Ver _COMPLETE FILE_19880101

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HUS SEY, GAY , BELL & DEYOUNG
INTERNATIONAL
PREdBABNARY ENGOHEEK0U` O REPORT
on the
M AVMR AMMIn CSR o AHD 5400 RPA DRAUHA E sysirlms
at
?3CL] GLa QC?La4C G3
A PROPOSED MARINA / CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT
CARTERET COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
for
WATERWAY ASSOCIATES,INC.
??.?R?N?CARO??`?.
?5.•??FSS?r'•y'?
GI NE?? J?Q
JA INUARY , FPO#

I SHEARWATER RESORT COMMUNITY

CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
WATERWAY ASSOCIATES
WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA
JANUARY, 1988

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section A Paize Number
I PURPOSE 01
II SCOPE 01
III GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION 01
IV TOPOGRAPHY 01
V SOILS 01
VI EXISTING UTILITIES 02
Section B
I PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 03
II PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY & DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 03
III PROPOSED WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT 04
AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM
IV PROPOSED STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM 05
A. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL 07
-1-

Attachments
A CAMA PERMIT APPLICATION PACKAGE
B ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
C PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT

D GEOHYDROLOGIC SURVEY
E DRAINAGE DESIGN COMPUTATIONS
'
Exhibits
#1 SITE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN
#2 WATER SUPPLY & DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN
#3 SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
#4 STORM DRAINAGE MASTERPLAN

#4A DRAINAGE AREAS
#4B PAVING, GRADING & DRAINAGE PLANS (3 Sheets)

_ii_

1
11

r.

1

SECTION A
I PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to present comprehensive master plans
for providing water service, sewer service, wastewater treatment and
disposal facilities and a detailed design of the storm drainage system for
development of Shearwater - a proposed condominium/marina project.
II SCOPE
The scope of this report encompasses 28 acres of the Guthrie tract
known as Tommy's Campground. The master planning of Shearwater Resort
Community consists of 225 condominium units with marina facilities for 65
boat slips including a dry-stack storage facility accommodating an
additional 145 boats. Other amenities include a club house, tennis
courts, swimming pools and recreational areas.
III GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
Shearwater Resort Community is located in Carteret County, North
Carolina, between Swansboro and Cape Carteret (See Figure 1). The
property is bordered on the North by North Carolina Highway 24 and on the
South by Bogue Sound and the Intercoastal Waterway.
IV TOPOGRAPHY
The existing elevations of the project site range from 0 to 20 feet
mean sea level. The upper portion of the site is nearly level with
elevations gradually sloping down at 1.5 percent towards t he southern
portion. The lower portion of the site is characterized by an existing
boat slip, marsh and fill areas associated with dredging and maintenance
of the boa t slip.
V SOILS
Most of the northern portion of the project site is characterized by
fine grained sands which have a rapid permeability rate. Vegetation in
this area consists mostly of short and tall grasses which have been
altered by agricultural activities.
In the areas of lowest elevation, isolated patches of black, organic
silty fine sands exist with a low permeability rate. This area is mostly
landscaped with grass, shrubs, a double row of mature cedar trees and
scattered pines.
A complete analysis and description of the existing soils is provided
in attachments C and D.
-1-
1
}:S'/.??C ,,.'?:?,cera :??.j ?';r?'j i?• 'r{,'::'i'.': '?%p ?• s.#'G':?yZk;?
fw'r,?????::'z?.ny;.:t?:»:z<:}: Y`%:'s: ;:3?rk%iw.`?.:>%;,'•',?;o;?"?%o:sK>r
Y ? ? <',s;•)?.Sy`:': :C;F`.rv\i:. ?`AP ? jYc: Q •: ?C ?Cc,?:r <..: ??.
c:5;:;;<?r,,?:fe,,.Yw'•',Y:.aY.-'::?«iz>: r.:t:>::ac <?.o`nf,o?.'?:;:3:;,. 5?;.1:'4E??'? ?:.::>
..?r+q3 :<FC.:,y:.:cw>rr. 62K:!,:4'<')?.'•:./x...:;c.y.,::ff,.rr::.^.;"C?:y2
`f'vr.,. ??-?ZGl:n: ?v. v:Y?c: `:rfiv, .?f?.2y'y?y?,:•:c?./.,`a?kr•,3"r: :2:`o-.^.T'f
:'?--' S,: .,yb%!v:'f+:; ?:vt:' ,a a':SCY:Y•: ?: i. alrf•! `tY'.F:`" ''f':N:r.
<.•?`;•"?. SM?i. '?uL' '> . es,S:y<`.. e?'?`?`' „3.". .??
"r.:r«,3.
ts2 p 9""c T U ?l. :rad .'.sc hrr'
`':? ^zo '??.K ???.%Kk;. •:.u"?"`h2' c..U jSy: ?.SCE',•>.?,?r`?'P?2?r.?'R•'..,,?".:7`? n:,v^ ?.v':z:
C7 ,l?'.'?;?"< "'?§..•s:,, SE`:""y,:3,'s "f;','''ov r.: s:. r.<::.:gz.:.:.:.
?`", <
rz<Sx:c`x{° w"<s'c? R4???.:
t ".?a?::.,p.•: yg3:.` <f"/`/}:?j.?C:"3'. `z•?5? 3:3{S'4?}rp::.•,.?.`. '"?:5?.'y?:•.ci?'??`y;:
f? \; 3Ya'e#:?»`s'r?'}vc'?`,'•t M:.ne/k??er,'?.?'?iv?'.. `, 4:.?V'' "???`/r',.,.?T'?e?foy F??°?;: ?.
: .g'szF•:. ?? W
2 ? z ? tea.
L.L
@ar
0 1=
LLJt. C4
=Q
e w. ??N d .ir>.
to
.:? `;ate :. •;
v

VI EXISTING UTILITIES
t Presently, no existing public water or sewer service is available to
the project site. In the event of future installation of public
' utilities, interface connection points shall be provided in the proposed
on-site water and sewer systems.

-2-

I
I

SECTION B
1. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Shearwater Resort Community consists of approximately 225 multi-family
residential units with a clubhouse, two swimming pools, a 65 boat/slip
marina and associated facilities, a 145 unit boat storage facility,
on-site sewer and water facilities, access roads and paved parking lots
and is master planned in compliance with the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act (C.A.M.A.) and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations.
(Refer to Attachment A - C.A.M.A. Permit Application and Exhibit No. 1 -
Site Development Master Plan). The development plans consist of eleven
multi-family dwelling units, marina, amenities and a commercial tract
which will be developed in phases as indicated on Exhibit No. 1.
II PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY & DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
'In accordance with the North Carolina "Rules Governing Public Water
Supplies" and instantaneous demand for 225 residential units with the
commercial tract included, water supply for Shearwater will consists of
two (2) 250 GPM wells at a depth of 150 feet each. Anticipated water
quiality parameters and aquifer characteristics are listed below:
Water Parameters
PH
Hardness
Sodium Content
Chlorides
Fluoride
Ran,ge
7 - 8 Units
150 - 200 Units
10 - 15 MG/L
20 - 30 MG/L
0.20 - 0.30 MG/L
Aquifer Characteristics
Water Zone 130 - 160 Feet
Capacity 100 - 1000 GPM
Static Water Level 15 Feet
Drawdown Level 25 Feet
Water quality is expected to meet national drinking standards and
chlorination should be the only treatment necessary, however, depending on
test well results, final treatment requirements will be based upon
' parameters such as PH levels, total dissolved solids, hardness and
sodium/chloride levels.
' Water storage will be provided by means of a 1500 gallon
hydropneumatic tank at each well site, therefore, total system storage
volume will be 3000 gallons.
I -3-

The water distribution system for Shearwater will consist of two (2)
' 8-inch main loops which enables system flexibility for phasing of the
project and system reliability upon final completion. In addition,
emergency power will be provided by a diesel generator located at one of
the well sites to maintain system operation during power outages. (Refer
to Exhibit No. 2 for water sytem master plan).
Fire protection will be provided through the use of three (3) dry
hydrants. Two of the hydrants shall be connected to the swimming pools,
which will have oversized fill lines, and the third hydrant will be
connected to the marina. Proper backflow prevention devices and sensing
devices shall be utilized to ensure system reliability.
Final construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for
review and approval upon concept . design and preliminary engineering report
approval.
II PROPOSED WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM
In accordance with the design criteria established by the North
Carolina Department of Human Resources - Division of Health Services, the
following computations were used to establish the average daily sewage
flow generated by the project:
Average Daily Flow From Residential Units
50 (3 bedroom units) x 360 GPD = 18,000 GPD
' 175 (1 & 2 bedroom units) x 250 GPD = 43.750 GPD
SUBTOTAL 61,750 GPD
Average Daily Flow From Commercial Site
38,880 SF x 300 GPD/1,000 SF = 11,664 GPD
Average Daily Flow From Marina Office
,100 Persons x 10 Gal/Person = 1,000 GPD
Total Average Daily Flow for Entire Project = 74,717 GPD
For design purposes a total daily flow of 80,000 GPD will be used.
' -4-

1

F

The wastewater collection system for Shearwater will consist of
' approximately 2,300 linear feet of 8-inch gravity sewer mains which will
transport wastewater to a pump sation at the lower portion of the site.
The pump station shall be a duplex station with a capacity of 175 GPM
based on a peaking factor of 3.15. Approximately 1,550 linear feet of
4-inch force main will then transport the wastewater to the upper portion
of the site to the wastewater treatment facility (refer to Exhibit No. 3).
The treatment facility will consist of two 40,000 gallons per day
package plants in parallel providing secondary treatment totalling 80,000
gallons per day. The first package treatment plant will be installed in
the first phase and the second plant will be installed in the third phase
of construction.
The treated effluent shall be disposed by means of land application
using a low pressure pipe soil-absorption system. A NPDES permit will not
be required since the LPP system eliminates treated effluent discharge
into surface waters.

I
The absorption field consists of approximately 3.7 acres which will be
divided in half to allow alternating dosing application of the treated
effluent. Approximately 18 inches of suitable fill material shall be
placed throughout the absorption area to level the disposal site and
eliminate influence of storm water runoff. A loading rate of 1.0 GPD per
square foot shall be used for the design application rate.
Monitoring wells shall be permanently installed around the perimeter
of both disposal areas for observation of groundwater levels. Operation
and maintenance shall be provided by a certified operator to ensure system
performance and reliability.
Final construction plans and specification along with an operation and
maintenance manual shall be submitted for review and approval upon concept
design and P.E.R. approval.
IV PROPOSED STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM
In accordance with The Division of Environment Management of the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Administrative Code 15 NCAC 2H Section .1000 (effective January 1, 1988),
the stormwater drainage system is designed to intercept and infiltrate
runoff generated by the initial one and one-half (1 1/2) inches of
rainfall without discharge to surface waters. Runoff in excess of the
design volume (runoff volume generated by the initial 1 1/12 inches of
rainfall) shall by-pass the infiltration basins and will be stored in a
series of wet detention lagoons and released through a vegetative filter.
The final runoff resulting from the storm drainage system lagoons shall
not exceed the 25-year pre-development rate. In the event of a storm
greater than the 25-year frequency, emergency overflow from the lagoons is
provided for flood relief.
-5-
i

I
The design of the drainage system for Shearwater allows a three-stage
treatment process. First, the inital runoff generated from the first 1 1/2
inches flushes pollutants into infiltration basins. Second, the excess
runoff volume is delivered into a series of wet detention lagoons which
provide additional pollutant removal. Finally, lagoon discharge is evenly
distributed over a vegetative filter prior to entering surface waters
(refer to Exhibit No. 4).
Preliminary and final hydrogeological field investigations and
laboratory analyses were performed to determine site specific hydraulic
conductivity design rates and groundwater levels (refer to Attachments C
' and D).
The enclosed design calculations certify that the proposed storm
drainage system design meets the requirements established by the Division
I of Environment Management (refer to Attachment E and Exhibit 4A).
The enclosed construction plans for the paving, grading and storm
drainage system for Shearwater incorporate the results of the design
computations and hydrogeological findings and are therefore submitted for
review and approval (refer to Exhibit No. 4B [3 sheets]).

1

-6-

i
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
OF THE
STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM
FOR
SHEARWATER RESORT COMMUNITY
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
BY
WATERWAY ASSOCIATES
WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA
JANUARY, 1988
-7-
I
I

I

[l

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
I AUTHORITY
The operation and maintenance requirements contained herein are to be
provided for in the bylaws for the Shearwater Resort Community Homeowners'
Association.
II MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION OF STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM
A. Flow Separator Catchbasins
Sediment deposits shall be removed from the sediment traps within the
catchbasins when the available storage volume has been reduced to
one-half of the original volume. Frequency of inspection shall be
based on a bi-monthly schedule to measure sediment levels and for the
removal of other debris.
B. Infiltration Basins
The infiltration basins shall be inspected on a monthly basis or
immediately after rainfall events which produce 1.5 inches or more of
rain in any twenty-four (24) hour period. Depths of ponding and time
of drawdown shall be recorded after measurable rainfall events. If
drawdown time exceeds five (5) days, the maintenance manager shall be
notified. The basin floors shall be kept free of trash, leaves and
other debris which may alter the permeability of the soil. If
plugging of the soil occurs as evidenced by excessive water ponding,
the sand surface shall be removed and replaced with clean sand to
restore the original permeability. The disturbance of the basins
shall be kept to a minimum.
C. Storm Drainage Pipes
Sediment deposits shall be removed from the storm drainage pipes when
the sediment depth equals one third of the inside pipe diameter.
Frequency of inspection shall be based on a bi-monthly schedule to
measure sediment levels and for the removal of other debris.
-8-

III GROUNDWATER MONITORING
' The groundwater monitoring wells are intended to allow the development
of information about the seasonal pattern of groundwater levels and will
measure the performance of the infiltration basins. To take a reading,
the screw plug in the top of the well is removed. The depth to the
surface of the water in the well is measured from the top edge of the
screw plug socket. Each of these points has had its elevation determined
' by survey so that the groundwater elevation can be calculated by
subtraction. A data recording diary will allow the permanent retention of
these water level elevation records.
A. Freauencv of Observation
Water level readings on each well should be recorded monthly for the
' first two years of operation and quarterly thereafter. In addition,
readings should be taken immediately after rainfall events which
produce 1.5 inches or more of rain in any periods of extreme drought.
r Four groundwater samples must be taken from monitoring wells evenly
distributed over the site. The first samples must be taken
immediately after installation of the wells prior to beginning
construction and thereafter samples must be taken in March, July, and
November ( 3 times per year). Samples must be taken within 24 hours
after a measurable rainfall event. The samples must be tested for
' total coliform, fecal coliform, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, oil and
grease, lead, copper, zinc and ammonia. The results of each test must
be sumitted to the Wilmington Regional Office of NRCD. A rainfall
' guage must be installed on site. Rainfall measurements must be made
and recorded in a journal specified for this purpose. Locations of
the wells to be sampled shall be designated on the approved storm
water plans.
1
-9-

I

11

ATTACHMENT A

^? \0
ti
\Gn GOP`
Q s oti?
E she
e<`?s o
cs ire
ore
IGP?PI
S.? Q.? `ea?3 P11? 113 ??? 1?3 ?'lS
CAaSCaG?S ? ??'GS GS .
Cetof
"Ic e:5 ? ?vab eQc• to
ase?e?5c,?6 ,%ti `GeQ
EGG ?a`ets
?G•
?J`a?ea? of °??et
??Q ?1' <.siNG??a`e?l? ? c?G . l?a`eS`a?e G?eao
oc,
CA bye
?? Eo ? of 1 of h?
rloot
so?p
ao? 'D6, ??ar?,
e
°- ? -CIa
c
v?'•C-t
Foy

DIVISION OF
COASTAL
MANAGEMENT
FIELD OFFICES
Washington
P.O. Box 1507
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
Courier 1174
0 Li
?Q
Seth City
iouth Water Street
>eth City, NC 27909
338-1558
Morehead City
P.O. Box 769
3411 Arendell Street
Morehead City, NC 28557
[phone]
1-800-682-2632
Courier #1112
Wilmington
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]
C1 Courier 1416
i
Please type or print. Carefully describe all an-
ticipated development activities, including construc-
tion, excavation, filling, paving, land clearing, and
stormwater control. If the requested information is
nor relevant to your project, write N/A (not ap-
plicabie). Uttlls 1-4 and 8-9 must be completed for
all projects.
d. Describe the plannned use of the project.
Residential along with commercial
frontage.
4 LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
1 APPLICANT a. Size of entire tract 28 ac. -- -
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A
a. Name Waterway Associates, Inc- C. Elevation of tract above mean sea level or Na-
Address 1300 South Tarhnrn Straat tional Geodetic Vertical Datum 0-1 A ft.
City- Wi 1 son State N . (' _ d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract Sandy
Zip21893-Day phone [phone] e. Vegetation on tract Short & Tall grassPs
X Landowner or Authorized agent Row of mature Cedar trees,
b. Project name (if any) f. Man-made features now on tract Paved road
Shearwater-Resort Commiinity shed-type bidgs & buikheaded boat lia.
c. If the applicant is not the landowner, also give g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan Classifica- T
' the owner's name and address. tion of the site? (Consult the local land use
-N/A plan.)
Conservation X Transitional
-Developed Community
_-Rural X Other
2 LOCATION OF PROPOSED h. How is the tract zoned by local government?Agri.
PROJECT i. How are adjacent waters classified? S.A.
j. Has a professional archaeological survey been

a.
Street address or secondary road number carried out for the tract? yes

by whom? Carol i na Arch
If so
Services
NCSR 24 _
,
Columbia, South Carolina
'
b.
City, town, communi
?'' or landmark
Swansboro, N.C. 5 UPLAND DEVELOPMENT
c. County Carteret
d. Is ro sed work within city limits or
P Po tY planning - s -any
Complete this section if the project includes
jurisdiction? yes land development.
e. Name of body of water nearest project a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, or
' Bogue Sound structures proposed 11 Condominium B1 das .
Club House. 2 Pools, 2 Tennis Courts
3 DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED & Commercial Site
USE OF PROPOSED PROJECT b. Number of lots or parcels Two
c. Density (Give the number of residential units

a.
Describe all development activities you
Y propose
the units per acre.) 995 Unite
and
11 Units/ac.
(for example, building a home, motel, marina, d. Size of area to be graded or disturbed
bulkhead, or pier).' 28 ac
Construction of 225 Condominium Units e. If the proposed project will disturb more than
with a Marina an a Commercial Site. one acre of land, the Division of Land
' Resources must receive an erosion and sedimen-
tation control plan at least 30 days before land
If you plan to build a marina, also complete disturbing activity begins. If applicable, has a
' and attach Form DCM-MP-l. sedimentation and erosion control plan been
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an ex- submitted to the Division of Land Resources?
isting project, new work, or both? Both Will be submitted with final Const _ Plan:
f. Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet
c. Will the project be for community, private, or of mean high water to be covered by im-
commercial use? permeable surfaces, such as pavement,
Private & Semi-Public buildings, rooftops. 19 81% Impervious Cover
g. List the materials, such as marl, paver stone,
asphalt, or concrete, to be used for paved
' surfaces. Asphalt R CnncrPtp b.
' h. If applicable, has a stormwater management c.
plan been submitted to the Division of En- d.
vironmental Management? Yes
' e.
i. Describe proposed sewage disposal and/or waste f.
water treatment facilities. 2-40,000 GPD Pack g.
age Plants and:.LPP Effluent Disposal System h.
' j. Have these facilities received state or local
approval)? No
is
' k. Describe existing treatment facilities.
t-
1. Describe location and type of discharges to
waters of the state (for example, surface runoff,
sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial
' effluent, "wash down"). Reduced Stormwater
runoff through:.a vegetative filter
15 NCAC 2 H Section .1000
m. Water supply source 2-250. GPM Wel l s
n. If the project is oceanfront development,
describe the steps.that will be taken to main-
tain established public beach accessways or pro-
vide new access.
N/A
' o. If the project is on the oceanfront, what will
be the elevation above mean sea level of the
first habitable floor?- N/A
6 EXCAVATION AND FILL
INFORMATION
a. Describe below the purpose of proposed'excava-
tion or fill activities (excluding bulkheads,
which are covered in Section 7).
Length Width Depth
Access channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
' Boat basin
Other (break-
water, pier,
boat ramp,
rock jetty)
' Fill placed in
wetland or below
MHW
' Upland fill
areas
1
I 1.120' - 14'. Be-,
Annl nAnt I_.. •It
k
1.
m
n.
o.
P•
Amount of material to be excavated from
below water level in cubic yards 19,560 CY
Type of material Silty Sand
Does the area to be excavated include mar-
shland, swamps, or other wetlands? No
High ground excavation, in cubic yards 10,200.
Dimensions of spoil disposal area 350X200X8'
Location of spoil disposal area pn-Si tP
Do you claim title to the disposal area? Yes
if not, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner.
Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? _ Yas
If so, where? On Si to (Sep Plans)
Does the disposal area include any marshland,
swamps, or water areas? Nn
Will the fill material be placed below mean
high water - No
Amount of fill in cubic yards Nang
Type of fill material N/A
Source of fill material _N/A
Will fill material be placed on marsh or other
wetlands? Nn
Dimensions of the wetland to be filled N/A
q. How will excavated or fill material be kept on
site and erosion controlled? Silt fPnce.hay
bales and other soil erosion and sed-
iment control techniques necessary to
meet local and State requirements.
r. What type of construction equipment will be
used (for example, dragline backhoe, or
hydraulic dredge)? Draggy ine, Backhoe,
and Hydraulic Dredge
s. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equip-
ment to project site? No If yes, explain steps
that will be taken to lessen environmental
impacts. N/A `
7 SHORELINE STABILIZATION
a. Length of bulkhead or riprap 1150 f t, " •
b. Average distance waterward of mean high water
or normal water level 150 ft.
c. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months,
in feet None
d. Type of bulkhead material Treated Wood
e. Amount of fill, in cubic yards, to be placed
below mean high water None
f. Type of fill material N/A

