ............................. ............................... 3 Figure 1.5 -1 — Potential Staging Area Dare County ........................................ ............................... 4 Figure 1.5 -2 — Potential Staging Area Hyde County ........................................ ............................... 5 Tables: Table1. 21- 1 .................................................................................................... ..............................8 RealEstate Estimate ...................................................................................... ............................... 8 Table1. 22- 1 .................................................................................................... ..............................9 Chartof Accounts ........................................................................................... ............................... 9 a Real Estate Appendix Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 SECTION 1. THE REAL ESTATE REPORT 1.1 Statement of Purpose This report is tentative in nature, focuses on the Tentatively Selected Plan, and is to be used for planning purposes only. There may be modifications to the plans that occur during Pre - construction, Engineering and Design (PED) phase, thus changing the final acquisition area(s) and /or administrative and land cost. The Real Estate Appendix is intended to support the Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment for the Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 project. The author of this report is familiar with the Project area. The state of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, is the non - Federal sponsor for the project. Date of this report is February 2013. 1.2 Study Authority The study authority is the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (WRDA 1992) — Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material, as amended by Section 2037 of WRDA 2007. 1.3 Project Location The project study area is the 17 square mile area identified in Figure 1.3 -1. The location was chosen based on its vicinity to state oyster restoration efforts, and identified dredged material disposal needs from Old House Channel (Range 2). The center of the study area is approximately 4.5 miles southwest of Oregon Inlet. Range 2 of Old House Channel runs through the middle of this area. The larger surrounding project vicinity is Pamlico Sound, NC as shown at Figure 1.3 -2. Pamlico Sound is part of an interconnected set of estuaries that make up Albemarle Pamlico National Estuary, the second largest sound in the United States and the largest sound on North Carolina's east coast. It is separated from the Atlantic Ocean by the narrow barrier islands of the Outer Banks and represents North Carolina's key resource base for commercial fishing, recreational fishing and tourism. 1.4 Project Description Under the Tentatively - Selected Plan (TSP) three submerged oyster reefs would be constructed within close proximity of each other, approximately 1.7 miles from Old House Channel (Range 2). Stone sills made of NCDOT Class 2 armor stone (9 " -23 ") would be constructed to create three 5.07 acre containment areas for dredged material. The three 5.07 acre containment areas would contain a total of approximately 135,000 cubic yards of dredged material. The three separate containment areas would be constructed in close proximity of each other with spacing of approximately 100 yards. Reefs would be constructed during a regularly scheduled maintenance dredging cycle for the navigation channels. Dredged material from maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel would be pumped into the containment areas and would, most likely, utilize a hydraulic pipeline dredge. However, other dredges could be used. The dredged material would be covered with NCDOT Class A stone and oyster shell to provide habitat for establishment of oysters. Approximately 18 acres of new oyster reef habitat would be created, as well as enhanced service area associated with the reefs. All work to take place involving reef development and construction will be accomplished below mean high water (MHW). These areas are considered to be in state Real Estate Appendix Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 waters and a permit will be required from the State of North Carolina Department of Administration State Property Office to allow for construction of the project in state waters. Figure 1.3 -1 — Project Location 2 Real Estate Appendix Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Figure 1.3 -2 — Project Area in Relation to Pamlico Sound. Real Estate Appendix Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 1.5 Real Estate Requirements As this project will make beneficial use of dredged material, no borrow site is required. Work in state waters below mean high water will be by permit from the State. The only other real estate requirement identified is a staging area of approximately 0.5 of an acre that will be needed for an estimated period of 6 -12 months. Two parcels as shown in Figures 1.5 -1 and 1.5 -2 are owned by the State of North Carolina and either of which could be used for a staging area. A Temporary Work Area Easement for the staging areas could be accomplished within 3 -6 months. 1.6 Utility /Facility Relocation There are no utility /facility relocations with this project 1.7 Existing Projects Existing projects include the Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay Navigation Project, State of North Carolina's Oyster Sanctuary Program, and Festival Park, Roanoke Island, NC Aquatic Habitat Restoration and Protection Project. See section 3.2 Existing Projects of the DPR for more detail on these projects. 