8 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims
title to the affected property. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then for-
ward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permis-
sion from the owner to carry out the project.
An accurate work plat (including plan view and
cross sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on an 8 1/2 x 11 white paper. (Refer to
Coastal Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a
detailed description.)
Please note: Original drawings are preferred and on-
ly high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if 16
high quality copies are provided by applicant. (Con-
tact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding
that agency's use of larger drawings.) A site or loca-
tion map is a part of plat requirements and it must
be sufficiently detailed to guide agency personnel
unfamiliar with the area to the site. Include county
road (SR) numbers, landmarks, and the like.
A stormwater management plan, if applicable, that
' may have been developed in consultation with the
Division of Environmental Management.
' A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners. These
individuals have 30 days in which to submit com-
ments on the proposed project to the Division of
'. Coastal Management and should be advised by the
applicant of that opportunity.
' Name Mr. Steve Hicks
Address _P.O. Box 985
Swanshoro, N_C- 28524
Name _Mr. Harold R _ Cnmpr_ _
' Address-P.O. Box 1253
Swansboro, North Carolina 28584
Name
' Address
' A list of previous state or federal permits issued for
work on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
permittee, and issuing dates.
A check for $100 made payable to the Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development
to cover the costs of processing the application.
A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in ocean-
front and inlet areas.
A statement on the use of public funds. If the pro-
ject involves the expenditure of public funds, at-
tach a statement documenting compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
(N.C.G.S. 113A-1 to 10).
9 CERTIFICATION AND PERMIS-
SION TO ENTER ON LAND
Any permit issued in response to this application
will allow only the development described in the
application. The project will be subject to condi-
tions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the pro-
posed activity complies with the State of North
Carolina's approved Coastal Management Program
and will be conducted in a manner consistent with
such program.
I further certify that I am authorized to grant, and
do in fact, grant permission to representatives of
state and federal review agencies to enter on the
aforementioned lands in connection with
evaluating information related to this permit ap-
plication and follow-up monitoring of project.
This is the /5 day of 1;0/y - ,
19-!a-'r_
X - D_ - -,?, - / 2) z::: ? -A
Lan owner or Authorized agent
IN
? MARINA

DEVELOPMENT
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA
Major Permit. Be sure to complete all other sec-
tions of the joint Application which relate to this
proposed project, including upland areas, even if
duplicative. All shore-based facilities must be in-
cluded in application and work plats.
I MARINA CHARACTERISTICS
a. Check below the type of marina proposed.
Commercial --X---Public (Semi )
X _-Residential
b. Will the marina be open to the general public?
Yes
c. If there is residential development associated
with the marina, how many units or lots are
planned? 225 Units
d. Check all of the types of service to be
provided.
Full service, including travel
lift and/or rail
X nockage, fuel, and marine supplies
nockage ("wet slips' only
Number of slips 5
X. Dry storage
Number of boats 145
X Boat ramp(s)
-X-Other (describe) _ Boat Hoist
e. Check below the proposed type of siting.
-------J-and cut and access channel
Open water with dredging for basin
and/or channel
Open water, no dredging required
X Other (describe) Enlarge exist. S1 i p
f. Describe the typical boats to be served (for ex-
ample, open runabout, charter boats, sail boats,
mixed types).Power boats is 30'
g. Typical boat length
h. Maximum boat length 30
i. Are any floating buildings planned? No If
so, describe.
2 MARINA OPERATIONS
a. Check each of the following sanitary facilities
' which will be included in the proposed project.
X Office toilets
Toilets for patrons
Number
Location
Showers
-Boat holding tank pumpout
Type and location
b. Describe treatment type and location for all
sanita wastewater.Parkana P1 ant
(80 A0 GPD) Refer to Preliminary
Engineering Report.
c. Describe solid waste, fish offal, and trash
disposal. Solid waste service to be pro-
vided refer to P.E.R.
d. How will overboard discharge of sewage from
boats be controlled? Not allowed - s i qn-_
posted prohibiting such activity
e. Give the location and number of "No Sewage
Discharge" signs proposed. 19 -, i{ng nn? -, tpd
along bulkhead spaced every Inn fPPt
f. Describe the special design, if applicable, for
containing industrial type pollutants, such as
paint, sandblasfing waste, and petroleum pro-
ducts. Containment area and proper un-
derground storage.ieak prevention
measures.
g. Where will residue be disposed of? Pumped & di s-
posed off-site by appropriate service co.
h. Give the number of channel markers and "No
Wake" signs proposedNone, markers in pace
Note: Regulatory signs such as these require ad-
ditional approval by-the N.C. Wildlife.
Resources Commission.
i. Give the location of fuel handling facilities and
describe the safety measures planned to protect
area water quality. Refer to pl ans-proper
spill prevention measures to be imple-
mented.
j. Describe design measures that promote boat
basin flushing or circulation and reduce water
quality impacts. Slope of Marina bottom
along with tide action.
r
k. What will be the marina policy on overnight
and live-board dockage? Prohibited with
signs
Is the proposed marina located near any
shellfish leases? No if so, give the name and
address of the leaseholder. N/A
m. If this project is an expansion of an existing
marina, what types of services are currently
provided? Yes.
Dockage Only
How many slips are now available? 12

I

N
R/W
-TO SWANSBORO N.C. HWY. NO. 24 (100'R/W) TO MOREHEAD CITY
-?
CEDAR POINT
VILLAS
NOTE:TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM
A SURVEY BY'PATE PHILLIPS
DATED: FEBRUARY 11, 1987
I;
-_ r? --_-•c \? -- R/W
f J . J
f J ? f
! I I t, ?'
to ! / f
f ,1 I 1 \
/ f 1 ig \
? 1 t
7 t ? J
1 J t
. J i
1 J .
.
( ? t
J ! ' ? 1
1 ( ; 1
f t !
1 f \ !
! ` I
I
1 1
1 J
I
!
CoAfER
n ! ,i
COVE
I i
c J
r ?
( r
\ r (
r
1
t
t
t
SHEARWATER
for
WATERWAY ASSOCIATES, INC.
WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA
0
FIG. NO. IA
SCALE: I"= 200' HUSSEY, GAY & BELL INTL. OF S.C.
100 0 loo 200 COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA
JANUARY, 1988
TOPOGRAPHIC EXHIBIT
SHEET 1 OF 12
MATCH LINE -SEE FIG. NO. 1 B

MATCH LINE -.SEE FIG. NO. I.A.
A(
EX/STING
CEDAR PO/NT
1V/LEAS ? ___-?Z-- -- ---- --_.,2--- ''
' I --,-__ _`_ '' _--- --------------- EXISTING
COMER
I
COVE
--- --li---- v __-'-----?--
I
(1 I? _ -?(= U(L 75 CAMA AEC
a ? i '? \?_
MHW_-_``
NZ,
L 46
• MARS NE
EXISTING ,I I : =
LEGEND MARINA ?i 3 y Y
?1 11 X ° .? 1 M w
MSL MEAN SEA LEVEL ?I I w . I
' MHW MEAN HIGH WATER
MLW MEAN LOW WATER -? ?%
MARSH
BOGUS SOUND r Y - I
TO INTRACOASTAL • " " j
v I
WATERWAY 7
' ELEVATION DATUM= MSL 0.00
MHW 1 .50
SHEARWATER MLW-1.50
' SWANSSORO for
SITE WATERWAY ASSOCIATES , INC. `
?
0 WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA
° •a ?''°°' TOPOGRAPHIC EXHIBIT
ATLANTIC FIG. NO. I B
' OCEAN SCALE= 1"= 200' HUSSEY,GAY & BELL INTL.OFS.C.
LOCATION MAP' (00 0 I00 200 COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA
N.T.S. JANUARY, 1988
SHEET 2 OF12

1

i

r?

1
N
-- R/ W
N.C. HWY. NO. 24 (100'R W)
- TO MOREHEADCITY-+
. TO SWANSBORO
E.O.P.
CEDAR Po/NT
V/L L AS
NOTE:TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM
A SURVEY BY PATE PHILLIPS
DATED: FEBRUARY 11,1987
LEGEND
c CON. PAD
o POWER POLE
WATER HOOK-UP
-n-;:- POWER LINE
' z CAMPGROUND i PSHD?CE
SIGN r
1 r _ , ,q
r
PUMPwq
HOUSE 1 STORAGE
It SHED
% i
r 1 ?
1
, 1 1
1 / 1 1
r
1
1 1
I r' / ? 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 '
1 ? ?
1 ,1 r
1 ?
1
1 1
1 1 1
1 ?
, i
1
1 ?
? _ - la
1
1
1
EXISTING
ROAD 1
1
t
1
1
I 1
I j
1
1
1
r
r ,
' r
1
MATCH LINE -SEE FIG. NO. 213
R/W
COMER
COVE
SHEARWATER
for
WATERWAY ASSOCIATES, INC.
WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA
EXISTING STRUCTURE EXHIBIT
FIG. NO. 2A
SCALE: tr' = 2
S.C.
1OO1 200 HUSSEY,
loo o o
COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA
JANUARY,1988
SHEET 3 OF 12

1

1

N
r MATCH
EX/STING
CEDAR POINT
VILLAS
I ^ _ _
I ?- -7--?L -J
1 -N -
f ;i I I
f
I
r-
II I? _ !=c I
I I i =jI1 ?_I
it 7F= ill I
--
LINE -SEE FIG. NO. 2A
-?---------------- --__---
,tl`l?1L1 4 - ty- -,
EXIST N R0A0
-l2--
I STOgY„---- ---t?-- EXISTING
FRAME C3 SHED - COMER
.p Io
-7? -r COVE
c"dus
71
q-
i (•l
p
i (a
LEGEND
! I
EXISTING =41
q
MSL MEAN SEA LEVEL ' MARINA ?I 3
1
MHW MEAN HIGH WATER _?I I ?
MLW MEAN LOW WATER 11
0 CON. PAD
o POWER POLE
• WATER HOOK-UP
-N-?- POWER LINE
7r 4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL
1 ,! 0 SITE
alr MARSH
Zl"
X t
W t.?
:i
L /1

75 CAMA
' AEC
W?
MARSH L f
NE
"

I
!MARSH v 1
ROGUE SOUND " v I
I
TO INTRACOASTAL v
WATERWAY
SHEARWATER
ELEV. DATUM= MSL 0.00
MHW 1.50
M LW -1.50
for

0
WATERWAY ASSOCIATES, INC.
WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA
EXISTING STRUCTURE EXHIBIT
FIG. NO. 213
SCALE: I"= 200' HUSSEY,GAY & BELL INTL.OF S.C.
100 0 100 200 COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA
JANUARY, 1988
SHEET 4 OF12
t
N
-- R/W
N.C. HWY. NO. 24 (100'R/ W)
-TO SWANSBORO TO MOREHEAD CIT -«-
---9- - - -- t--
EX/STING
CEDAR PO/NT
VILLAS
MULTI- FAMILY DEVELOPMENT DATA
TOTAL ACRES 21.00 AC.
TOTAL UNITS 225
TOTAL PARKING 582
MARINA - WET SLIPS 65
DRY STORAGE 145
AMENITIES - CLUB HOUSE I
POOLS 2
TENNIS COURTS 2
DENSITY II UNITS/AC.
PROPOSED WASTEWATER
(LTREATMENT PLANT SITE
OW PRESSURE PIPE DISPOSAL)
EXISTING
COMER
COVE
::.
:::
MMERCIAL SITE
TOTAL A = _-_ -
L REA
0 AC R
APPROX. BLDG. SIZE 39,000 SQ_ FT. --= - - - _ =? _
LEGEND ---- __- _: _.
ASPHALT BERMS MATCH LINE- FIG. NO. 38
INFILTRATION.
BASIN ® ABSORTION FIELD AREA
4soO CQ SHEARWATER
• N A
SITE "?'? WATERWAY ASSOCIATES, INC.
WILSON , NORTH CAROLINA
PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
os FIG. NO. 3A
ATLANTIC
OCEAN SCALE : I"= 200' HUSSEY, GAY a -BELL I NTL_ OF S.C.
LOCATION MAP 100 O 100 200 COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA
N.T.S. JANUARY 1988
II
SHEET 5- OF 12
11

I

I
/y MATCH LINE -SEE FIG. NO.3A
FR
r Z 40
INFILTRATION
BASIN \
7
Rte' ,a,
\ \ 3c-.
ZC
R
EXIST. BLDG.TOBE `• i6`
US>=D AS TEMPORARY ? •''='=• ???' ?'
I
SALES OFFICE.
EX/STING
CEDAR POW- f F<
VILLAS
I ' -T??` -•?? --? r :???;?h,.. - ??; •.?<F: EX/STING
i .,, , . „ \;. . • '>.; : COMER
F rs:
FUTURE COVE
I < ?`\ BOAT DRY
i ? I \ \ \ STORAGE
i BOAT n»; O` ''` w I 1
11 RAM >e>3rz i 0: %sh ::
11 IE_ it it N ?r= eft ??.
?iL-j MAR,111A 75 CAMA
a . MAM NENCE AEC
REDGE SPOIL
-'1! AREA 700 SY.
??. EXISTING l
`?? MARINA I w „
=J? I w w 4 v
it ?• W K
LEGEND
MHW MEAN HIGH WATER MARSH I
y ti
MLW MEAN LOW WATER BOGUS SOUND 4 4 .?
ASPHALT PAVING TOINTRACOASTAL L w
LAGOONS WATERWAY ti I
BERMS '?'? 'L?tv-
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE i
INFILTRATION BASIN
p as
a p
? N° a
SHEARWATER
for
WATERWAY ASSOCIATES, INC.
WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA-
,
ATLANTIC
' OCEAN
LOCATION MAP
N.T. S.

PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FIG. NO. 38
SCALE: I" = 200' HUSSEY, GAY a BELL INTL.OF S.C.
100 0 100 200 COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA
JANUARY. 1988
SHEET 6 OF 12

N
EXISTING
CEDAR POI/VT
VILLAS
? v'e• f 1 ? ?%?
i
I ? u, f
LiF_
1.
?. _ vif 11
NOTE: NO FURTHER EXCAVA-
TION OF EXISTING CHAN-
NEL IS REQUIRED.
LEGEND
MHW
MLW
I
MEAN HIGH WATER
MEAN LOW WATER
ASPHALT PAVING
LAGOONS
BERMS
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
INFILTRATION BASIN
-v
i
TN
LANTIC
OCEAN
LOCATION MAP
N.T.S.
EXISTING
COMER
COVE
ti K
V ti
MARSH
t I
\ 4 ?6 4 fr ?(f
\ < ? w I
. I
gsrq SO
Y)
(STING CHANNEL
F
------------ --
SHEARWATER
for
WATERWAY ASSOCIATES, INC.
WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA-
EXISTING CHANNEL LOCATION PLAN
SCALE: 1"= 200` FIG. NO. 3C
HUSSEY, GAYaBELL INTL.OF S.C.
loo o too 200 COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA
JANUARY, 1988
SHEET 60 OF 12
EARTH DIKE
-,as
5
......
' - A
?.,,.
CEDAR
POINT
VILLAS
COMER
COVE
1(! j ? I t ? -'.s?°o \ 9s ?5_ CAM..,-.••,..•
I l i L -i C( AyAEC?
11' I LiITS OF
11(--? °?'<-z DR
061{VG-
jI ?E-
Dt- .? ?'?
l! ?, a D
11 I ? ?
I ! Z•!;_ m ? r ? W
' Z
E i W I
W
x r E
W
•( uy ?3> MARSH
W W W
o.3 L y
S ,
*? icy SHEARWATER
SWANSBORO for
or
N QA WATERWAY ASSOCIATES,
°? SITE ??o WILSON, NORTH CAROLININC.
v
a ao°°° DREDGING. EXHIBIT
' FOR -
oa ATLANTIC PROPOSED MARINA FIG. 4A
-
OCEAN SCALE: I"= 100` HUSSEY,GAYa BELL INTL_ OFSC.
' - LOCATION MAP O loo . 150 COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA
N.T. S. JANUARY, 1988
SHEET 7 nFr 19
t 10
r.
? _a
TOP OF BULKHEAD
ELEV. 12.00'
TOP OF BULKHEAD
ELEV. 12.00
? r

ff S
- 3 .
:.. FILL ".`
,
"??;?4. EX.s.r..vG 6FOVKO L..vt

MHW = 3.00
CUT

M LW = 0.0014

DREDGING LIMITS ELEV. -4.00

' R
1
1
I to
1
' s
1
' o
1 _z
1
1
SECTION A - A
10
5
0
-5
TOP OF BULKHEAD
ELEV. 12.001
t

?X.

MIL
TOP OF BULKHEAD ?.
ELEV. 5.00

MHW=3.00 -'?

CUT
M LW = 0.00 17

DREDGING LIMITS ELEV. -4.00

ELEV. DATUM
MHW = 3.00
MSL = 1.50
M LW = 0.00
10
5
0
-5
SECTION B B SCALE: VERT. I"= 5-
H O R I Z. I"= 40'
FIG. NO. 413 SHEET 8 OF 12
' TOP OF BULKHEAD
1 5
0
-5
TOP OF BULKHFnn
ELEV. 5.00 ELEV. 5.00

xlS t/N(r GRpY.Jp i?
MHW= .0
Ex/sri./b Boar s?/P FILL

MLW=0.00 CUT

C

DREDGIN LIMITS ELEV. -4.00

TOP OF BULKHEAD
ELEV. 5.00
5
O
-5
FILL FILL
MHW=3.00 c
?EnistivF atr Sc/P
?V
S
\MLW=0.00+

cu c
V
DREDGING L ITS-ELEV. -4.00

I
TOP OF BULKHEAD
ELEV. 5.00
5
0
-5
fxiff/NG 6,teo
ILL , --
MHW =3.00
?fxrrw4 Boq
$L/P
MLW = 0.00
CUT CUT

ORE GING LIMITS/ELEV.-4. 0

ELEV. DATUM,
MHW = 3.00
' MSL = 1.50

r MLW = 0.00
SECTION C - C
TOP OF BULKHEAD
ELEV. 5.00
5
0 SECTION D - D
-5
TOP OF BULKHEAD
ELEV. 5.00
NO ? A/C 5
0 (ZP7rTI()nl 97 _ (_
-5
5
0
-5
SCALE: VERT. I"= 5'
HORIZ. I "=40'
FIG. NO. 4C SHEET 9 OF 1
i
i
i
i
2 ?

lr
°
? m O

co
W
mm
QaE
tLL. «o 1,
C'i?
= zw
t-- Y
a°
TL
w
o? ••
0, ?tl

I
LL
WtjFa ' N L 1
a
m
co Q
wC
i5
(D 11
°w
cn m v? a
x
U
m
o;
LL.
O
f-
Z a
_
O mt
a
z
U)
a
Co
z
O
W
w F-
a a Ld
?
tat
c _J
i O
U
cn U)
c
i
LL CD O_Z
to ?
F- °
cr-
j J °
Im
SHEET 10 OF 12
i
i
i
i
-jz

w
LL MIC
O-Q: -
a a
°
a a
.
x
U

zi v
a.
Ox 0
•
U_

M3"' Q
w Z • li
U? jLL' Z W
=fix 0 ?
0 "'
0
cflU?
(0 Z

O
3

OD

cfl
x
cu
N
O
Ki
] a
w

w
w

I A a

t
w
f. w
3 Q
3
300
= 0°0
a aw
2 Mw

0
O
M
W
J
W
Z
O
W
0
N (j)
:i w
m O
?w
000
CL w
QCl)
0
x
a
?x
n- W .
cr00
Q Z p.
p M
aQ ?
?}>
Q _J
M W
ca
W O
w U ?-
aw
Z n.
aacr
J
Q
C)
G
Q
a
0
m
1-
Z
SHEET 11 OF 12

i
I'-O"(TYP. EVERY
OTHER PILE.
TOP OF BULKHEAD
E L E V. VARIES p =
MEAN HIGH WATER a
ELEV. 3.00 p
MEAN LOW WATER o
ELEV. 0.00 n a
DREDGING LIMITS
ELEV. - 4.00
NOTE:
ELEVATIONS SHOWN
ARE BASED ON MLW
DATUM.
M LW = 0.00
8x8 PILE, 20a LONG
2X6 DECKING W/ 1/2° SPACING
/-GROUND
2x6
2x8 4x6
L3/4" GALVANIZED ROD
x 8 WALER nn 2-0"0.C.
2x8 T.aG. SHEETING W/ FILTER
FABRIC TREVIRA S 1127 OR
EQUIVELENT
END SHEETING 0 ELEV.
201
BULKHEAD DETAIL
N.T.S.