1.8 Environmental Impacts The proposed project would offer environmental improvements by creating new oyster reefs. No significant adverse environmental impacts are expected. a' T{ c � Inzheav W. . _&'-. --� - Figure 1.5 -1 — Potential Staging Area Dare County 4 Real Estate Appendix Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Figure 1.5 -2 — Potential Staging Area Hyde County 1.9 Project Sponsor Responsibilities and Capabilities The State of North Carolina will be the non - Federal Project Sponsor (NFS). The NFS has the responsibility to acquire all real estate interests required for the Project. The NFS shall accomplish all alterations and relocations of facilities, structures and improvements determined by the government to be necessary for construction of the Project. The sponsor will have operation and maintenance responsibility for the project after construction is completed. Title to any acquired real estate will be retained by the NFS and will not be conveyed to the United States Government. Prior to advertisement of any construction contract, the NFS shall furnish to the government an Authorization for Entry for Construction (Exhibit "A" to the Real Estate Appendix) to all lands, easements and rights -of -way, as necessary. The NFS will also furnish to the government evidence supporting their legal authority to grant rights -of -way to such lands. The NFS shall comply with applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91 -646, approved 2 January 1971, and amended by Title IV of the Surface Transportation Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987, Public Law 100 -17, effective 2 April 1989, in acquiring real estate interests for the Project, and inform all affected persons of applicable benefits, policies, and procedures in connection with said Act(s). An Assessment of the Non - Federal Sponsor's Capability to Acquire Real Estate is at Exhibit "B" to the Real Estate Appendix The non - Federal sponsor is entitled to receive credit against its share of project costs for the value of lands it provides and the value of the relocations that are required for the project. Generally, for the purpose of determining the amount of credit to be afforded, the value of the LER is the fair market S Real Estate Appendix Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 value of the real property interest, plus certain incidental costs of acquiring those interests, that the non - federal sponsor provided for the project as required by the Government. The NFS should not acquire lands required for the project prior to execution of the Project Partnership Agreement (PPA). Should the NFS proceed with acquisition of lands prior to execution of the PPA, it is at the risk of not receiving credit or reimbursement for any costs incurred in the connection with the acquisition process should the PPA not be signed. There is also risk in acquiring lands either not needed for the project or not acquired in compliance with requirements for crediting purposes in accordance with 49 CFR Part 24, dated March 2, 1989. 1.10 Government Owned Property The State of North Carolina is owner of the land proposed for staging areas for the project. There is no Federally owned land within the areas proposed for construction of the project. 1.11 Historical Significance Historical research has identified the loss of ninety vessels in the vicinity of Oregon Inlet. Despite the large number of sunken vessels in the vicinity, there are no known recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. 1.12 Mineral Rights There are no known mineral activities within the scope of the proposed project. 1.13 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) The project area under consideration is not located in an industrial site or dump. If hazardous and toxic wastes are identified in the area, response plans and remedial actions will be conducted as appropriate. 1.14 Navigation Servitude Navigation Servitude is not applicable to this project. 1.15 Zoning Ordinances Zoning ordinances are not of issue with this project. Application or enactment of zoning ordinances is not to be used in lieu of acquisition. 1.16 Induced Flooding There will be no flooding induced by the construction or the operation and maintenance of the project. 1.17 Public Law 91 -646, Relocation Assistance Benefits There are no relocations of individuals, businesses or farms for this project. 6 Real Estate Appendix Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 1.18 Attitude of Property Owners The project is fully supported. There are no known objections to the project from landowners within the project area. 1.19 Acquisition Schedule The project sponsor is responsible for acquiring real estate interests required for the project. The State owns two parcels, either of which may be used for a staging area. It is projected that a Temporary Work Area Easement can be accomplished within 3 -6 months, and can begin when final plans and specs have been completed and the PPA has been executed. The Project Sponsor, Project Manager and Real Estate Technical Manager will formulate the milestone schedule upon project approval to meet dates for advertisement and award of a construction contract. 1.20 Estates for Proposed Project The standard temporary work area easement will be used for the staging areas. The Temporary Work Area Easement A temporary easement and right -of -way in, on, over and across (the land described in Schedule A) (Tracts Nos. ), for a period not to exceed , beginning with date possession of the land is granted to the Sponsor for use by the Sponsor, its representatives, agents, and contractors as a work area, including the right to move, store and remove equipment and supplies, and erect and remove temporary structures on the land and to perform any other work necessary and incident to the construction of the Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project, together with the right to trim, cut, fell and remove therefrom all trees, underbrush, obstructions, and any other vegetation, structures, or obstacles within the limits of the right -of -way; reserving, however, to the landowners, their heirs and assigns, all such rights and privileges as may be used without interfering with or abridging the rights and easement hereby acquired; subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines. 1.21 Real Estate Estimate The real estate requirements are minimal for this project. The appraisal of the TWA easement is considered uncomplicated and under $25,000, therefore an Informal Value Estimate (IVE) was performed in May 2011 to determine land costs. The estimated real estate costs include the land cost for acquisition of land, relocation costs, and