8x8 DEADMAN PILE
SHEET 12 OF 10

ATTACHMENT B

F._ CAROLIPIA
ARCIlAEOLOGICAL
Cpl=,q) ?p?-??il SERVICES
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS HISTORICAL RESEARCH CONSULTATION SERVICES REPORTING
Resource Studies Series 99
TOMMY'S CAMPGROUND: ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF A
PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT ON BOGUE SOUND,
Carteret County, North Carolina
Prepared For
WATERWAY ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Wilson, North Carolina
December 1986
Endorsement:
Jlldtad?_
By
Debra K. Martin
and
Lesley M. Drucker
CAROLINA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES
Columbia, South Carolina
4
Lesley M. Drucker, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator
537 HARDEN STREET
COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA 29205
8031254-3996

' ABSTRACT
A privately funded condominium development in Carteret County
' was inventoried for significant cultural resources, pursuant
to CAMA permitting requirements of the State of North Carolina.
No architectural properties were recorded within the 28-acre
' tract on Bogue Sound. The study documented the existence of
substantially intact deposits of 31Cr81, an archaeological
property identified first in the 1970s on an adjacent property,
and considered eligible for the National Register. Signi-
' ficant deposits of midden and shell associated with Middle
and Late Woodland occupation of this site (ca. 500 - 1500 A.D.)
extend into the south and central portions of Tommy's Camp-
ground. Preservation potential for organic remains and
subsoil features is good. Testing of two relatively intact
site loci within the construction impact area produced
evidence that field research is likely to yield significant
' knowledge of aboriginal behaviors associated with foodways,
procurement activities, settlement organization, shelter,
technology, and possibly social activities. Data recovery
' is recommended to mitigate the anticipated destruction of
these two site loci.

CSI

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract .............. .............................. i
Table of Contents ..... ................................. ii
List of Figures ........................................
List of Tables ....
Introduction and Acknowledgments ....................... iv
SECTION 1.0 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
1.1 Background ...................... 1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives .... 1
1.3 Environmental Setting and
Cultural Context ................ 3
1.4 Investigative Strategies and
Survey Methods .................. 4
1.5 Definition of the Site Concept .. 4
1.6 Assessment Basis ................ 5
1.7 Inventory Results ............... 5
1.8 Management Recommendations ...... 7
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.1 Previous Investigations ......... 11
2.2 Physiographic Setting ........... 12
2.3 Local Climate and Biotic Communi-
ties ............................ 13
2.4 Paleoenvironmental Reconstruc-
tion ............................ 15
2.5 Archaeological Context of the
Lower Coastal Plain of North
Carolina ........................ 17
2.5.1 Aboriginal Prehistory ......... 17
2.5.2 Historic Overview ............. 23
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT GOALS AND METHODS
3.1- Goals and Objectives ............ 28
3.2 Research Methods .............. 28
3.3 Field-Methods ................... 29
3.4 Data Analysis and Curation ...... 38
SECTION 4.0 ARCHAEOLOG ICAL ANALYSIS
4.1 Overview ........................ 42
4.2 Research Synthesis .............. 42
4.3 Research Assessments ............ 45
4.4 Impact Assessments .............. 47
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES CITED .......................... 48
APPENDIX A Specimen Catalog ...................... 57
ii

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Location of Tommy's Campground in Carteret
County, North Carolina ..................... 2
Figure 2. Composite property map showing site limits,
cultural features, and natural features
associated with 31Cr81 ..................... 6
Figure 3. Natural and cultural landscape features in
the project vicinity ....................... 14
Figure 4. Survey and testing strategy executed at
Tommy's Campground ......................... 30
Figure 5. Stratigraphic profiles of exploratory tests,
Tommy's Campground ......................... 32
Figure 6. East profile, Test Unit 1, Locus 1, 31Cr81 34
Figure 7. View of east profile, Test Unit 1 (Locus 1),
looking northeast .......................... 34
Figure 8. Plan of Test Units 2 and 3 (Locus 1),
showing Features 1 and 2 ................... 35
Figure 9. Excavation of Feature 2, Locus 1, 31Cr81,
looking east-southeast ...... .. ......... 36
Figure 10. View of basal midden zone, Test Unit 3
(Locus 1), looking north-northwest ......... 36
Figure 11. East profile, Test Unit 3, Locus 1, 31Cr81 . 37
Figure 12. View of east profile, Test Unit 2 (Locus 1),
looking east .. ................. ........ 37
Figure 13. West profile, Test Units 6 and 7, Locus 2,
31Cr81 ..................................... 39
Figure 14. View of west profile, Test Unit 7 (Locus 2),
looking west-southwest ..................... 39
Figure 15. Plan of basal plowzone, Test Units 6 and 7
(Locus 2), showing Feature 3 outline in sub-
soil ....................................... 40
Figure 16. View of basal plowzone, Test Units 6 and 7
(Locus 2), looking north-northwest ......... 40
Figure 17. Prehistoric ceramic sherds from Locus 1 and
Locus 2, 31Cr81 ............................ 43
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Management Summary Table, Tommy's Camp-
ground, Carteret County, NC 8
Table 2. General Cultural Chronology for the
Carolinas and Georgia ..................... 18
Table 3. Ceramic Chronology for the Carolinas and
Georgia ................................... 19
iii '

r

t

INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Tommy's Campground is located approximately 0.5 mile east of
Swansboro, North Carolina adjacent to Bogue Sound in Carteret County.
According to preliminary development plans prepared by Waterway
Associates, Inc. (Wilson, NC), condominium and recreational facilities
will encompass approximately 28 acres. Construction and landscaping
within this acreage define it as the area of development impact. No
State Clearinghouse number has yet been assigned to the Tommy's
Campground project.
In compliance with the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers permit review procedures (33 CFR
325), Appendix C), environmental assessment of the proposed development
includes consideration of significant archaeological properties which may
be affected by condominium construction. To meet the goals of federal
and state regulatory requirements, Waterway Associates, Inc. contracted
with Carolina Archaeological Services to conduct an archaeological
inventory and evaluation of Tommy's Campground. The objectives and
methods of this study are consistent with regulatory and procedural
guidelines expressed by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act (P.L. 89-665 as amended) and North Carolina Executive Order XVI.
Archaeological study of Tommy's Campground was conducted by Debra K.
Martin, project archaeologist, and Dr. Lesley Drucker, principal
investigator. David W. Babson, technician, assisted in the field and
laboratory. Fieldwork was conductd from November 19 - 21. Logistical
arrangements, manuscript editing, and preparation of the project
artifacts and records for curation were handled by Susan Jackson, project
coordinator. The field specimens were also catalogued and stabilized by
Ms. Jackson after initial cleaning and processing by Mr. Babson.
. Report graphics were prepared by Ms. Jackson and Ms. Martin.
Composition of the project study was aided by the supplemental research
efforts of Ms. Jackson and Dr. Drucker. The authors retain sole
responsibility for any formal or factual errors which may occur in the
final study.
Appreciation'is extended to Paul Berry (Waterway Associates, Inc.)
for the cooperation and assistance which he provided to the authors in
conjunction with the project fieldwork. Billy Oliver and Almeta Rowland-
White of the Archaeology Branch - North Carolina Division of Archives and
History are also acknowledged for providing assistance and access to
relevant documents and project information.
iv

1.0 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
1.1 Background
Tommy's Campground is located approximately 0.5 mile east of
' Swansboro, North Carolina, adjacent to Bogue Sound in Carteret County
(Fig. 1). This property has been proposed as the location of a
condominium development consisting of 245 multi-family residential
L units, two swimming pools, a clubhouse, a marina and associated
facilities, a 145-unit boat stack, on-site sewer and water facilities,
access roads, and paved parking lots. Condominium develoment will be
' funded by Waterway Associates, Inc. (WAD under a North Carolina CAMA
permit and a U. S. Army Corps of Engineers permit.
As part of the environmental clearance procedures for obtaining a
marina permit from the state, Carolina Archaeological Services (CAS)
conducted an intensive survey of the property from November 19 - 21,
1986. Archaeological evaluation goals were implemented through use of
procedures which assess the research properties of archaeological sites
(Glassow 1977; Schiffer and Gumerman 1977), and apply the federal
criteria of site eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places
(36 CFR 60.4). Application of the federal criteria of project effect to
' archaeological properties was based on possible findings of no effect,
adverse effect, or no adverse effect (36 CFR 800.5).
The archaeological survey, research, and assessments which are
documented by this study were structured so as to provide state and
federal reviewing agencies with sufficient information concerning the
presence/absence, location, content, significance, and impact status of
archaeological properties located within the area of project effect (36
CFR 800; 36 CFR 60; 36 CFR 66; 48 FR 44716). The data presented in this
study support a finding that the proposed condominium development will
' have an adverse effect on 31Cr81, a significant archaeological property
which is considered eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places.
1.2 Proiect Goals and Obiectives
' The major goals of field assessments and research at Tommy's
Campground were (1) to locate, identify, and evaluate archaeological
properties, and (2) to determine the nature and effect of construction
impacts to significant archaeological properties located within the 28-
acre area of effect. Both primary effects (e.g., excavation, grading,
paving, materials laydown, vehicular traffic, building construction) and
secondary effects (e.g., increased exposure to erosion and vandalism)
were considered.
A third goal of the study was to determine whether intact portions
of archaeological site 31Cr81 extended into Tommy's Campground. This
prehistoric Indian site had been previously identified on the adjacent
Cedar Point Villas property and determined eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places (Hargrove 1985; Martin 1986a).
L Systematic surface inspection, screened shovel testing, and
1
Figure 1. Location of Tommy's Campground in Carteret County.. North Carolina I

F
2
F

I

I
1

controlled test excavations were implemented to achieve the field
research goals. Field specimens were cleaned, processed, and stabilized
by CAS after completion of the fieldwork. A complete set of archaeological
data records was prepared; update information for 31Cr81 was entered on
state forms and forwarded to the N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
(Archaeology Branch). Artifact inventories, field specimens, and other
records were temporarily curated by CAS; at an appropriate time, WAI will
make arrangements to permanently curate the specimen collection and
records at a suitable facility in North Carolina.
Synthetic research necessary for completion of cultural resource
management objectives focused on the analysis of site chronology, site
function, and prehistoric technology, as well as a general reconstruction
of land use history associated with 31Cr81. Cultural resource management
alternatives were generated on the basis of land use priorities identi-
fied by WAI. The purpose of these recommendations is to integrate the
goals of community development with those of historic preservation (King
1980).
1.3 Environmental Setting and Cultural Context
The study area is situated on Bogue Sound, immediately adjacent to
the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Relief is nearly level, with
elevations gradually rising from one to 20 feet MSL. Most of the
northern portion of the tract is characterized by overgrown fallow
fields; the campground in the southern portion of the property is
landscaped, with grass, trees (cedar and pine) and shrubs flanking
one residence and several mobile home sites. The vegetative and soil
communities on the terrace where condominium development is proposed have
been significantly altered since 1970 by cultivation, utility construc-
tion, homeowner renovations, and camping activities, as well as by dredge
and fill activities associated with maintenance of the adjacent Intra-
coastal Waterway and boat slip.
The study area is located within the tidewater region of North
Carolina, a physiographic zone characterized by geologically Recent
marine terraces of the lower coastal plain (Lee 1955:6). The Quaternary
landforms of the White Oak River drainage are characterized by nearly
level terraces interspersed with low ridges and gentle slopes, a "land
area ... intersected by large sounds and by many wide streams, which are
practically at sea level" (Lee 1955:6). Between these streams lie poorly
drained terraces and relict dune-ridges, consisting of poorly consoli-
dated sands and clays which form areas of muck and peat. Use of these
coastal environments by aboriginal inhabitants has been documented over a
period encompassing at least 12,000 years (Loftfield 1976; Phelps 1982,
1983).
Archaeological research in comparable lower coastal plain settings
of the Carolinas and Georgia suggests that well drained landforms in the
White Oak River drainage should contain a variety of aboriginal and Euro-
American site types, reflecting both single component and multicomponent
activities. Prehistoric site types might include ceramic scatters, shell
heaps, and other extractive camps, as well as villages and mortuary
sites (Loftfield 1976; Trinkley 1980, 1981; Ward 1982; Drucker and
Jackson 1984). Forms of human interment often associated with Late
3

Woodland period midden and non-midden sites in coastal North Carolina '
include primary (individual) inhumations, cremations, and ossuary (mass)
burials. Historic period sites might include farmsteads, mill sites,
turpentine stills, and cemeteries (Dunbar 1958; Brown 1960; South and
Hartley 1980). Its historical proximity to a variety of tidal resources
and upland hardwood bio-communities, together with evidence of relatively
non-destructive land use prior to the late 1970s, suggested that Tommy's
Campground may contain intact remnants of one or more of these site
types.
1.4 Investigative Strategies and Survey Methods
Inventory survey of Tommy's Campground involved ground surface ,
inspection and locational mapping of significant natural and cultural
features. This survey strategy focused on specified areas of the
property which remained undeveloped at the time of fieldwork; cursory
examination was also made of partially developed sectors of the property
to determine the presence/absence, extent, and integrity of archaeolo-
gical properties.
Field tactics followed a basic exploratory and evaluative testing
format. Excavation records included field specimen logs, artifact and
provenience inventories, stratigraphic profiles, photographic views, and
narrative notes. Ground surfaces were either visually examined (75% or
greater visibility) or shovel-tested along pedestrian transects.
Exploratory shovel tests (50x50 cm) were excavated at 20 - 50 meter
intervals, depending on survey intensity. All shovel tests were dry- (t
screened using 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth. Larger excavation units
(1x1 meter) were placed at points of demonstrated archaeological
potential, in order to generate more detailed stratigraphic, content,
depth, and feature records. All excavations were backfilled; those
within the landscaped campground were resodded.
1.5 Definition of the Site Concept
For purposes of recognizing the kind of material phenomenon that
constitutes a cultural resource, it is useful to follow an operational 1
definition for the "site" or "historic property." Sites can be
delineated on the basis of material remains, such as a) an observable
artifact scatter, b) standing structures or structural remnants, often
associated with subsurface features, c) occupational features, such as
pits, postholes, mounds, ossuaries, wells, privies, kilns, furnaces,
fence lines, and cemeteries, and d) other cultural modifications to the
landscape, such as agricultural terraces, roads, wagon traces, stone
cairns, levees, and dams. Widely dispersed artifacts which cannot be
placed within a localized vertical or horizontal context indicative of
bounded site occupation are classified as isolated finds, and usually
consist of artifacts that are broadly.scattered over one or more
landforms.
No historic period features or landscape modifications, other than
those associated with the recent past, were identified at Tommy's
Campground. Nor were any architectural properties identified during the
study. ??

' Only one archaeological site was recorded within the study area.
Since 31Cr81 encompasses a large ground area, which includes Tommy's
Campground, none of the artifacts recovered by CAS were considered
isolated finds. All reflected a form, typology, temporal context, and
spatial context consistent with previously and presently identified
components of 31Cr81.
1.6 Assessment Basis
Assessment of the significance and local/regional research potential
of archaeological sites located during this study is based on Glassow's
(1977) valuation system for archaeological properties. This system
allows the researcher to assign each site under investigation a high,
medium or low value for archaeological integrity, clarity, diversity,
quantity, and environmental context. Briefly, integritX refers to the
degree of site preservation or in situ subsurface remains; clarity refers
to the discreteness and recognizeability of cultural deposits; diversity
refers to the variety of a site's artifact or feature assemblage; quantity
refers to the density or concentration of cultural materials or deposits;
and environmental context refers to the quality of the natural setting in
which the site occurs.
' In addition to an assessment of physical character, the archaeological
property identified in the study area was considered in relation to its
ability to complement or augment scientific and historical knowledge of
the past (Schiffer and Gumerman 1977; King 1980). These judgments took
into account currently known sites and regional models of settlement and
cultural development, and considered the site in terms of its potential
to address either theoretical or empirical questions concerning anthro-
pology (i.e., human behavior, history, ethnicity, and culture change)
and/or site formation processes (natural or cultural). Together, these
assessments provide a basis for recommending research value according
to state and federal cultural resource management guidelines.
t 1.7 Inventory Results
In April 1985, Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc. conducted a
preliminary archaeological survey of the Cedar Point Villas property
located dust west of Tommy's Campground (Hargrove 1985). This survey
' located 31Cr81, an intact, Late Woodland period (ca. A.D. 1200 - 1500)
aboriginal site that extended north-south from the edge of Bogue Sound
nearly to Highway 24. Its eastern and western limits were defined by
subsequent (Martin 1986b) and present work. The components identified at
Tommy's Campground conform geographically and culturally with those for
31Cr81, as recorded in 1971 by Littleton and subsequently reinvestigated
by Loftfield (1978) and Hargrove (1985), and Martin (1986a, 1986b).
E As a result of this and other recent studies, CAS has established
that 31Cr81 extends from the Guthrie tract on the west to Tommy's
Campground on the east, an inclusive site size of approximately 38 acres
(Martin 1986x, 1986b)(Fig. 2). Occupational components within the
defined site area are associated mostly with Middle and Late Woodland
aboriginal activities (ca. 500 - 1500 A.D.); a limited Early Woodland
' component can also be tentatively identified (ca. 1,500 B.C. - 500 A.D.).
' 5
24
GUTHRIE TRACTI CEDAR POINT TOMMY'S I
VILLAS CAMPGROUND PROPERTY
LINE
K
SITE
?yH i
I I
PAVED LIMITS
ROAD GRAVEL
,I ROAD PAVED
ROAD \
SITE
LI M ITS ??,fff
Ono
K
I 1
` LOnCUS
LEGEND / x
ARCHAEOLOGICALLY
SENSITIVE LOCUS c rr/ KWJ?
© HEDGEROW, CEDAR TREE + I
A DATUM A.E.=4.0 METERS l
K
LOCUS I / I
\. S I T E
L
LIMITS I
•. : 80GUE SOUND •''
COMPOSITE SITE PLAN
31CR 81
C A RTE R ET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
METERS
0 20 40
0 60 120
FEET
CONSTRUCTED BY D.K. MARTIN
Fiqure [. COM005ite property map showing site limits, cultural features.
and natural features associated with 31Cr8l.
6

Within the Tommy's Campground property, archaeological testing
revealed a continuous but variable surface and subsurface scatter of
prehistoric artifacts across 71% (20 acres) of the 28-acre study area.
An extensive Woodland occupation area, reflected by buried midden
containing shell, was confirmed in the southern portion of the tract
(Locus 1). A second sensitive area, Locus 2, was located in the south-
central portion of the tract; this site area contained evidence of
features located below the plowzone. Evidence of intrusive twentieth
century recreational and residential activity exists in both areas.
Prehistoric aboriginal materials recovered from 31Cr81 include
charred wood, shell, ceramic sherds (New River, Mount Pleasant, Carteret,
and Oak Island/Colington series, plus an unidentified, probably Late
Woodland, burnished type), lithic flakes, animal bone, and a hematite
bead. Historic period artifacts recovered from the site consist entirely
of twentieth century container glass fragments.
As a result of archaeological testing, Locus 1 and Locus 2 of 31Cr81
demonstrate research value that is expected to contribute significant,
non-redundant information to the study of local and regional human
adaptations to the estuarine environments of south coastal North Carolina
during the Middle and Late Woodland periods. The primary value of these
archaeological deposits is their research information.
1.8 Management Recommendations
The present findings established two loci of sensitive archaeo-
logical data at Tommy's Campground. A large, concentrated midden area,
Locus 1, is approximately 74x134 meters (north-south by east-west) in
size, and occurs in the southernmost one-third of the property. Locus 2
is located in the south part of the central one-third of the property,
and encompasses an area of approximately 60x50 meters north-south by
east-west (Fig. 2).
These two loci contain sensitive archaeological deposits which
contribute to the National Register eligibility of 31Cr81. On the basis
of the content, degree of preservation, and depth of these deposits,
their excavation is likely to increase the understanding of aboriginal
Indians in coastal North Carolina. Pertinent research topics include
human subsistence and settlement, community organization, lifeways,
diet/nutrition, and ceramic technology during the period from ca. 500 -
1500 A.D., as well as scientific data about archaeological site formation
processes.
Assessment of development plans relative to the location and context
of sensitive archaeological deposits indicates that 31Cr81 will be
affected by project construction (Table 1). Archaeological evaluation of
Tommy's Campground outside Locus 1 and Locus 2 failed to produce intact
or otherwise significant cultural deposits associated with 31Cr81. No
further archaeological investigation is warranted in these areas.
Preservation in place is typically the preferred means of protecting
National Register-eligible properties (King 1980). Given the nature of
condominium development, site avoidance or protection does not appear to
be a feasible means of mitigating the anticipated adverse effect which
7
G
• rl
O
P
Cd
U
u
O
z
00
O 01%
v
v ?
u N
u
Cd a)
UI A
a?
LJ
cd
N
>4 O td
?" U A
. A
L
• d C
aJ
?a A to
PQ z y
H W ?
W r-i
U CO
? U
•rl
0
0
d
ro
U
1a
U
iJ
u
u
•n
O
fa
a

it G G
O O
O >, . >'+
•ri 3-1 J-! 3•+ tJ
Ai 0) a) U
co > cU > a)
0 41
G U O U
O
N 74 ai w
x a x a
0 w a) 43)
u 41 4-1 41 41
(1) co -I co -r•1
P4 A O A cn

41
y
co C
d
a a
u m
b 4
•o

'a co (1) Cd

00 w b 10 00 'o 'o
•rl N •r+ 'o o •'? b o
1-1 o O ,-4 •rC o
W w w 3 w3

-w u +? v u
o ca a a m
4-4 0-4 P4

CLO to 0 4j
CU ?-+ O G 3-I O 0 U P 0
H u G •rt O U O •1-4 41 O N
co r+ •x a.,+ 'o -S4 G a ra
In, ca. 4-1 0 P -4 0. 41
Q
co cd Cd 0 • q o co co 0 - r4
Z 1- a Cn r4 U a
.-+
CO
a.+
U
0 0

O
? O O
?

0
0
0 W A 44 n

? °a a w
z .
$4 44
0) O w a) z
a y O 41 v
o (n $4 a)
p w aJ cu (~ y
04 a) 41 $4
4-j ai CD
N 44 cd op
00 6
-It -4
W M M co G
\ \ 3?•r!b O
C) 41
0 c0 G 41 O •rC
. -1
o
u • C)
4-1 N n
3 c
u o G i

0 41 41 >.
?-7 0 11 0 N 0 41 CC N
0
o c o c
c
g c
n n to (v a
4 n
? CV
.
O .a
0
L1 7 U U
P4 z 0
a
H
co 00
.D
? U U
a
co x M M
a
a)
U
G
co
cd
N
r-1
U
J b
N r-+ G >,
p b r-1 0
rl • 4 b 4J
00O G U
.,4 4) 14
. 0 •
,3 U P
v? a?x 0
1J >+ U O
o cd cd O •rl
Z W rl CV x
N Do
r-+ G
M o -.4? -4 y
?-! wwnn
0 a° ,0 p w u to 0
•rl O CO O G N •rl
•rGi G t.1-4 P4 04 ca "A P.
? G 41 O
•rl cd y U •rl U
0 (L) (n to 4-1 r-4 m
o p Cd a G rl b
0 3 a ui u u Cdd co tod
U Cn P4 -C4 d Z W a
O
b
G
O
$1
00
a
cd aJ .
U S-+
W co
O
+1
1-+ O?
v ?
co 1"14 a)
C7 O N
P4 C:14 to
U
M
I?
aJ >>
L L
co C $4
? •O
f+ Sa
v a
L
a) L
C a)
-4 6
a 60 ?
x o
C4 cCd
0 w ?.
4-1 0 00
>> C
0) '
--4 10
r-1 O w p
•A •rC O k.
?. G Cr
00 00 •r+
r-1 s i b
v ? v
a1 L
b G -4
a) •rC r-+
L
•r•1 H to
•4 C o
-i L •
1-W
L W 'o
•r+ G
r-1 00 a)
G
-A '0 0 I,
to G U
•r+ m a1
? ax
?r
cn
a)
-A
14
Er
a?
• $4 CO
X O U i
CL4 L •rl j
CT 0D
OD O
x00
w G U
A H ?
m co
? a G
.14 14
r
v U rd
N -G o
?$4
a a U
I
F':
TI
w
to
3a
O
b
W
?r

construction-related activities will have on Locus 1 and Locus 2 of
31Cr81. If preservation in place is not feasible, removal of the site
deposits through controlled data recovery is recommended (P.L. 93-291,
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act). The following mitigation
alternatives are presented in the order of their anticipated priority:
A. Data Recovery - Because the rather large areas encompassed by Locus
1 and Locus 2 occur on land that is either critical to residential
development or will be highly vulnerable to vandalism and erosion,
preservation in place is probably not possible. Also, the primary value
of the archaeological deposits is their scientific information.
Therefore, recovery of a substantial sample of midden and non-midden
deposits will be necessary in order to mitigate adverse project effect
and protect significant site data.
An adequate data recovery plan should be directed by an archaeo-
logist meeting Society of Professional Archaeologists standards for
bl
k
oc
experience and qualifications. The plan should include large-scale
excavations and/or trenches, instrument mapping of the site, and scaled
graphic documentation of the data recovery operations. The research
' design should be of sufficient scope and flexibility to allow fine-scale
recovery and analysis of artifactual, inorganic, human skeletal, faunal,
ethnobotanical, and environmental data from both loci.
In addition to basic field and laboratory work, a data recovery
budget should allow for (a) specialized consultant services, particularly
' faunal and ethnobotanical analysis, radiocarbon dating, thermoluminescence
dating, and human skeletal analysis as appropriate; (b) a professionally
authored archaeological study detailing the scope of work, research
design, methodology, results, analysis/synthesis, management findings,
' and support documentation for the project; (c) professionally drafted
maps, excavation plans, and profiles, and professionally produced
photographic halftones; (d) adequate curatorial preparation and permanent
disposition of the specimen collection and project records at a federally
and/or state approved research institution in Borth Carolina.
An estimated range of total costs for a data recovery program at
Tommy's Campground (Locus 1 and Locus 2) for Fiscal Year 1987 is 023K -
S26K. Field and laboratory research, map and graphics preparation,
artifact analysis, synthetic work, text composition and editing, and
report production can be completed within a period of 13 work weeks (90
calendar days).
B. Preservation in Place - The sensitive midden deposits at Locus i have
apparently been protected since the 1940s by a cap of approximately 20 cm
of fill (dredge spoil). The addition of fill associated with WAI's
preparation of a parking lot would temporarily seal both Locus 1 and
Locus 2 if (1) no further excavation is required for the burial of wires
and pipes, and if (2) no other types of subsurface disturbance are
anticipated. However, neither permanent sealing these deposits under a
layer of asphalt or concrete, nor erection of superstructures on top of
the midden deposits would constitute an acceptable form of preservation
in place, since this would render further scientific study of the site
extremely difficult. State monitoring during the filling and construc-
tion phases of the project is recommended to insure adequate protection
9

of the archaeological site, if preservation in place is considered a
temporarily viable management option.
Until WAI is prepared to undertake data recovery or other mitigative
action at Locus 1 and Locus 2 of 31Cr81, the defined perimeters of each
locus should be clearly posted to prohibit all forms of damaging entry or
disturbance by construction personnel, visitors, and equipment associated
with the project. Contractors should be notified by means of restrictive
clauses that these site areas are to receive maximum protection. The
procedures advocated by General Statutes of North Carolina, Article 3,
Chap. 70 et seq. should be followed if buried human remains are
encountered during archaeological data recovery or the removal of fill
from areas outside the defined limits of Locus 1 and Locus 2.
Finally, it is highly advisable for WAI to continue its consultation
process with the North Carolina Archaeology Branch until such time as a
mitigation plan is approved by state and federal regulatory agencies.

?
10

1

1
1
1

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.1 Previous Investigations
Archaeological study of Carteret County was minimal until the late
1970s, and consisted largely of a surface distributional study of pottery
types within the coastal sector, based on non-scientific sampling (Haag
1958). Loftfield's (1976) examination of the ceramic sequence and
aboriginal settlement patterns in south coastal North Carolina provided a
temporal and spatial framework for linking this region with prehistoric
cultural expressions to the north and south.
Lacking synthetic work, prehistoric and historic site archaeology in
Carteret County has been most productive in identifying the distribution
of aboriginal and Euro-American sites within the lower estuaries and
sound environments, particularly for the Woodland period. These studies
largely reflect the inventory and preservation mandates of federal and
state legislation, and usually cover arbitrarily bounded areas and/or
sites which are directly threatened by land-disturbing activities under
government jurisdiction.
Other studies have been produced, documenting the salvage of
threatened National Register-eligible sites (Loftfield 1979), and testing
to determine site eligibility. Cultural resource inventory surveys
containing primarily descriptive data for Carteret County include Coe
1972; Phelps 1976a, 1976b; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1978; Ehrenhard
1976; Anthony and Drucker 1981; Hargrove 1982, 1983; Olson 1982; and
South 1962a. Similar studies have been conducted in adjacent Onslow
County, particularly near the towns of Jacksonville and Swansboro, and on
military installations at Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point (Hargrove
1980:14, 16, 32, 44, 45, 55, 60, 74, 75; Hargrove 1981:7, 36, 37;
Bollinger 1982:19; Myers 1984:43-45; Loftfield 1979, 1981; Littleton
1981; Berger & Associates 1984; Ward 1982; Anthony 1985).
Historic site archaeology in Carteret County is virtually non-
existent. A significant body of information about the historic
settlement period on the south coast of North Carolina is available
through South's (1962b) work at the Ringware house in Swansboro (Onslow
County), and Funk's (1979) archaeological assessment of Fort Macon, which
is located approximately 20 miles east of Tommy's Campground. Data on
architectural properties has been compiled for the Cape Lookout area
(Olson 1982), and a limited study of economic strategies associated with
salt works is outlined in Angley's (1981) work on a site near Beaufort.
Overall, Carteret County's historic resources remain poorly assessed for
their interpretive value in examining and reconstructing coastal history,
cultural development, and historic landscape change.
The most current compilation of historical and archaeological
sources relevant to Carteret County can be found in a planning overview
prepared by the Wilmington District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
(1986). In addition to listings of site inventories, sources, and
locational data, this document summarizes available information on the
prehistory and history of the North Carolina coast north of Cape Lookout.
Previous archaeological testing of the adjacent Cedar Point Villas
11
L
property by Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc. and by Carolina
Archaeological Services confirmed the National Register eligibility of an
intact Late Woodland period aboriginal midden, 31Cr81 (Hargrove 1985;
Martin 1986a). State cultural resource managers expressed concern that
this significant resource might be affected by condominium development at
Tommy's Campground.
2.2 Physiographic Setting
Carteret County is located in the tidewater region of North Carolina
and forms the northern terminus of the sea island system of the Atlantic
Coastal Plain physiographic province (Thornbury 1965). The mainland part
of the lower coastal plain is generally characterized by low elevations
and gentle relief, and is dissected by several large rivers and broad
estuaries. The continental shelf becomes more emergent south of the
Neuse River. This region is characterized by estuaries formed on lower
river drainages, rather than drowned upper valleys. These lower river
estuaries are smaller and more circumscribed than are those of the north
coast. Terraces are confined to a narrow coastal belt, and barrier
islands and bars are replaced by a chain of coastal islands extending '
south to the Georgia-Florida border.
Coastal physiography south of the Neuse River typically reflects

broad, relatively flat interstream terraces; the most pronounced relief '
is provided by low beach ridges and dunes. Swamps and lakes are numerous
and evenly distributed (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1975). Most of the
rivers are deeply incised into underlying sediments, and river banks
tend to be steep. Drainage systems within this region tend. to be
dendritic, and include tributaries of the Shallotte, Lockwoods Folly,
Cape Fear, New and White Oak Rivers.
River valleys, estuaries (submerged river valleys), and river-
deposited sediments are the predominant landforms and topographic
features of Carteret County (Anthony et al. 1983:9; Loftfield 1976:7).
The Tommy's Campground tract is situated on the Pamlico Terrace, the
easternmost and most recently formed marine terrace of the Atlantic
Coastal Plain (Brown 1960:314-315). The study area occurs on the
mainland, dust south of a chain of barrier islands which form the Outer
Banks (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1975). The lower drainage area of
White Oak River is protected from the open ocean by a system of short
sand spits broken by numerous inlets and tidal marshes (Beccasio et al.
1980:138).
Sea transgressions and regressions are recorded in a series of
terraces, or former sea bottoms; and scarps, which represent old
shorelines. These two principal geologic formations characterize the
emergent landforms of Carteret County. As is typical of the coastal . '
plain, the relatively flat terraces between scarps dip gently to the
east. South of the Neuse River, two mayor scarps parallel the coast the Surrey Scarp with crest elevations around 120 feet MSL (about 45
miles inland), and the Suffolk Scarp with crest elevations up to 70 feet
MSL (adjacent to the present coastline except in the vicinity of Cape
Fear).
The Tommy's Campground tract bisects a geologically Recent terrace
12

d)
situated adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (Rogue Soun
(Fig. 3). Relief in the study area upslopes gradually between the Sound
and SR 24, with elevations ranging from one to 20 feet MSL. Since the
area has experienced heavy utilization since the 1940s, almost all
primary vegetative communities have been destroyed. Early stage post-
cultivation succession can be observed in the broomsedge fields just
north of the campground. Landscaping over the past 25 years within the
campground reflects planting and maintenance of centipede grass, pine,
and cedar around a paved access road, single permanent residence, shed,
' bathhouse, and 12 - 15 concrete camping pads.
The major soils encountered in the study area consist of excessively
drained Wando fine sands. When properly managed, these somewhat droughty
and acidic soils can support the cultivation of corn, soybeans, and
Bermuda grass (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1979). Hardwood vegetation
is dominated by pine and oak, with understory and herbaceous elements
typically consisting of wiregrass, sassafras, sourwood, and persimmon.
These hardwood communities supported diversified animal populations prior
to 1900, including a variety of terrestrial and aquatic food and fur
resources valued by prehistoric and historic human populations (see
below).
L 2.3 Local Climate and Biotic Communities
The humid, mesothermal climate of Carteret County is typical of the
southern portion of the North Carolina coast. The moderating effects of
sea temperatures and breezes near the coastline produce mild winters and
hot, moist summers which are conducive to productive cultivation, if
proper soil drainage is present. Prevailing winds along the coast are
generally from the southwest, except during the fall and winter months
when northeasterlies caused by offshore storms may occur (U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers 1975). Coastal North Carolina is vulnerable to
hurricanes, some of which have caused severe environmental, human, and
livestock damage.
Ample precipitation occurs annually, with most rainfall accumulating
during the late summer to early fall months. This provides optimal
vegetative growing conditions (Loftfield 1976:12). The average yearly
growing season occurs from March to November. The mean annual
temperature for the North Carolina coastal region ranges from 61 - 64
' degrees Fahrenheit (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1975). July is the
hottest month, with monthly average temperatures of approximately 80
degrees F; January is generally the coldest month, with monthly means
ranging from 46 - 48 degrees F in the southern coastal areas, and one to
two degrees cooler to the north. Temperatures along the coast seldom
exceed 100 degrees F and virtually never fall below O degrees F.
Immediately prior to European settlement of Carteret County, the
study area probably exhibited a mesic hardwood forest typical of
terrace ecotones adjacent to coastal waterways (Kuchler 1964; Shelford
1963). Swamp forests today typically support the greatest diversity of
faunal species present in woodland communities on the coastal plain of
North Carolina. Inland coastal plain swamps and tidal creeks provide
shelter and food for large numbers of migratory and local waterfowl,
particularly Canada and snow geese, herons, egrets, skimmers, terns, and
' 13

17 1 1/
I ones
< `I?° sland
ti
MN
/2
G
1?2
-
T R-'Qx TA N.
2 5-
131
w o h`_? / f_X ( ?0
Q . l,' .. /.
r,._
12, `? O sw:• ?.g / /-r\?.? l '??-rr/?."f'?l X/8 ,?'•. 24?1? 25?

'VI
25
Dole. •iL?_•I CT
, Myrtle,
i a.. l _t_ l i_Island'
11(/? f min .Lightp??
BM__, ..??.. -- ----_'_ __(C)_ -Daybeernn
\ y/^?? 1 V \ /? ?l Light G '~ 1
Spoil Area
Hdgglns IS M=?J ?:? ?l ;
*.,e
s/ 6 Cam. , .._ t3 6
0 2000 3000 feet 4 Chan (`? f?',,C`
750 meters/ - `, 13" 6?'-
Bogue /4 v - L
Figure 3. Natural and cultural landscape features in the proiect vicinity.