federal and non - federal administrative costs. Administrative costs are those costs incurred for verifying ownership of lands, certification of those lands required for project purposes, legal opinions, analysis or other requirements that may be necessary during Planning, Engineering and Design (PED). A 25% contingency is applied to the estimated total for these items. Table 1.21 -1 is a summary of the real estate cost by measure. Real Estate Appendix Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Table 1.21 -1. Real Estate Estimate a. Lands Staging Area 1.0ac 5,500 2 TWA Easements b. Improvements 0 (Residential) 0 (Commercial) 0 c. Mineral Rights 0 d. Damages 0 e. P.L. 91 -646 Relocation costs 0 f. Acquisition Cost - Admin (1 ownership) 25,000 Federal 5,000 Non - federal 20,000 25,000 1 Permit 5,000 5,000 Sub -Total 35,500 Contingencies (25 %) 8,875 TOTAL 44,375 ROUNDED 44.500 1.22 Chart of Accounts The cost estimate for all Federal and non - Federal real estate activities necessary for implementation of the project after completion of the feasibility study for land acquisition, construction, LERRD, and other items are coded as delineated in the Cost Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS). This real estate cost estimate is then incorporated into the Total Current Working Estimate utilizing the Microcomputer Aided Cost Engineering System (MCACES). 8 Real Estate Appendix Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Table 1.22 -1. Chart of Accounts 01B LANDS AND DAMAGES 01 B40 Acq /Review of PS 01 B20 Acquisition by PS 01 BX Contingencies (25 %) 01 R21D Subtotal 01G Temporary Permits /Lic /ROEs 01G10 By Govt 01 G2o By PS 01 G30 By Govt on Behalf of PS 01 G Contingencies (25 %) Subtotal 01H AUDIT 011-110 Real Estate Audit 01 HX Contingencies (25% Real Estate Appendix Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Federal Subtotal 01R REAL ESTATE LAND PAYMENTS 01 R1 B Land Payments by PS 01 R213 PL91 -646 Relocation Pymt by PS 01 R21D Review of PS 01 RX Contingencies (25 %) _ 6,250 Subtotal 31,250 TOTALS ROUNDED TO Real Estate Appendix Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Federal Non - Federal Total 5,000 5,000 20,000 20,000 1,250 5,000 6,250 6,250 25,000 31,250 9 5,000 1,250 5,000 1,250 6,250 6,250 5,500 5,500 1,375 1,375 6,875 6,875 6,250 38,125 44,375 $44,500 Exhibits Exhibit A - Authorization For Entry For Construction Exhibit B — Assessment of Non - Federal Sponsor's Real Estate Acquisition Capability 10 Real Estate Appendix Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 AUTHORIZATION FOR ENTRY FOR CONSTRUCTION forthe (Name of accountable official) (Title) (Sponsor Name) , do hereby certify that the (Sponsor Name) has acquired the real property interest required by the Department of the Army, and otherwise is vested with sufficient title and interest in lands to support construction for (Project Name, Specifically identified project features, etc.). Further, I hereby authorize the Department of the Army, its agents, employees and contractors, to enter upon (identify tracts) to construct (Project Name, Specifically identified project features, etc.) as set forth in the plans and specifications held in the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' (district, city, state) WITNESS my signature as (Title) (Sponsor Name) this _ day of 120 BY: (Name) (Title) forthe ATTORNEY'S CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY I, , forthe (Name) (Title of legal officer) (Sponsor Name), certify that has (Name of accountable official) authority to grant Authorization for Entry; that said Authorization for Entry is executed by the proper duly authorized officer; and that the Authorization for Entry is in sufficient form to grant the authorization therein stated. WITNESS my signature as forthe (Title) (Sponsor Name), this day of 120 -ya 11 Real Estate Appendix Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 (Name) (Title) Exhibit A Assessment of Non - Federal Sponsor's Real Estate Acquisition Capability Manteo Section 204 I. Legal Authority: a. Does the sponsor have legal authority to acquire and hold title to real property for project purposes? YES b. Does the sponsor have the power to eminent domain for this project? YES c. Does the sponsor have "quick- take" authority for this project? YES d. Are any of the land /interests in the land required for this project located outside the sponsor's political boundary? NO e. Are any of the lands /interests in land required for the project owned by an entity whose property the sponsor cannot condemn? NO II. Human Resource Requirements: a. Will the sponsor's in -house staff require training to become familiar with the real estate requirements of Federal projects including P. L. 91 -646, as amended? NO b. If the answer to Il.a. is "yes ", has a reasonable plan been developed to provide such training? (yes /no) c. Does the sponsor's in -house staff have sufficient real estate acquisition experience to meet its responsibilities for the project? YES d. Is the sponsor's projected in -house staffing level sufficient considering its other work load, if any, and the project schedule? YES e. Can the sponsor obtain contractor support, if required in a timely fashion? YES Will the sponsor likely request USACE assistance in acquiring real estate? YES - only in advisory capacity III Other Project Variables: a. Will the sponsor's staff be located within reasonable proximity to the project site? YES b. Has the sponsor approved the project/real estate schedule /milestones? NO — Project Milestone will be developed during PED; will be joint effort between RE, PM and NFS Exhibit IS 1st page 10 Real Estate Appendix Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 IV. Overall Assessment: a. Has the sponsor performed satisfactory on other USACE projects? YES b. With regard to the project, the sponsor is anticipated to be: Highly capable V. Coordination: a. Has this assessment been coordinated with the sponsor? YES b. Does the sponsor concur with this assessment? YES Prepared by: WA Realty Specialist Reviewed and approved by: Lo l F Ftaet te , , Division 11 Real Estate Appendix Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 E xhibit B 2nd page