Ll

['I

L

14
1
t

gulls. Mammalian and reptile species include the American alligator,
white-tailed deer, rabbit, opossum, squirrels, foxes, other small
mammals, and a variety of snakes and turtles (Beccasio et al. 1980).
Tidal marshes in Bogue Sound are characterized by salt-tolerant
botanical species, including saltgrass and saltmeadow cordgrass bordered
by mixed herbs and shrubs between the marshes and the upland zones.
Vegetation common to the marsh environment includes sea oxeye (Borrichia
frutescens), marsh elder and waxmyrtle. Tidal marshes also provide rich
and varied wildlife habitats. Nesting birds, aquatic and terrestrial
mammals, reptiles, and amphibians utilize tidal marshes. Depending upon
turbidity, salinity, and tidal flow, oyster and clam beds can also occur
in significant quantities within less than one mile of the study area
(Beccasio et al. 1980). Together, the freshwater and tidal zones formed
a significant spectrum of food, implement, and clothing resources for
aboriginal and European populations.
Higher elevation landforms located to the north and outside of
Tommy's Campground support less water-tolerant vegetation comprised
primarily of a longleaf pine-turkey oak association. These forests
generally occur on dry ridges located slightly inland of open water.
Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) dominates this forest association, with
lesser amounts of turkey oak (Quercus laevis), post oak (Q. virainiana),
blackjack oak (Q. marilandica), pale hickory (Carya pallida), and dwarf
wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera var. Eumila>. Because of the relatively
xeric conditions found on the inland ridges, ground surfaces are only
sparsely vegetated. The two primary faunal species occurring here which
appear to have been exploited by prehistoric and historic populations are
white-tailed deer and wild turkey (Beccasio et al. 1980:139).
t 2.4 Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction
Based on work by Whitehead (1965) in southeastern Virginia and North
Carolina, three mayor climatic periods may be reconstructed for the
southeastern U. S. since the end of the Pleistocene epoch. These include
the Full Glacial (25,000 - 15,000 B.P.), the Late Glacial (15,000 -
' 10,000 B.P.), and the Post Glacial (10,000 - Present) periods. These
mayor climatic shifts are associated with changes in regional and local
floral and faunal patterns.
While paleoenvironments in the immediate vicinity of Tommy's
Campground have not been reconstructed, it is apparent that localized
shifts in climatic conditions and sea level have occurred along the
coasts of Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, particularly during
the last 10,000 years (Benton 1979; DePratter and Howard 1977; Colquhoun
et al. 1981). These shifts no doubt had a dramatic effect on the pro-
curement strategies and settlement mobility patterns of coastal
aborigines, primarily from the Paleoindian through Late Archaic and Early
Woodland periods.
Gradual sea level transgressions and regressions during the Post
Glacial (Holocene) epoch have been documented by archaeological research,
as well as sedimentological analysis, along the Georgia and South
Carolina coasts (Colquhoun et al. 1981; DePratter and Howard 1981). Of
primary interest to studies of sea level change are the locations of
1 15
I
coastal-estuarine shell aidden sites of the prehistoric aboriginal
period. The earliest in situ sites (ca. 4,200 - 3,300 B.P.) are found
"near the mouths of estuaries and contain remains
of a broad range of aquatic and terrestrial resources.
In contrast, later sites (ca. 3,300 - 1,000 B.P.) are
smaller, more numerous, more dispersed, and tend
to occur further landward in the estuaries adjacent
to small tidal creeks (Colquhoun et al. 1981:145).
This archaeological evidence indicates that as sea level gradually
rose through time, the distribution of habitation sites and extraction
sites migrated westward, as highly saline waters flooded the mouths of
presently submerged lower river channels. Along the Georgia coast,
archaeological evidence also indicates that while there has been a
gradual rise in sea level since at least 7,000 B.P., this transgression
has not been continuous. The presence of submerged Refuge period sites
indicates at least one sea level regression occurring around 3,000
2,400 B.P.
Geographically closer to the study area, geological borings of peat
samples in the Pamlico Sound area demonstrate a fluctuating rise in sea
level, which has continued uninterrupted for at least the past 5,000
years (Benton 1979). An average rise of 5 - 10 ca per century is
indicated. Differential rates of rise have been localized to three
temporal stages:
5,000 - 3,000 B.P. - 3.4 cm per century
2,500 - 1,000 B.P. - 11 ca per century
1,000 B.P. - Present - 25 ca per century, with substantial slowin

toward the present. g
The implications of these sea level changes for early coastal
settlement in North Carolina are similar to those hypothesized for the
South Carolina and Georgia coasts. Loftfield (1976) and Phelps (1983),
among others, expect that the earliest aboriginal sites will occur close
to the mouths of estuaries. Later settlement should reflect a west-
shifting trend along the river valleys and tidal creeks, as the food
resource base and habitable landforms were altered due to fluctuating
rises in sea level.
Both village sites (long-term habitation) and extraction sites
(short-term habitation) occur during the Late Woodland and early historic
aboriginal periods along the North Carolina sounds and lower river
valleys of the coastal plain. While strong territorial boundaries
between Algonkian and Tuscarora groups appear to have existed by this
time, settlement patterns and certain cultural expressions appear to be ,
broadly similar throughout the littoral and river valley settlements of
the coastal area. By extension to the earlier Woodland period, it is
likely that cultural adaptation to changes in sea level, and micro-
environmental shifts in the estuarine and river drainage zones of the
coastal area, resulted in similar convergence among different cultural
groups (Brooks et al. 1983).

16

r
2.5 Archaeological Context of the Lower Coastal Plain of North Carolina
The outline of prehistoric occupation of eastern North Carolina
which follows is a synthesis of the research of Haag (1958), Coe (1964),
Phelps (1964, 1983), and Loftfield (1976). This summary identifies some
of the major features and developments of aboriginal prehistory in this
region, as well as in adjacent areas of South Carolina. Although this
discussion is presented as a series of successive phases characterized by
diagnostic traits, culture normally changes through time as an elaborat-
ing and diversifying process, rather than a simple accumulation of static
or normative traits. The successive temporal phases upon which the
summary is based reflect current archaeological knowledge, and present
arbitrary temporal boundaries which bracket key elements in the gradual
evolution of culture in the southeastern Atlantic region (Tables 2, 3).
2.5.1 Aboriginal Prehistory
Paleoindian Period
This is generally considered to reflect the earliest occupation of
the southeastern United States (ca. 12,000 - 8,500 B.C.) by-relatively
small bands of hunters and gatherers who appear to have inhabited the
river valleys of this region. Most researchers would mark the beginning
of the Paleoindian period as coinciding with the stabilization of post-
Pleistocene, or essentially modern, environmental conditions, although
evidence suggests that earlier occupations occurred during the Late
Pleistocene as well.
While few Paleoindian sites other than isolated finds have been
recorded in the North Carolina or South Carolina coastal plain, more
inland evidence suggests that the hunters and gatherers of this period
practiced highly selective adaptive strategies, both in regard to food
resources and lithic procurement (Phelps 1983; Mathis 1979; Goodyear et
al. 1979). Projectile points of this period display careful working and
a keen appreciation of the most knappable microcrystalline materials
available within the fall line and piedmont regions (Goodyear 1979).
Although a single fluted, Clovis-like biface has been reported from
a surface context in Carteret County (Loftfield 1976:202), no evidence of
Paleoindian occupation has been observed within Tommy's Campground
(Hargrove 1985). It is doubtful that much evidence of Paleoindian sites
remains in this submerging environment, due to the effects of sea level
shifts and overall rise within the last 5,000 years (DePratter 1979).
The oldest evidence of human occupation recorded from modern mainland
shorelines facing both the sound and estuarine zones of the tidewater
sector is usually associated with the Archaic period (Loftfield 1981).
Archaic Period
A warming trend which marked the end of boreal forest conditions of
the Ice Age also marked the beginning of the Archaic tradition in the
' eastern United States. During the Archaic period (ca. 8,500 - 2,500
B.C.), the eastern woodlands became a distinct culture area. The eastern
' Archaic tradition appears to have evolved locally.
r 17
?i
H
W
C.7
Q
z
Qi
Q.
z
H
a
0
U
W
C14 H
W C4
Pq O
Q
H :>-q
0
z
0
x
V
H
a
U
z
W
#
#
N
_u
E
L
al
U
>> U
4
L O
O C
E O
E ro
Ia1 .?
- O
N
QJ
m
>i U
r 1..1
L O
O c
am
O A
I- O
C
0
ro
F-
O
L
d
N
O
u
L
ro
#
V1 C
aro
O N
O
L ^
UY
Q) •r d
L 3 .-
3: a 4A
c
ro m 3
? ^ ro
c a /n
1 r .?
O ro U
000.3
0
'? Uro T
• 2 3
Y
11 ro
L i
O ro ro
>• U U
O
L
N
S
Q)
v
d
C
O
1-1
ro C
N C O
ro 1.1 ro
L N b O
41 +- W,
N C n n
o o x
'pr L W
C O
U W
a,
L
1 Q)
a I
Ql I L-
C 1 U1.1
ro 1 rn
=(a -1 1 q O
N 1# ^C
i N Cr
L 10
c 1 O NU
Ol 1 O to
N 1 L O ^
1 O-- L<
d 1 a1
1 O r
1 L • a
i IM 4J 40-
`
06 J E ? L 3 ? L V?
# ro 1 ro tiu.1
I
NOI
O I U U >4.)
1
OI IL C•O I1
a) IL.) M O-
a! L 1 =0
L Q!
ro -?. i 1
cc 1
1 0 0 •C
11.1 i.1 C
10 al 1 O)Q1ro
i O IC CC(
O O alI•?•r C••
u c I E E /at
2 a) alIrr >
L O L 1••-•r- ro n
i
1
1
1
1
1
.t
T 1
ro 1
ro 1
L 1
ro 1
v ?
1
Q) 1
1
•L 1 ?
L 1
ro 1 Y
? 1 ro
1 ?
I
1
1
1
1
C 1
ro 1
C 1 ?
L ro 1 C
V
ro 1 C ro
n 1
r n 1 1 0-0
qnr 11 r .O0
N
CL In 1 0 02
V i 3 N
N- 1 41-0
O? 1
m
O 1 i •r
N I J S
ro
O #
C #
c N
C CL ^
C 7 3
to 0
N Y I- aa)
Y L L E
U V- Y L
41 06 3C Q).M
# a1 N i •.- C
a a/ c.Uv O
70 - N
O \ QI N
pI L11 E c o
W4- W S r t
L Y C F- w >>
'o CL C:
a) 0
3 O U to vl LI
T7 O) 41
L - ^ ^ rC O
O a1 C n
w M0 - 1
41 aIF M ro ro al
QI Q/ •z 1J 4, n
O Q d NN
.8
C
C
m
L C «-
a) ro 1
> al Y 1.1
L N C
L 0
ro ^ O
t C)
C C) O 3
C 4 O
> L r L
N l
o ro !i
O
U 6D =
0
N
L
O
L
L
S-
4)
~
1-1
O
a
al
L
a
L
O
T
H
Y
L
L
ro
d
0
N
L
O
t
L
a
O
a
v
L
a
2 >
ro O
•O r
L U
S ^
w
C c
O C
r ?
O N
v u
C
• V
ro U ro _
_ t q C
ro V C ro
0 1- u
i ¢
3 ¢ c
4 v

L. 4.1 \7 L W
q
W q
J r
S ro
W q
d
- DLJ04SIH O?JOlsiyaad --1
O O U U
Q Q 00 m

0000000000 O. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. O
0000000000 U 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
O1 CO?t0?? MN^•+O
O
?
O O
? O
0 J Cl O
m 1
GJ
ti
18
v
q
i
aJ
O
a)
M.
E
a
A
C
O
aJ
•O
CU
L •
O O
N aJ
v u
•? U
ro a
L C
aJ +-
U
r O
ro
•o a
•r n
>
•• OI .
? C
•C -
n L
T.... ro
?s
O 1-+ L
O O
N O al
0 (7
O I
r_ M
L O •.C-
G? r
d O
r N L
ro ro ro
C ? U
rn T a
`r OIL
.noc
ro C •?
L
_u E .,
L w 2
ya L
In a ?
L O u
L VS- 0
1
a t
a v
L L •?
0 3 C
1
A
1
1

u

u
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
H
C7
C4
O
Q
U)
z
H
a
O
0.i
U
W W
a x
pq H
H RS
O
W
C?.7 •
O
a
z
O
x
U
U
yQHJ1
W
W
U
J T
G

_ d O1

G .C 't5

ti H
N N
N
v Q 'a
i Q +?
to "v
- .
c
a
DI

•u

e
Y c
?.
°
• d O
•G
E i,1
V
O
I L ?
q q Tq., ?
1 N . Iy 01 N
1 U ? x +1 q
I z E O
T
o
T
? q
a
d

N N
a-
Q E -1a
d ?

c

? w d N d
43 v
t/1 to
Z
q
•
t? til
F. LI ?
w .C Q f
rn .
tT zz m V 1
L 3 4
h N
Z Q
t7 t7VI

O O O O O O O O d 0
.t0+ : N O
ti 00 t0 V• N N
puelpo oM a4e3 •puelp ooM a lpplW
?o
O L
? O

N N

v=

L
O
N ^
N A
r
=

W F- U
0
z
N
r-+
N G
00 Q
co d

rn•
l.
x L
d
N A

d V OI N T

U to a U O
?
tl G
q L
4
U
d cr
Q F? 4
h
d y
f
o
es
F
- O o
v
•p ,O
'O U
Z d

t0 t
n r N
T d
?
x .
.
N N C
Ol ^ 10 G
? O A

CL '•- ..
Q) .+3cm
?.- f0 c
A O N
J d r-
O
u
z U L
N T a
00=U
rn

• ?, v z

ti ti ti
CL d t r E
Q6m co co o v
q N rn N (U
A A
q
t
?? N N N a) E
E N N •O
z t3 to
L N
c h h n C. v u
T
? A
V? Y ?0 2
c
i

h r •L v
L O"a
d ? C
•-+ A IO
b..
d
O O O O Cl O O C. O U

C>
CD C)
N
co
0 O
w tG O
Q to

pp

N

puelpooM 4 ae31o4eyo-AV 8421
19

t
The change from boreal to temperate forest conditions resulted in I?
changing subsistence strateg ies for prehistoric populations, shifting in
emphasis from the hunting of large herd fauna of the terminal Pleistocene
to an intensive exploitation of locally available biotic and non-biotic
resources. This subsistence pattern involved diverse sets of plant,
animal and shellfish resourc es on the Atlantic Coastal Plain. The
Archaic period also reflects increasing elaboration of material culture, f?
as well as population expansion into both riverine and interriverine 1
geographic and environmental zones.
Within the coastal plain, Archaic camps of a seasonal or temporary
nature are generally found on landforms characterized by moderate to
pronounced relief along small interriverine streams, which are often bordered by well drained soils <Phelps 1975a). Larger, more permanent
habitation sites often occur at the confluence of mayor drainages, or at
the confluence of a high rank order stream and a lower order tributary
(Mathis 1979). Phelps (1975b) has defined the mayor environmental
variables affecting site selection as a) permanent water source, b) well I
drained soils, and c) elevations overlooking floodplains or broad, flat
landforms.
At least some evidence of Middle Archaic occupation has been found -"
in coastal contexts in North Carolina (Loftfield 1976). Most of the
information regarding Archaic occupation of the North Carolina coast has
been gained through analysis of surface finds, primarily bifaces, atlatl
weights, steatite, and net sinkers (Phelps 1983). Loftfield (1976) has
argued that Archaic sites situated in the tidal aquatic ecotone between
the mainland forests and the barrier islands are assignable.to the Late
Archaic period (ca. 2,500 - 1,500 B.C.). This hypothesis is based on
evidence documenting the extensive transgression and erosion which has
occurred in the tidewater region due to sea level changes since ca. 4,300
B.C. (DePratter 1979).
Most Archaic sites are multicomponent and reflect revisitation over
an extended period. Research within the upper coastal plain, fall line,
and piedmont provinces of the Carolinas and Georgia has suggested that
transient groups moving out of the interriverine zones during the Middle
and Late Archaic periods were capitalizing on migratory fauna and
floodplain flora during the late winter months and from summer to early
fall. Research has also revealed Late Archaic activity within the
interriverine zone and along the coastal littoral, suggesting that both
short-term and long-term occupation of distinct ecological zones and
ecotones may have become a cultural practice by that period (Phelps 1983;
Trinkley 1980; Sutherland 1974).
The Late Archaic period within littoral and riverine environments of
the lower coastal plain has been generally characterized by researchers
as reflecting intensive, selective scheduling of gathering, collecting,
hunting, and possibly horticultural activities by population bands,
extended families, and perhaps tribes. The construction of shell rings
and mounds along the South Carolina, Georgia and Florida coasts suggests
increased sedentism and the development of a more complex social system
(Hen wings 1970; Sutherland.1974; Marrinan 1975; DePratter 1977).
The.earliest appearance of fired clay ceramics marks the terminal
20 1
[l
'
Late Archaic period. These wares are classified as the fiber tempered
Stallings series and the sand'or untempered Refuge and Thom's Creek
series (Stoltman 1974; Williams 1968; Claflin 1931; Phelps 1968; Trinkley
1980). While relatively uncommon in coastal North Carolina (Haag 1958;
Phelps 1983), Stallings and Thom's Creek sites have been radiocarbon
dated to between 2,500 B.C. and 1,500 B.C. on the South Carolina and
Georgia coasts (Stoltman 1974; Trinkley 1980; Drucker and Jackson 1984).
Loft£ield's work in south coastal North Carolina (1976) indicates
that the earliest ceramics occurring in appreciable quantity in this area
belong to the Thom's Creek ware group. Fiber tempered ceramics have been
observed as far inland as Wayne County (Phelps 1981a) and as far north as
the Chowan River (Phelps 1982). By stratigraphic association, it is
assumed that these series reflect Late Archaic occupation of the coastal
sector. No data concerning microenvironmental adaptation, climatic
shift, or material culture for the Early, Middle or Late Archaic
occupation of coastal North Carolina were discovered during the Tommy's
Campground study.
Woodland Period
The tendency for prehistoric population density to shift away from
the interriverine to the riverine zones after 3,000 B.C. may have been
influenced by both environmental and cultural factors. Such factors have
been suggested as a slight change in local environmental conditions,
causing a reduction in forest productivity, or increasing reliance on
floodplain agriculture related to increasing population pressures.
The Woodland period in coastal North Carolina (ca. 1,500 B.C. - A.D.
1500) reflects increasing social complexity and population growth among
the region's aboriginal inhabitants. Evidence suggests that Woodland
societies were based on a mixed economy of domesticated and wild food
resources. Riverine horticulture involved indigenous varieties of North
American cultigens, together with Mesoamerican maize and cucurbits;
seasonal and year-round supplementation was gained through hunting and
gathering of selected, seasonally available foodstuffs -- a subsistence
tradition with roots in the eastern Archaic tradition (cf. Larson 1970).
Cultural characteristics of the Woodland period generally include
village settlements, construction of burial mounds, the manufacture of
small triangular projectile points and ground stone tools, and the
widespread use of.fired clay ceramics. Woodland vessels are sherd, sand
or grit tempered during the Early and Middle Woodland periods; shell
tempering appears to occur exclusively during the Late Woodland and
Contact periods within the littoral zone. Vessel shapes generally
include simple unrestricted bowls and conoidal-based bars with a variety
of surface decorations, including cord, fabric and net impressions, and
carved paddle stamping in minor frequencies along the coast (South
1976)(Tables 2, 3). Dentate stamping also occurs on obtuse angle clay
pipes found at Woodland sites along the Outer Banks (Haag 1958).
' Smoothing of vessel exteriors and interiors is usually found.
During the Woodland period it is likely that the areal extent and
biotic resources of the Bogue Sound terrace and adjacent aquatic
environments were essentially the same as they are today. While only
' 21

tentative interpretations are possible on the limited data base available I,
from 31Cr81, similar findings from elsewhere in the lower coastal plain
suggest that resource procurement strategies were affected by technology
and social organization, as well as by resource availability. Thus,
selective (e.g., seasonal) scheduling and procurement practices probably
shaped the foodways of these prehistoric populations as much as did the
natural abundance and distribution of food species.
The earliest aboriginal utilization that can be archaeologically
documented on the terrace encompassing Tommmy's Campground and the
adjacent Cedar Point Villas and Guthrie tracts is likely to have occurred
during the Early Woodland period. Site use during this period appears to
have been of low intensity. A single check stamped sherd was identified
on the Guthrie tract (Martin 1986b); while the decorative mode was
similar to the Deptford series of coastal Georgia and South Carolina,
paste texture (fine) and temper (fine sand) were more similar to the New
River series of coastal North Carolina (Phelps 1983). A single New River
fabric impressed sherd was recovered from Locus 1 at Tommy's Campground.
The distribution and interface between stamped ceramics of the southern
tradition and textile imprinted ceramics of the northern tradition

represents an important area of topical research regarding cultural I ?
boundaries and "spheres of influence" in the coastal region (McMichael
1960; Phelps 1983).

The most dramatic subsistence and settlement shifts so far docu-
mented during the Middle to Late Woodland period in the coastal sector
occurred among inland groups. A trend toward intensification of horti-
cultural activities and sedentism is indicated. The role played by plant
culture in Woodland economies varied from area to area within the
Carolinas. Hunting and gathering strategies continued to play a very
important role in all aboriginal subsistence systems until the European
contact period, particularly among coastal Algonkians (Woodall and
Snavely 1977:4; Loftfield 1976).
l?
A more sedentary existence during the Middle to Late Woodland
periods is reflected by a higher frequency of larger, more permanent
settlements situated within areas of renewable, fertile soils along the
major streams of the lower coastal plain. The interriverine piedmont and
inner coastal plain during this period appear to have been characterized
largely by temporary camp sites, or special activity areas (Mathis
1979:68).
Exploitation of coastal resources also appears to have increased
during these periods. The highest density of artifacts recovered from
31Cr81, particularly as reflected at Locus 1 and Locus 2, is assignable
to Middle and Late Woodland periods (ca. 500 - 1500 A.D.), and is
associated with midden and shell deposits containing Carteret and Oak
Island/Colington series ceramics.
Ethnohistorical accounts and religious treatises of the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries place Algonkian populations extending from the
Neuse River northward into tidewater Virginia. Swanton (1946) and Hook
(1944) include the Hatteras, Croatan, Pamlico, Chowanoc, as well as
smaller coastal groups, within the Algonkian territories, which included
both mainland littoral and barrier island environments. Several accounts
22 1
1
' describe a form of seasonal transhumance between the inland rivers (in
fall and winter) and the barrier islands and estuary-sound system (in
spring and summer)(cf. Loftfield 1976).
Food resources favored by these groups appear to have included large
game, shellfish, crustaceans, nuts, fruits, cultivated grain and leaf
crops, and fish. Although historical documents and archaeological
investigations (Phelps 1981b) indicate that the barrier islands were only
seasonally inhabited and used largely as hunting areas, other
archaeological evidence suggests that at least some of the larger islands
were more permanently inhabited (Loftfield 1976:45).
The historical identification of Algonkian populations in the middle
and north coastal regions of North Carolina suggests rather clear
territorial boundaries between the coastal Algonkians and the inland
Siouan and Iroquoian populations, such as the Meherrin and Tuscarora,
' by the Late Woodland and Contact periods (hook 1944). It has been
demonstrated that shell tempered wares are observed very infrequently
west of sound/estuary regions (Phelps 1982), although sand tempered,
burnished wares typical of inland areas do occur in association with
coastal Colington phase occupations (shell tempered ceramics)(Phelps
1982).
t The dynamics of inland-coastal trade and movement between different
aboriginal populations are still poorly understood. Nevertheless, it has
been demonstrated that the coastal distribution of shell tempered
ceramics reflects a tight correlation with the geographic location of
ki
l
an
gon
Late Woodland Algonkian populations. It is probable that local A
populations within the estuarine environments of the lower coastal plain
were the makers of these ceramics (Loftfield 1976; Phelps 1983). The
Cape Fear River has been proposed as the southern limit for the distri-
bution of fabric impressed and simple stamped ceramics of shell tempered
wares (Oak Island/Colington series)(Loftfield 1976; Phelps 1981b, 1982),
while the northern limit has yet to be determined. According to this
reconstruction, Carteret County would have been in Algonkian territory
by at least the Late Woodland period, and possibly earlier.
' A distinctive mortuary practice among coastal aborigines during the
Late Woodland period was the use of family and community ossuaries, or
mass burials. Late Algonkian community ossuaries containing up to 50 or
more individuals in a single burial pit have been identified on the
northern coast of North Carolina (Phelps 1983). Within the last 15 years
ossuary excavations have documented this practice within territories
which are ethnohistorically documented as both Algonkian and Tuscarora
(Monk 1944). Primary ossuary sites occur in Currituck, Chowan, Dare,
Onslow and New Hanover Counties, North Carolina, and have been recently
identified in Horry County, South Carolina as well (Phelps 1983; Ward and
' Wilson 1980; Ward 1982; Ted Rathbun, personal communication 1985).
' 2.5.2 Historic Overview
Giovanni de Verrazzano, a Florentine mariner representing the French
Crown, is the first European known to have explored the North Carolina
' coast in 1524. He and other early explorers apparently came in contact
with Tuscarora and Algonkian populations inhabiting the lower coastal
23
plain during the sixteenth century (hook 1944; Anthony et al. 1983:18- ,
20).
The earliest documented attempt at permanent European settlement of
the Carolinas occurred in 1526, when Lucas Vasquez de Allyon led a short-
lived Spanish effort at a site traditionally thought to have been located
near the mouth of the Cape Fear River. This settlement failed largely
due to dwindling food supplies and mutiny of the Spanish company.
By the 1580s, English explorers were attempting to settle the north
coastal area of North Carolina (Corbitt 1953). All of the Roanoke Island
settlements failed, however, including John White's colony (1587).
Insufficient supplies, war with Spain, inadequate trading networks, and

local hostilities with the indigenes undermined these ventures. The '
first successful permanent English settlement thus was not established
until 1607 at Jamestown, Virginia. Contact and trade with the lower
coastal aboriginals quickly followed, and by the early 1620s trading
expeditions were regularly visiting Indian villages on the Chowan,
Meherrin, and Roanoke Rivers (Corbitt 1950).
It was not until the mid-seventeenth century that permanent European
settlements were established in North Carolina. Most of the early
settlers who populated coastal North Carolina were migrants from
southeastern Virginia and from the Albemarle area (W. P. Johnson in
McMullan 1982:B-3). With choice agricultural land rapidly becoming
scarce in Virginia, settlers continued to move southward, following the
Chowan River drainage, which was one of the major arteries of travel
between the two areas. That some of the open land in North Carolina was
settled by indentured servants and runaway slaves who fled harsh
treatment is indicated by disparaging remarks made by Governor Culpepper

of Virginia, who said in 1681 that "North Caroline is and always was the '
sink of America, the refuge of our runaways" (Lefler and Newsome
1963:24).

As early as.1668 several settlements had been established west of
the Chowan River, and by the first quarter of the eighteenth century a
substantial population influx was drawn to the northern coast (Anthony

and Drucker 1981:23). The earliest urban settlement in the colony was ,
established in 1702 at Bath on the Pamlico River. Most concentrated
settlement on the coast remained in the Albemarle region to the north
until the second quarter of the eighteenth century. Those settlers who
chose to colonize the linear barrier island system of North Carolina
continued to heavily depend on the southern Virginia trade throughout the
eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
All of coastal North Carolina, but most particularly the south and
central areas, were thrown into upheaval by the Tuscarora War of 1711 -
1714. The Tuscarora Indians dominated the coastal plain by confining
European settlement to the Albemarle region. However, the establishment
of New Bern in 1710 and subsequent spread of Europeans into the south
coastal region posed an immediate threat to the supremacy of the
Tuscarora. Their power was broken by 1714-and most of the remaining
aboriginals left coastal North Carolina.
By 1733, European settlement had been established along the major
24

I
river and sound systems of the coastal-estuarine region (Moseley 1733).
Early settlement within present-day Carteret County developed in the late
seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, centering around Adam's
Creek, South River, and Core Sound areas to the south. The nearest
sizeable towns were Beaufort Town (Carteret Precinct) and New Bern
(Craven Precinct).
During the eighteenth century, English, Scottish, Welsh, and French
settlers, along with their African slaves, established farms and towns in
Carteret County. These population influxes represented migrants from New
England, Maryland, Virginia, and the northern valleys of North Carolina.
Naval stores (tar, pitch, and turpentine) and agriculture/livestock
formed the basis of Carteret County's economy during this period.
The economy of the area from the earliest settlement period was
largely dependent on agriculture and forest products. Principal crops
for both home consumption and export included corn, wheat, and livestock.
Forest resources also played a major role in the early economy of the
region. Furs and skins, as well as naval stores and wood products, were
extracted, processed, and shipped from the major coastal ports to New
England.
A brisk trade developed between coastal North Carolina and New England
with the shipment of raw materials from North Carolina, and the import of
finished manufactured products from the north (Watson in U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers 1986:2-12 - 2-14). By 1730 New Bern was emerging as a major
shipping point for goods from the interior and smaller coastal settle-
ments. Goods were shipped primarily to New England and the West Indies.
' Little change appears to have occurred by the late eighteenth
century in the project area; regional communication probably improved
with the establishment of road networks within the lower coastal region,
such as that connecting Wilmington and New Bern (Collet 1770; Mouzon
1775). While individual farmsteads and commercial establishments are not
depicted by these small scale maps of the coast, it is likely that
settlement during the early period followed these major roads,
' particularly at river crossings, such as Lewis' Ferry and Sneads Ferry on
the New River, and on major roads paralleling White Oak River.
Swansboro, the settlement nearest to the project area, was
incorporated in 1783. Historic settlement within the coastal sector has
traditionally exhibited a linear arrangement which reflects alignment
with navigable shores and access roads. Houses tended to be located on
coastal strips, river bluffs, tidal inlets, and larger hammocks; it was
uncommon to find isolated homesteads during the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries (Dunbar 1958:107).
' Commercial fishing on a small scale had begun during late colonial
times, and before 1815 commercial river fisheries were using weirs and
small seines to increase production of exportable fish. During the early
' nineteenth century the long haul seine was introduced, accelerating
commercial fishing throughout the sound system (Dunbar 1958:35). Thus,
fishing became the dominant commercial pursuit along the coast until the
' Civil War, and grew at the expense of subsistence agriculture and stock
raising. Garden plots became increasingly smaller and free-foraging
' 25
f

livestock virtually disappeared with increasing population pressure and '
the evolution of large-scale cultivation.
Because coastal settlements -- New Bern in particular -- were so
vital to the movement of goods into and out of North Carolina, attempts
were made by Union troops early during the Civil War to gain control of
the coastal ports. New Bern was taken by Federal soldiers in March 1862, ,
and remained occupied throughout the war.
After the war, agriculture reestablished its prominence as an
economically successful pursuit. It was during this period that cotton
and tobacco became mayor commercial products. The loss of black
slave labor caused significant alterations in the form and organization
of cultivation, with lands now farmed by tenants, sharecroppers, and
other renters. Other elements of nineteenth century economic pursuits
within the coastal sector of North Carolina included waterfowling, the
gathering of yaupon and the operation of windmills. While these
activities were widespread, only a limited number of individuals were
actually involved (Dunbar 1958:32). Both the yaupon industry and wind-
powered milling appear to have effectively ceased by the beginning of the
twentieth century. Another short-lived tidewater industry prior to 1930
was the collection and processing of eelgrass (Zostera marina). This
locally abundant saltwater plant was extensively gathered and locally
processed as mattress and furniture stuffing until a widespread parasitic
attack virtually eliminated eelgrass communities along the Atlantic coast
(Dunbar 1958).
The economic and 'Land use history of the coastal sector did not
change markedly until the late nineteenth century. Until this period,
local populations engaged in garden farming, small farming, and livestock
culture, with an intensification of fishing and whaling for subsistence
and commercial support occurring in the island communities by the late
19th century. Despite the rise of cotton. as an economic staple,
turpentine remained the primary industry in Carteret County until around
1870, by which time it had been supplanted by lumber products (Brown
1960:195-196).
By the twentieth century peanuts were well established as a mayor '
cash crop in the coastal region. Timber harvesting and fishing also
regained their earlier positions as mayor local industries. Smaller
settlements established during the last half of the nineteenth century
included Catherine Lake, Richland, Angola, Stump Sound, and Palo Alto.
These settlements were founded along the Wilmington, New Bern and Norfolk
rail line, which linked both mayor and minor towns in Carteret County
with others in coastal North Carolina and Virginia (Post Route 1896).
The most dramatic change apparent along the coastal sector of North
Carolina during the twentieth century has been in demography and land
use. The developing tourism industry has surpassed and eclipsed all
former economic enterprises over most of the region. This industry has
late 19th century roots in commercial fishing and hunting excursions by
non-local residents, and remains a highly seasonal business. The influx
of vacationers into the area is intense enough to enable continual
prosperity and thus accomodate expansion of tourist-related industries.
26

' In addition, the region's population now includes a substantial
percentage of relocated inhabitants from other areas of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Tommy's Campground includes marina and boat docking
facilities, as well as a private residence and numerous recreational
vehicle/trailer camp pads with hookups. The property developer reports
that no significant structures have existed on the property for at least
' the past 25 years (Paul Berry, personal communication 1986).

1

1

27

3.0 PROJECT GOALS AND METHODS
i
3.1 Goals and Objectives

Contract study of the Tommy's Campground property was undertaken to
provide WAI with an assessment of newly and previously identified.
cultural deposits which would be affected by construction of the proposed
condomium development. Within the 28-acre impact area, CAS identified
the types and nature of impact which could be expected to adversely
affect archaeological properties. Synthesis of the fieldwork results and
the background overview were designed to produce recommendations which
will allow the integration of community development goals and cultural
resource management goals.

Because the inventory survey sought not only to locate and record
cultural resources, but also to assess their eligibility for the National
Register of Historic Places, a survey methodology was implemented that
would a) assure adequate coverage of unvegetated, lightly vegetated, and
heavily vegetated areas, and b) provide sufficient assessment of the
archaeological and relational properties of each site (Glassow 1977; King
1980). Laboratory procedures were designed to support these goals by
consistently standardizing the description and analysis of field
specimens and other data, and to provide for update of state site forms
as needed.
Specific objectives of the survey were to a) conduct a pedestrian
survey of the construction impact zone, b) perform systematic and
judgmental exploratory testing in areas of poor ground surface visibility .
in order to adequately predict the nature and density of cultural
properties within the project impact zone, c) perform systematic
exploratory testing in conjunction with establishing the spatial limits
of defined occupation areas, d) perform systematic evaluative testing
in areas exhibiting intact cultural deposits, e) consistently record all
findings concerning archaeological sites according to established
guidelines and standards, and f) provide WAI with management recom-
mendations which would facilitate consideration of cultural resource
management alternatives for archaeologically significant sites.
3.2 Research Methods '
Prior to initiating the field survey, Dr. Drucker and Ms. Martin
reviewed relevant site data and project status with Paul Berry (WAI) and
Billy Oliver (N. C. Archaeology Branch). Overview research included e
review of available published and unpublished records, files, reports and
other materials concerning the existence and location of archaeological
and historic sites within the study area and, more broadly, within
Carteret County. Consultation included relevant North Carolina site
forms (N. C. Department of Cultural Resources); the National Register of
Historic Places and addenda; historic settlement maps (Cumming 1966);
environmental resource maps for the North Carolina coast (Beccasio et al.
1980; U. S. Geological Survey 1952); Carteret County Soil Conservation
Office advance sheets; the results of previous surveys within the general
study area (Hargrove 1985; Martin 1986a, 1986b); and a variety of primary
and secondary synthetic sources. Consultation with the N. C. Archaeology ,
Branch also clarified state concerns regarding the property's archaeo-
28

logical research potential.
3.3 Field Methods
In accordance with a verbal WAI scope of work approved by the
N. C. Archaeology Branch, CAS archaeologists carried out a field program
of surface inspection, shovel testing, and unit excavation to determine
the presence/absence, extent, depth, integrity, and content of cultural
deposits at Tommy's Campground. Work notes, excavation profiles and
specimen/provenience logs and inventories were recorded by the project
archaeologist in a daily field journal and on work sheets. Photographic
records (B/W prints and color slides) were made of all excavation units,
and were keyed and cross-referenced to standard excavation forms and
photographic logs. Field specimens were retrieved according to mapped
geographic provenience (Appendix A).
Contour and plan maps of the 31Cr81 site area were generated by
' instrument readings, based on a reference point (wood stake datum)
located near Test Unit I (Fig. 4). All significant natural and cultural.
features within the Tommy's Campground property were mapped, including
' shovel tests, sensitive site loci, property boundaries, and major geo-
graphic landmarks.
Landscaping within the southern one-third of the property reduced
ground surface visibility to 0%. The campground was therefore evaluated
only by systematic exploratory testing. Surface collection was possible
in the fallow farm fields located north of the campground, since these
' broomsedge/grass areas exhibited at least 75% ground surface visibility.
Diagnostic artifacts observed in the northern two-thirds of the property
were collected by grab sample according to geographic provenience.
' Shell occurring in surface and subsurface contexts was noted in the field
journal; shell was not collected unless it appeared to have been cul-
turally modified. Diagnostic shell fragments and lateral edges,
including oyster, clam, conch, and scallop, were inspected and recorded
' from all proveniences in order to identify the range of shellfish
resources represented in the site's food midden.
In order to determine the extent, depth, integrity, and content of
subsurface cultural deposits across the Tommy's Campground property, CAS
installed a total of 29 - 30x30 cm screened shovel tests along transects
spanning the construction impact area (Fig. 4). Exploratory tests
' (identified by the prefix "S.T.") were excavated at 20 - 50 meter
intervals along each transect. Excavation proceeded by natural soil
zones, with all excavated soils dry-screened through 1/4-inch mesh
' hardware cloth. Each exploratory test was terminated after either
sterile subsoil was reached in culturally positive tests, or after
sufficient stratigraphic information was collected from culturally
sterile tests.
The surface and subsurface distribution of cultural materials at
Tommy's Campground reflects an extensive area of aboriginal occupation,
t encompassing over 20 acres of the entire property (approximately 520x160
meters or 1716x528 feet). North-south site limits were assigned on the
basis of the surface and subsurface distribution of artifacts and shell.
' According to the distribution of surface cultural material and subsurface
' 29
41,
S. R. 24
PAVED
ACCESS
ROAD-
CEDAR POINT
VILLAS PROPERT'
?a

LEGEND -a.a--
.,o SHOVEL TEST (+,-YIELD)
o Ix i METER UNIT, NO FEATURES •'c
• Ixl METER UNIT, FEATURES _4•0
ti
5 UNIT NUMBER
GRASS FIELD
.14 0 15

.13 1 016
1 t
PROPERTY
.12 I
I LINE

•11 I
SITE
LIMIT
. IO ' t
OVERGROWN
FALLOW FIELD

•e

\
.28
Bo \
.27
29• 1
LOCUS 2 _
.7 -?_ _-

-J
GRASS FIELD
?7 p 0 G7 t 3 b 0'
21. 23 22
2
•1 f
?7\ t8 2
19.E 20
Q. CEDAR TREE - Sam 26
O SHRUBS
® BUILDING
D SHELL CONCENTRATION
O SENSITIVE AREA
A DATUM A.E. a 4.0 METERS
CONTOUR INTERVAL- 0.5 METER
.,:.\

I. ?
• 2
GUE; : SOl1NQ'.. .. ::' ..........
TOMMY'S CAMPGROUND TESTING
PATTERN AND SITE PLAN
31 C R81
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
METERS
O_ 20 40
0 8?0 120
FEET
CONSTRUCTED BY D.K. MARTIN
Figure 4. Survey and testing strategy executed at Tommy's Campground.

30

midden, the site's eastern limit lies within Tommy's Campground; its
western limit lies within the Guthrie tract to the west (Fig. 2). Two
concentrations of cultural deposits, Locus 1 and Locus 2, were identified
at Tommy's Campground as a result of surface inspection and exploratory
testing.
' Over 75% (22 out of 29) of the exploratory tests at Tommy's Camp-
ground were culturally positive, yielding artifacts to depths ranging
from 7 - 57 cm below surface (average cultural depth of 27 cm). Of the
29 exploratory tests, 14 (Shovel Tests 6, 8 - 16, and 27 - 29) were
' installed in the fallow fields north of the campground proper to verify
the presence or absence of discrete outlying cultural deposits (Fig. 5).

These tests revealed an upper sandy Ap horizon which varied in
thickness from 15 to 25 cm, underlain by 43+ cm of sandy subsoil
containing iron concretions. The northern area of Tommy's Campground did
not contain midden deposits, although occassional artifacts were
encountered; artifacts were confined to the plowzone (Ap horizon) in
these tests. Within the southern one-third of the property, only Shovel
Tests 1, 2, 5, and 21 - 24 did not contain buried midden or shell/artifact
concentrations.
Exploratory tests placed within Locus 1 and Locus 2 (described
below) were excavated to an average depth of 73 cm below surface (range:
57 - 80 cm below surface). Individual test depths were as follows:
Shovel Test 3
Shovel Test 4
Shovel Test 7
Shovel Test 17
Shovel Test 18
Shovel Test 19
Shovel Test 20
Shovel Test 25
Shovel Test 26
80 cm (artifacts to 44 cm)
75 cm (artifacts to 38 cm
75 cm (artifacts to 22 cm)
57 cm (artifacts to 36 cm)
74 cm (no artifacts; midden 18 - 62 cm)
69 cm (artifacts to 41 cm)
76 cm (artifacts to 20 cm)
73 cm (artifacts to 34 cm)
76 cm (artifacts to 52 cm)
Shovel testing within Locus 1 revealed the intact remnants of a
buried organic midden containing shell, identical to the cultural zone of
31Cr81 already identified in the southern portion of the adjacent Cedar
Point Villas property (Martin 1986x). Exploratory testing defined the
size of the midden as a little less than 2.5 acres (13404 meters or
442x244 feet), which are totally encompassed by the present limits of the
campground. The midden's cultural zone extended from 10 - 25 cm below
surface.
The boundaries of Locus 1 were archaeologically defined by the
presence/absence of organic midden; the southernmost limit of the midden
was evident 40 meters from Bogue Sound. Tests outside the defined locus
boundaries did not yield organic midden, but revealed a fine, brown sandy
A-horizon underlain directly by natural subsoil. Locus 1 midden, on the
other hand, consisted of a black, sandy organic soil which contained
shell, a few sherds, and small fragments of animal bone (Fig. 5).
. Locus 2, a roughly circular area of concentrated surface shell and
sherds approximately 30 meters in diameter, was visible approximately 60
31
I
II
III
IV
Vgry dark grayish brown (10YR3/2)
loamy san
Yellowish brown (IOYR5/4)
sand
lack (IOYR2/1) sand
with shell
Dark grayish brown (10YR4/2)
sand
0 10 20
centimeters
I .°Dark brown (10YR4/3)
loamy sand
II
ark grayish brown
(10YR4/4) sand
..............................
..............................
III :Light gray (10YR7/2)
sand
Shovel Test 13-Soil Profile
Figure 5. Stratigraphic profiles of exploratory tests. Tommy's Campground.
32
Shovel Test 3-Soil Profile

meters north of Locus 1 (Fig. 4). This deposit may represent the
remnants of a low shell ring; however, cultivation has erased any
elevation and destroyed any characteristic "doughnut" form which may have
' originally characterized the deposit, leaving the density and distri-
bution of shell and artifacts undifferentiated across the level ground
surface of the surface concentration.
After a determination was made as to the extent and nature of these
deposits, larger excavation units were installed at Locus 1 and Locus 2,
in order to further test the integrity and content of these sensitive
site areas. Under the assumption that surface shell concentrations or
subsurface organic midden would represent the most likely locations for
encountering intact cultural features and/or organic deposits, seven 1x1
' meter excavations (Test Units 1 through 7, identified by the prefix
"T.U.") were excavated within the highest observable concentration of
artifacts and/or organic remains at each locus. Each 1x1 meter unit was
excavated by natural zones; excavated soils were dry-screened through
' 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth. At the base of the cultural zone, each
unit floor was leveled and troweled to allow detection of potential
features.

fl

Three 1x1 meter excavation units (Test Units 1, 2 and 3) were
installed at Locus 1. These units coincided with the highest observable
concentration of artifacts and shell in Locus 1 (Shovel Tests 4 and 19);
animal bone was also recovered from Shovel Test 19, suggesting good
potential for preservation and recovery of faunal and/or ethnobotanical
remains from midden deposits at this location. Stratigraphic profiles
from the 1x1 meter excavation units revealed 10 - 25 cm of dark brown
sandy fill overlying 20 - 25 cm of midden, consisting of shell,
artifacts, and organic black (10YR 2/1) soil (Figs. 5, 6, 7). The
cultural zone extended to a depth of 30 cm below surface, directly below
which lay a leached transition zone and sterile sand subsoil. The fill
from Test Units 1, 2 and 3 revealed that the midden at this location is
relatively intact, having been buried beneath 15 - 20 cm of overburden
sands (probably dredged fill from the adjacent Sound) and humus.
Two features at Locus 1 were encountered near the base of the
midden. Feature 1 was located while troweling the base of Test Unit 2,
just below the midden zone. This small oval feature measured 12x8 cm,
with an excavated depth of 3 cm (Fig. 8). Although no artifacts were
recovered from the fill, its rounded base and depth suggest that it
represents an aboriginal posthole.
Feature 2 was first encountered just above the base of the midden
zone in Test Unit 2 (south wall). Once the outline of the oval feature
was delimited by opening an adjacent unit (Test Unit 3), its fill was
hand-excavated and screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware (Figs. 9, 10).
The excavated feature size was 40x50 cm, with a depth of 15 cm (Fig. 11).
Defined by a shell concentration within the black soil/shell matrix, Fee.
2 contained abundant oyster, clam, and whelk shell, along with charcoal,
unidentified mammal bone, a single hematite bead, and an Oak Island/
Colington sherd. Fire-cracked quartz was recovered from the midden
overlying Fee. 2. The presence of this non-local (imported) rock,
together with the burnt shell and charcoal chunks from the feature fill,
suggests that Fee. 2 may have been a shellfish roasting pit.
33
I ?? =x.11 "'=?Ty\\-?' -\1=\\=11=;11 /;=i/t\ - •? - / Very dark grayish brown
(IOYR3/2) loamy sand
Yell wish brown ( 10YR5/4 )
' sap
bon III A Q
Black
with shell 2/ i) sand
IV
:.••• :••; a :°•'.: : •'.: •'.. ; •' Dark grayish brown
•••? ••• (10YR4/2) sand
(leached zone)
Test Unit 1 - East Wall
0 10 20
centimeters
Figure b. East profile, Test Unit 1. Locus 1. SlCr81.
,i

J '
Figure 7. View of east profile. Test Unit 2 (Locus 1). looking northeast.
34

SE
NE

o'ao q ?
X=a
Feat. 2 After Fill I. Excavated t

d
O? ?
Q
D
D
?' I%,o
VQ
. oa .? ed,ao.
Feat. 2
a Feat. 1
Nfr
Test Unit 2 - Plan at Base Z-III
Test Unit 3 - Plan at Base Z-III
0 10 20
centimeters
Figure 8. Plan of Test Units 2 and 3 (Locus 1). showing Features 1 and 2.
Note: Dotted outline indicates Feature 2 pit after excavation.
35

Figure 9. Excavation of Feature 1. Locus 1. 31Ur8l. looking east-southeast.

t

Figure 10. View of basal madden zone. Test Unit 3 (Locus 1). looking north-
northwest. Feature 3 (northeast corner of unit) excavation
is complete.
36 1

I ?il?L• ii???`•i,lis?r%?11' _..???!I <i'?., !•!Is;???%??1?\=••??%'? -.r very dark grayish brown ( 10YR3/2)
II Yellowish brown (IOYR5/4) sand
II I a ;o . o .o moo v Black ( I OYR2/ 1) sand
o with shell
Feat. 2 Q;0,0 Dd o°v oo ?p o°io'?? o a a °i
od
?ba r o ?Oo-N G pipe :
Test Unit 3 - East Wall
0 10 20
centimeters
Figure i1. East profile, lest Unit 3. Locus 1. 3iCr8i.
Figure 12. View of east profile. Test unit 2 (Locus 1). looking east.
37

No stratigraphic evidence of midden disturbance was readily
observable as a result of the testing at Locus 1, other than small,
localized trenches dug to install insulated wires and pipes (Figs. 11,
12). However, the undifferentiated midden soil texture, as well as
breakage patterns and small size of ceramic sherds and shell within the
xidden, suggest that disturbance to this zone has occurred, perhaps as a
result of garden cultivation or soil preparation prior to campground
landscaping. The uppermost depth (20 cm) of feature integrity in Fea. 2
(size and alignment of shell) is consistent with shallow plowzone depths
in the coastal region.
Test Units 4, 5, 6, and 7 were installed at Locus 2 to determine the
limits, depth, and content of the surface shell concentration noted here.
Although no intact subsurface midden had been identified by exploratory
testing, the roughly circular concentration of shell, together with its
relative proximity to the organic midden at Locus 1, suggested that
larger units were needed to assess the probability of locating buried,
intact features or cultural deposits at this location.
Stratigraphic profiles from Locus 2 confirmed the preliminary test
conclusions that no organic ridden was associated with the surface
arrangement of shell. A well drained plowzone (Ap horizon), consisting
of approximately 20 cm of Wando brown fine sand (0 - 5% slope) consis-
tently overlay 20+ cm of tan sand mottled with brown sands (Figs. 13,
14).
No features were encountered in Test Units 4 and 5. Feature 3. a
small, shallow pit, was identified in the northwest corner of Test Unit
6; most of this feature was exposed by excavation of adjacent Test Unit
7. Although plowing had extensively disturbed the upper portion of this
feature (20 cm below surface), a more regular oval shape was apparent at
the subsoil level (28 ca below surface). The excavated dimensions of
Fea. 3 were 42x30 cm (Figs. 15, 16). Its brown sandy fill contained a
small quantity of Oak Island/Colington and residual sherds to a depth of
35 cm; small amounts of shell were encountered. The probable function of
this feature remains unknown.
After all features were excavated and recorded, they were covered
with black 4-mil plastic prior to backfilling, in order.to protect and
relocate these data points as necessary. All exploratory tests and
excavation units were backfilled prior to exiting the study area. In
order to preserve as much of the grass lawn as possible at Locus 1, sod-
grass strips were carefully removed from each shovel test and excavation
unit and replaced on top of the backfilled soil.
3.4 Data Analysis and Curation
After completion of the field investigation, artifacts and shell
were cleaned, sorted, cataloged, and stabilized in the laboratory. Soil
samples were moistened, sorted, and identified using Munsell standards
and advance soil sheets for Carteret County (soil type and texture).
After analysis, all field specimens were placed in clean, zippered 4-mil
polyethylene bags and temporarily curated at CAS's archaeological
laboratory. I
38 1

I Dark brown (IOYR4/3)
loamy sand
II F•.•k„?, _,?;?.` y.` e• D rk ra sh brown
` ?::?::r,;.3 ,tt4'. ".r :• ?IOY4/y1? sand
Feat. 3 j?1., .?7T yivur:
Test Unit 6 - West Wall Test Unit 7 - West Wall
0 10 20
centimeters
F1QUre i3. Wesc oroiile, Test Units 6 and 7. Locus 2. :jiCr6l.
At ' -r

Figure 14. View of west profile. 'Pest Unit 7 (Locus 2). looking west-
southwest. Rote: Feature 3 after excavation appears to the
left of the trowel.
39
0
11
SE
W NW
A•
:s
:1X. .p :ti r-t ?rt>
Mottled;?i•:r..J:4r'"r:wk?,? Feat. 3 (28 BD)
':fr
Area
E'' -per. t?.yz ?+?..=•?' y:
?y`i?iSr ,'<9CQ,
v
s .,. Y, .K r
?r t «Y ?' - `Jt•.sy,fii jv .'i'. ,'?'.x.. ? ./yeti.., t.?:
:ry>n Y ?i?s w?'??
Feat. 3 (20 cm BD)
Test Unit 6 - Plan at Base Z-I Test Unit 7 - Plan at Base Z-I
20
centimeters
FiQUre 17. Plan of basal plowzone. Test Units 6 and 7 (Locus 2). snowing
Feature 3 outline in subsoil.
NE

11
r
r
r
r
r
Figure 16. View of basal piowzone. Test Units 6 and 7 (Locus 2). looking
north-northwest. Rote Feature 3 (soil stain and shell) adiacent
to west wail of unit.
40
1
1

' Project documentation completed in the laboratory includes an update
of North Carolina Site Form 31CR81, along with a specimen catalogs and
data inventories. Artifact analysis focused on the sorting, temporal
' placement, typological identification, and functional study of the field
specimens. The goals of the analysis were to describe the overall
character of aboriginal and Euro-American occupation of the project area,
' and to infer specific behaviors and cultural practices wherever appro-
priate, based on comparative information.
All original field notes, maps, sketches, drawings, and report draft
' materials remain under the custodial care of Carolina Archaeological
Services. Copies of all artifact catalogs and soil analyses were
prepared for submittal with the specimen assemblage. Upon WAI's
' acceptance of the project study and arrangement for permanent assemblage
curation, CAS will ship these items to a curational institution in North
Carolina.

L

1 41

4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
4.1 Overview
Tommy's Campground is located on an extensive prehistoric Indian
site which has yielded evidence of aboriginal activities ranging from the
Early through the Late Woodland periods (ca. 1,500 B.C. - A.D. 1500).
Intrusive evidence of twentieth century land use also exists. The
components identified during the present study conform geographically and
culturally with those defining 31Cr81, a Woodland period site originally
recorded in 1971 by Littleton and subsequently reinvestigated by j
Loftfield (1978), Hargrove (1985), and Martin (1986a, 1986b).
4.2 Research Synthesis
Historic period artifacts recovered from Tommy's Campground consist
of twentieth century container glass fragments (N=2), and reflect late I'
historic use of the southern portion of the tract by recreational I
inhabitants. No temporally diagnostic earthenware, stoneware, or
porcelain sherds were observed; nor was window (flat) glass recovered
which would assist in establishing a temporal range for the historic '
occupation.
The dispersion of prehistoric artifacts and shell over Tommy's

Campground extends from dust south of SR 24 to dust north of Bogue Sound. '
Most of the sherds within this dispersion area are small, non-diagnostic
residuals, which exhibit the long-term effects of cultivation and other r
historic period land use practices in this region. The southern and
south-central portions of the property contain substantially intact
aboriginal midden remnants and non-midden deposits associated with the
aboriginal occupation of 31Cr81. These remnants are characterized
largely by shellfish fragments, potsherds, charcoal, faunal remains, and
small pits and (possible) postholes.
Ceramics, the most abundant artifact class found at the site, are
instrumental in establishing the temporal context of its occupation.
Sherd concentrations were most noticeable at Locus 1 and Locus 2, i.e.,
the south and south-central portions of this tract. A total of 378 t
prehistoric sherds were recovered from surface and subsurface contexts at
Tommy's Campground. Of these, 196 (52x) were large enough to allow
diagnostic type assignation. Overall sherd frequencies were as follows:

New River (0.5x, n=1); Mount Pleasant (4.1x, n=8); Carteret (7.6x, n=15>; ,
Oak Island/Colington (84.7x, n=166); and unidentified (3.1x, n=6) (Phelps
1982; Loftfield 1976)(Fig. 17).
The distribution of sherd sample frequencies suggests that the most ¦
extended periods of habitation associated with aboriginal exploitation of
shellfish and faunal resources at 31Cr81 occurred during the Late '
Woodland period (Oak Island/Colington component), with more limited
occupation during the Middle Woodland period (Mount Pleasant and Carteret
components). Prehistoric use of resources in the site vicinity may
have begun as much as 2,500 years earlier during the Early Woodland
period; the New River component remains somewhat tentative, since it is
based on the presence of a single New River series sherd from Tommy's
Campground and a single check stamped sherd from the Guthrie tract. '
42 1
.r
A
B
t`
F
B
O 1 2.
in.
cm
O 5
Figure 17. Prehistoric ceramic sherds from Locus 1 and Locus 2, 31Cr81.
R: New River cordmarked body sherd (FS 113, Surface-North).
B: ?fount Pleasant cordmarked body sherd (FS 138, Test Unit 2,
Zone 3). C: Carteret fabric marked body sherd (FS 144, Test
Unit 5, Zone 1). D: Oak Island/Colington fabric marked body
sherd (FS,144, Test Unit 5, Zone 1). E.: Oak Island/Colington
fabric marked rim sherd (FS 144, Test Unit 5, Zone 1).
F: Undecorated body sherd (unidentified type)(FS 138, Test
Unit 2, Zone 3).

43
Little can be determined about the intensity or nature of the Early
Woodland occupation on the basis of such a small artifact sample.
Although they represent spatially discrete activity areas, Locus 1
and Locus 2 reflect behaviors which appear to overlap temporally. .Of the
diagnostic assemblage, Locus 1 (N 69) yielded Mount Pleasant (7.2x,
n=5), Carteret (7.2x, n=5), Oak Island/Colington (82.6x, n=57), and
unidentified burnished and undecorated sherds <2.9x, n=2). A similar
distribution occurred among non-residual ceramics at Locus 2 (N = 90),
where Carteret sherds (4.4%, n=4) and unidentified burnished and
undecorated (2.2X, n=2) formed a clear minority to Oak Island/Colington
materials (93.3X, n=84).
Culturally modified stone (tools and by-products) is typically rare
at coastal midden sites, since lithic raw materials preferred by abori-
ginal populations were largely non-local to the coastal region (Goodyear
1979; Blanton 1984). Bone and wood, being more expendible and accessible
raw materials in coastal sound environments, are thought to have
dominated coastal tool assemblages. The scarcity of knappable stone in
the lower coastal regions is often viewed as a causative factor, leading
to an emphasis on the curation and maintenance of stone tools (such as
heat treating of chert), particularly at ephemerally occupied sites like
seasonal camps.
At Tommy's Campground, primary cortical (n=2) and secondary (n=1)
chert flakes, one of which exhibited heat treatment, were recovered from
Shovel Test 22 and from Test Units 1 and 3 (Locus 1). The presence of
cortical and primary debitage suggests that although knappable lithic raw
material may have been relatively rare in coastal environments, cobbles
of chert were transported to the site, with the midden area serving as a
production and maintenance area for tools.
A single piece of fire cracked rock (quartz cobble) was recovered
from Test Unit 2 (Locus 1), and appears to be associated with roasting
pit and/or hearth activities. Two small, unidentified animal bone
fragments were recovered from the organic midden zone in adjacent tests
at Locus 1 (Shovel Test 19 and Test Unit 3 CFea. 2)); an additional
fragment was noted in the east profile of Test Unit 1, but was not
collected. Locus 2 produced a fragment of burnt turtle shell (Test Unit
4), again suggestive of cooking area activities.
These distributions of organic and inorganic materials are consistent
with repetitive, short-term habitation activities at coastal aboriginal
sites. Based on research at other Woodland middens, sites located in an
ecotone between tidal and woodland habitats can reflect a variety of
shellfish, fish, crustacean, and mammal food preparation activities and
food remains (Trinkley 1980, 1981; Drucker and Jackson 1984).
Despite the attritional effects of cultivation and repeated combing
of the site by artifact collectors (Bill Comninaki, personal communica-
tion 1986; Guthrie, personal communication 1986), the material diversity,
contextual diversity, presence of living area features, and moderate
artifact density reflected by surface and subsurface deposits would
indicate that 31Cr81 supported short-term habitation activities by a
small number of people (kin community or household bands). The temporal
44

' overlap, discrete spatial context and extent, and clearly distinct
archaeological contexts (midden vs. non-midden deposits) exhibited by
Locus 1 and Locus 2 suggest that they represent two distinct sets of
aboriginal behavior within a single site (community?) area.
The patterns observed as a result of testing across the entire site
area (Fig. 2) are consistent with other research which characterizes
short-term habitation sites by a moderately diverse range of material
culture, associated with domestic, subsistence, maintenance, and possibly
ritual activities (Loftfield 1970; Trinkley 2980; Drucker and Jackson
' 1984; Phelps 1980). While only small amounts of animal bone were
ith
recovered from Locus 2, their stratigraphic position and association w
food processing activities indicate good potential for the preservation
' of both faunal and ethnobotanical food remains at 31Cr81.
Although no human interments were encountered during site testing,
there is a reasonable potential for the occurrence of single inhumation,
' ossuary, and/or cremation type burials assignable to the Woodland period
occupation at 31Cr81. This evaluation is based on the physical and
cultural characteristics of the site.
' d
The soil preservation capabilities of Wando fine sond at Locus 1 an
Locus 2 was sufficient to yield burnt and unburnt animal bone fragments
and sizeable chunks of charred wood. There is thus reason to suspect
' that human bone would be similarly well preserved.
Aboriginal burials have been amply recorded at shell midden and
' village midden sites in coastal North Carolina, including sites in
Currituck, Chowan, Dare, and Onslow Counties (Phelps 1977, 1980, 1983;
Loftfield 1976, 1979). At an assemblage level, 31Cr81 exhibits simi-
larities and contemporaneity with other Woodland sites containing
inhumations, cremations, and ossuary burials (e.g., the Baum site [31Ck9]
and Hallowell site [31CoM [Phelps 1980, 1983]). Therefore, 31Cr81 is
considered likely to yield information concerning not only aboriginal
' subsistence, settlement, maintenance, and dietary behaviors, but possibly
mortuary behavior as well.
' 4.3 Research Assessments
Disturbance as a result of intrusive twentieth century activities
has significantly affected 31Cr81 within the northern two-thirds of
' Tommy's Campground. Remnants of the site in this portion of the property
do not contain sufficient, integrity, quantity, diversity, or clarity to
support a finding of site eligibility for the National Register (36 CFR
' 60.4). The northern two-thirds of the campground property are therefore
recommended for archaeological clearance (Table 1).
' Despite evidence of disturbance to site deposits at Tommy's
Campground, cultivation and recreational land use have not totally
altered the most intensive aboriginal occupation area, which appears to
have been localized within 40 - 180 meters of the Sound. Deposits in the
southern one-third of the property should therefore be considered
sensitive. Substantive research in this area can be conducted to further
scientific knowledge concerning the subsistence, social, and organiza-
tional behaviors of coastal aboriginal Indian (Algonkian) populations.
' 45

'
Archaeological testing of Tommy's Campground revealed a continuous
but variable distribution of surface and subsurface artifacts, spanning
over 20 acres (520x160 meters or 1716x528 feet north-south by east-
west). Locus 1, a large area of organic midden and shell, encompasses
approximately 74x134 meters north-south by east-west, and is located in
the southern one-third of the property; the southernmost boundary of this

locus lies within 40 - 60 meters north of Bogue Sound. Locus 2 occurs in '
the south-central portion of the property, approximately 60 meters north
of Locus 1, and is defined on the site surface by a large, roughly

circular shell concentration measuring 60x50 meters north-south by east- '
west, subsurface deposits describe a non midden deposit containing
artifacts, shell, and features.
2)
(L '
ocus
Investigation of the midden (Locus 1) and non-midden
deposits at Tommy's Campground indicates that they are likely to
contain significant, non-redundant cultural information consistent with
the criteria for which 31Cr81 was originally considered eligible for the
National Register (36 CFR 60.4;. King 1980). These two site loci exhibit
sufficient integrity, clarity, diversity, quantity, and context to
constitute a significant archaeological resource (Glassow 1977). The
,
context associated with these loci is defined by !fiddle and Late Woodland
period aboriginal exploitation of the aquatic and mainland environments
of the lower White Oak River. Evidence of aboriginal subsistence, food

preparation, shelter, tool making/maintenance, and possibly social '
activities, has been defined at this site. Organic preservation is also
indicated at Locus 1, supporting this site area's potential for yielding
important information about foodways, mortuary behaviors, non-lithic tool
technologies, and paleoenvironmental reconstruction.
Less certain is the potential at Locus 2 for determining spatial and '
functional attributes associated with the occupation of Middle and Late
Woodland shell ring sites (Trinkley 1983). While a difference between
occupational behaviors can be assumed for Locus 1 and Locus 2 on the

basis of material diversity, archaeological context, and formal-spatial '
distinctiveness of the deposits, the potential for identifying specific
activities associated with Locus 2 is more limited than that associated
with Locus 1. Nonetheless, examination of both loci is crucial to a t
preliminary understanding of functional differences between midden and
non-midden activity areas within the same site.
Additional investigation of deposits at Locus 1 and Locus 2 is '
expected to yield useful information which will contribute to an
understanding of cultural processes and culture history in coastal North

Carolina during the Middle and Late Woodland periods. Research topics to '
structure further investigation (Phelps 1983; Trinkley 1980, 1983;
Drucker and Jackson 1984; Autry and Loftfield 1976; Claassen 1983) might
include: '
a) coastal North Carolina cultural chronology,
b) coastal North Carolina ceramic typology,
c) Middle and Late Woodland period ceramic technologies,
d) Middle and Late Woodland period bone and shell technologies,
e) Middle and Late Woodland period subsistence behaviors and
nutritional study (foodways, dietary patterns, and procurement '
46

seasonality, including clam shell study; human skeletal analysis),
f) Middle and Late Woodland period settlement behaviors, including
land use, site function (short-term habitation vs. extractive
campsites), and localization of activities,
g) Middle and Late Woodland period mortuary behavior,
h) the organization of activities associated with aboriginal
occupation of shell midden and shell ring sites.
4.4 Impact Assessments
The typically ephemeral nature of short-term habitation sites,
together with the adverse effects of past and present historic land use
and coastal erosion, underscores the fragility and sensitivity of any
intact, reasonably well preserved remnants of prehistoric sites in the
coastal region. Condominium development of Tommy's Campground is likely
to have an adverse effect on 100% of Loci 1 and 2 of 31Cr81. To reduce
or avoid these impacts, it will be necessary for WAI to include further
cultural resource management procedures in its development plans.
WAI presently plans to build a marina, boat stack, and parking lot
' at Locus 1. According to the principal property owner, the present
ground surface at Locus 1 will first be covered by a fill layer to retard
flooding and erosion (Paul Berry, personal communication 1986). Small-
scale construction associated with the marina, such as support structures
(storage, gasoline, restaurant, restroom facilities, etc.), will also
affect surface and subsurface soils. Additional sources of impact
include clearing, leveling, and borrow activities; movement of heavy
' equipment across poorly drained site surfaces; and increased exposure of
the site to erosion and vandalism.

Locus 2 will be affected by construction of residential units, a
parking lot and swimming pool, support facilities, and landscape
features. It is expected that impacts will occur at both surface and
subsurface levels. Since precise placement of these units is currently
unknown, the spatial boundaries of the adverse effects are also unknown.
Preservation in place is normally the preferred management option
for stable archaeological sites (King 1980). If avoidance and protective
measures for 31Cr81 are not physically or economically feasible, the
sensitive midden deposits should be archaeologically recovered prior to
the construction phase of condominium development at Tommy's Campground.
The goal of such measures will be to mitigate the loss of significant
cultural data which would otherwise occur. The data recovery (mitiga-
tion) plan should be of sufficient scope and flexibility to allow fine-
scale recovery and analysis of artifactual, skeletal, organic, inorganic,
and environmental data from both Locus 1 and Locus 2 (cf. Sec. 1.8).
' 47
L
5.0 REFERENCES CITED
i
Angley, Wilson
1981 Old Salt Works Near Beaufort. Ms. on file, Archaeology Branch.
. N. C. Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh.
Anthony, Ronald W.

1985
An Archaeological Inventory Survey of Kingsbridge at Queens ,
:reek, Onslow County, North Carolina. Resource Studies Series
88, Carolina Archaeological Services, Columbia.
'
Anthony, Ronald W. and Lesley M. Drucker
1981 An Archeological Survey of Proposed Development Areas,
Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge, Carteret County,

North Carolina. Resource Studies Series 42, Carolina '
Archaeological Services, Columbia.
Anthony, Ronald W., Lesley M. Drucker and Carl R. Steen '
1983 A_ Terrestrial Cultural Resources Study of the Proposed Broad
Creek Development Pro3ect, Beaufort Couty. North Carolina.
Resource Studies Series 60, Carolina Archaeological Services,
Columbia.
Autry, William 0. and Thomas C. Loftfield
1976 Species Content of North Carolina Coastal Shell Middens and Their
Cultural Implications. Southeastern Archaeological Conference
Bulletin 19:76-81.
Beccasio, A. D. et al.
1980 Atlantic Coast Ecological Inventory: User's Guide and Infor-
xation Base. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D. C.
Benton, Steven
1979 Holocene Evolution of a Nanotidal Brackish Marsh - Protected
Bay System, Roanoke Island. North Carolina. Master's thesis,
Department of Geology, East Carolina University, Greenville.

Berger, Louis & Associates, Inc.
1984 Archaeological Testing of Sites Onv138, Onv251, Onv265.
Marine Corps Base, Camp Leieune, Onslow County, North Carolina.
Ms. on file, U. S. Department of the Navy, Norfolk, Virginia.
Blanton, Dennis
1984 Lithic Raw Material Procurement and Use During the Morrow
Mountain Phase in South Carolina. Second Chert Conference
Papers, Center for Archeological Investigations, Southern
Illinois University, Carbondale. ,
Bollinger, Catherine E., compiler
1982 Addendum II: A Guide to Research Papers in the Archaeology of
North Carolina on File With the Archaeology Branch of the
North Carolina Division of Archives and History. North
Carolina Archaeological Council Publication 17. N. C. Division
of Archives/History, Raleigh. '
48 ?

Brooks. Mark J., Donald J. Coquhoun, J. G. Brown, and P. A. Stone
1983 Sea Level Change, Estuarine Development and Temporal Varia-
bility in Woodland Period Subsistence Settlement Patterning
t
d
P
e
aper presen
on the Lower Coastal Plain of South Carolina.
at the 40th Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference,
' Columbia, South Carolina.
Brown, J. P.
1960 The Commonwealth of Onslow. Owen G. Dunn, New Bern, North
Carolina.
Claassen, Cheryl
' 1983 Shellfishing Seasons in the Prehistoric Southeastern United
States. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Southeastern
Archaeological Conference, Columbia, South Carolina.
r Claflin, William H., Jr.
1931 The Stallings Island Mound, Columbia County, Georgia. Papers
of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology
' XIV(1). Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Coe, Joffre L.
1952 The Cultural Sequence of the Carolina Piedmont. In Archaeology
of the Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp.
301-311, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions
' of the American Philosophical Society, n.s., 54, Part 5.
1972 An Archaeological Survey of the Site Proposed For the Marine
Resources Facility, Carteret County. Ms. on file, Research
' Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill.
Collett, John
' 1770 A Compleat Map of North-Carolina, From Actual Survey. In North
Carolina in Maps, edited by W. P. Cumming (1966). N. C.
' Department of Archives/History, Raleigh.
tt
bb
,
o
Colquhoun, Donald J., Mark J. Brooks, James L. Michie, William B. A
Frank W. Stapor, Walter Newman, and Richard R. Pardi
' 1981 Location of Archaeological Sites with Respect to Sea Level in
the Southeastern United States. Striae 14:144-150.
Corbitt, David L.
1950 Formation of the North Carolina Counties. 1663-1943. N. C.
Department of Archives/History, Raleigh.
1953 Explorations, Descriptions and Attempted Settlements of
Carolina. 1584-1590. N. C. Department of Archives/History,
Raleigh.
' Cumming, William P.
1966 North Carolina in Maps. N. C. Department of Archives/History,
Raleigh.
1 49
I?
DePratter, Chester B.-
1977 Environmental Changes on the Georgia Coast During the Prehistoric
Period. Early Georgia 5(1):1-14.
1979 Ceramics. In The Anthropology of St. Catherines Island: The
Refuge-Deptford Mortuary Complex, edited by David H. Thomas
and Clark S. Larsen, pp. 109-132. Anthropological Papers
56(1). American Museum of Natural History, New York.
DePratte r, Chester B. and James D. Howard
1977 History of Shoreline Changes Determined by Archaeological
Dating: Georgia Coast, U.S.A. Transaction of the Gulf Coast
Association Geological Society 27:252-258.
1981 Evidence For a Sea Level Low Stand Between 4,500 and 2,400 years
B.P. on the Southeast Coast of the United States. Journal of

Sedimentary Petrology 51:1287-1295. '
Drucker, Lesley M., and Susan H. Jackson
1984 Shell in Motion: An Archaeological Study of the Minim Island
National Resister Site. Georgetown. South Carolina. Resource
Studies Series 73, Carolina Archaeological Services, Columbia.
,
Dunbar, Gary S.
1958 Historical Geography of the North Carolina Outer Banks. Coastal
Studies Series 3. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.
Ehrenhard, John E.
1976 Cape Lookout National Seashore: Assessment of Archaeological.
and Historical Resources. Ms. on file, Southeastern Archaeo-
logical Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee, Florida.
Funk, Thomas C.

1979
Fort Macon Archaeological Assessment. Ms. on file, Historic '
Sites Section, N. C. Division of Archives/History, Raleigh.
Glassow, Michael A. ,
1977 Issues in Evaluating the Significance of Archaeological
Resources. American Antiauity 42(3):413-420.

Goodyear, Albert C.
1978 An Archeological Survey of the Primary Connector From Laurens
to Anderson. South Carolina. Research Manuscript Series 122,
Institute of Archaeology/Anthropology, University of South
Carolina, Columbia.
1979 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials
Among Paleo-Indian Groups of North America. Research
Manuscript Series 156, Institute of Archaeology/Anthropology,
University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Goodyear, Albert C., J. H. House and N. W. Ackerly
1979 Laurens-Anderson: An Archeological Study of the Interriverine
Piedmont. Anthropological Studies 4, Institute of Archaeology/
Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Haag, Wil liam
1958 The Archaeology of Coastal North Carolina. Coastal Studies
50

Series 3. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.
Hargrove, Thomas H. (compiler)
1980 A Guide to Research Papers in the Archaeology of North Carolina
' on File with the Archaeology Branch of the North Carolina Div-
ision of Archives and History. North Carolina Archaeological
Council Publication 13, N. C. Division of Archives/History, Raleigh.
' 1981 Addendum 1: Guide to Research Papers in the Archaeology of
North Carolina on File with the Archaeology Branch of the North
Carolina Division of Archives and History. North Carolina
Archaeological Council Pub. 14, N. C. Division of Archives/History,
Raleigh.
Hargrove, Thomas H.
' 1982 An Archaeological Survey of the Clodfelter Property in
Beaufort, North Carolina. Ms. on file, Archaeological Research
'
1983 Consultants, Inc., Chapel Hill.
Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Peleiter Creek Disposal
Area, Morehead City, Carteret City, North.Carolina. Ms. on
file, Archaeological Research Consultants,.Inc., Chapel Hill.
' 1985 An Archaeological Survey of the Site of the Proposed Fishing
Village Housing Development on Bogue Sound. Swansboro Vicinity,
Carteret County, North Carolina. Archaeological Research
' Consultants, Inc., Raleigh.
Hemmings, E. Thomas
1970 Prehistoric Subsistence and Settlement on the Upper Savannah
River. Research Manuscript Series 8, Institute of Archaeology/
Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Keel, Bennie C.
' 1976 Cherokee Archaeology: A Study of the Appalachian Summit.
University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
' King, Thomas F.
1980 Treatment of Archeological Properties: A Handbook. Advis-
ory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C.

Kuchler, A. W.
1964 Potential Natural Vegetation of the Conterminous United States.
Special Publication 36, American Geographic Society, Washington,
' D. C.
Larson, Lewis H., Jr.
1970 Aboriginal Subsistence Technology on the Southeastern Coastal
Plain During the Late Prehistoric Period. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Michigan. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
' Lee, William D.
1955 The Soils of North Carolina: Their Formation, Identification
and Use. Technical Bulletin 115, N. C. Agricultural Experiment
' Station, Raleigh.
Lefler, H. T. and T. R. Newsome
' 1963 The History of a Southern State: North Carolina. 3rd ed.
' 51
1
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel.Hill.
Littleton, Tucker R.
1981 Part 2: The Historic Record. In An Archaeological and
Historical Reconnaissance of U. S. Marine Corps Base, Camp
Leieune, North Carolina, by Thomas Loftfield. Submitted to
U. S. Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C.
Loftfield, Thomas C.
1970 Shell Hidden Sites of the Harker's Island-North River Area.
M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1976 "A Briefe and True Account. An Archaeological Inter-
pretation of the Southeastern Coast of North Carolina. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of North Carolina. University Microfilms,
Ann Arbor.
1978 31CR81: North Carolina Archaeological Site Form. Archaeology
Branch, N. C. Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
1979 Excavations at 310nv33, a Late Woodland Seasonal Village. Ms. on
file, University of North Carolina, Wilmington.
1981 An Archaeological and Historical Reconnaissance of U. S. Marine
Corps Base, Camp Leleune, North Carolina. Submitted to U. S.
Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C.
Marrinan, Rochelle A.
1975 Ceramics, Molluscs, and Sedentism: The Late Archaic Period on
the Georgia Coast. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida,
Gainsville.
Martin, Debra K. '
1986a Cedar Point Villas Archaeological Survey and Assessment, Carteret
County, North Carolina. Resource Studies Series 95, Carolina
Archaeological Services, Columbia. ,
1986b The Guthrie Tract: Archaeological Assessment of a Proposed Condo-
minium Development on Bogue Sound, Carteret County. North Carolina.
Resource Studies Series 98, Carolina Archaeological Services, '
Columbia.
Mathis, Mark A. (compiler)
1979 North Carolina Statewide Archaeological Survey: An Introduction
and Application to Three Highway Projects in Hertford, Wilkes,
and Ashe Counties. North Carolina Archaeological Council
Pub. 11, N. C: Division of Archives/History, Raleigh. ,
McMichael, E. Vance
1960 The Anatomy of a Tradition: A Study of Southeastern Stamped
Pottery. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University. Univer-
sity Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
McMullan, Philip '
1982 History of the Development of the Albemarle-Pamlico Region,
With Emphasis on Dare, Hyde, and Tyrrell Counties. Appendix B,
Draft #-18, Prulean Farms, Inc. Ms. on file, Research Triangle
Institute, Raleigh, North Carolina. '
52 '

I Mook, Maurice A.
1944 Algonkian Ethnohistory of the Carolina Sound. Journal of the
' Washington Academy of Sciences 34(6):187-197, 213-228.
Moseley, Edward
' 1733 A New and Correct Map of the Province of North Carolina. In
North Carolina in Maps, by W.P. Cumming (1966). N. C.
Division of Archives/History, Raleigh.

1

1

Mouzon, Henry
1775 Map of North and South Carolina. In The Southeast in Early
Maps, ed. by W. P. Cumming (1962). University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Myers, Susan G., compiler
1984 Addendum III: A Guide to Research Papers in the Archaeology of
North Carolina on File With the Archaeology Branch of the North
Carolina Division of Archives and History. N. C. Archaeologi-
cal Council Publication 21, N. C. Division of Archives/History,
Raleigh.
Olson, Sarah
1982 Historic Resources Survey, Portsmouth Village, Cape Lookout
National Seashore. Ms. on file, National Park Service, Denver.
Onslow County Historical Society
1983 Onslow County Heritage - North Carolina. Hunter Publication,
Winston-Salem.
Phelps, David S.
1964 The Final Phase of the Eastern Archaic Ph.D. dissertation,
Tulane University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
1968 Thom's Creek Ceramics in the Central Savannah River Locality.
Florida Anthropologist 21(1):17-30.
1975a The Archaeological Survey of the Stoney Creek Watershed,
Wayne County, North Carolina. Ms. on file, Archaeological Re-
search Laboratory, East Carolina University, Greenville.
1975b An Archaeological Survey of the Bear Swamp Watershed. Ms.
on file, Archaeological Research Laboratory, East Carolina Uni-
versity, Greenville.
1976a An Archaeological Survey of a Proposed Boat Basin and Marina
Facility in Pine Knoll Shores, Carteret County, North Carolina.
Ms. on file, Archaeological Research Laboratory, East Carolina
University, Greenville.
1976b A Preliminary Report of Archaeological Sites on Money Island,
Carteret County, North Carolina, Ms. on file, Archaeological
Research Laboratory, East Carolina University, Greenville.
1977 Recent Archaeological Research in Northeastern North Carolina.
Eastern States Archaeological Federation Bulletin 35, 36:19-20.
1980 Archaeological Salvage of an Ossuary at the Baum Site. Ms.
on file, Archaeological Research Laboratory, East Carolina Uni-
versity, Greenville.
1981a Archaeological Surveys of Four Watersheds in the North Carolina
Coastal Plain. North Carolina Archaeological Council Publi-
53
L
cation 16. North Carolina Archaeological Council, Raleigh.-
1981b The Archaeology of Colington Island. Archaeological Research
Report 3. Archaeology Laboratory, East Carolina University,
Greenville.
1982 The Ceramic Sequence from Coastal North Carolina. Paper
presented at the Seminar on Coastal Aboriginal Pottery,
Charleston, South Carolina, Aug. 20-21.
1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plain: Pro-
blems and Hypotheses. In The Preh1story of North Carolina:
An Archaeological Symposium , edited by M. A. Mathis and J. L.
Crow, pp. 1-51. N. C. Division of Archives/History, Raleigh.
Post Route.Map
1896 Post Route Map of the States of North Carolina and South

Carolina . . . . In North Carolina in Maps by W. P. Cumming '
(1966). N. C. Division of Archives/History, Raleigh.
Schiffer, Michael B. and George J. Gumersan (editors)
1977 Conservation Archaeology: A Guide for Cultural Resource Manage-
ment Studies. Academic Press, New York.

Shelford, Victor E.
1963 The Ecology of North America.. University of Illinois Press,
Urbana.
South, Stanley
1962a An Archaeological Survey of Two Islands in the White Oak River.
Ms. on file, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University
of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1962b Excavation in the Yard of the Ringware House, Swansboro, North
Carolina. Ms. on file, Archaeology Branch, N. C. Department of
Cultural Resources, Raleigh.
1976 Indian Pottery Taxonomy for the South Carolina Coast (rev. ed.).
The Notebook VIII:28-29. Institute of Archeology/Anthropology,
University of South Carolina, Columbia.
South, Stanley and Michael Hartley
1980 Deep Water and High Ground: Seventeenth Century Low Country
Settlement. Research Manuscript Series 166, Institute of
Archaeology/Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Stoltman, James B. r
1974 Groton Plantation: An Archaeological Study of a South Carolina
Locality. Peabody Museum Monographs 1. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge.
Sutherland, Donald R.
1974 Excavations at the Spanish Mount Shell Midden, Edisto Island,
South Carolina. South Carolina Antiquities VI(1):25-36.
Archeological Society of South Carolina, Inc., Columbia.
Swanton, John R.
1946 Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bureau of American
Ethnology Bulletin 137, Washington, D.C.
54 1

H

F1

Thornbury, William D.
1965 Regional Geomorphology of the Eastern United States. John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
Trinkley, Michael B.
1980 Investigation of the Woodland Period along the South Carolina
Coast. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Univer-
sity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1981 Studies of Three Woodland Period Sites in Beaufort County,
South Carolina. Ms. on file, South Carolina Department of
Highways and Public Transportation, Columbia.
1983 Ceramics of the Central South Carolina Coast. South Carolina
Antiquities 15(1-2):43-53.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
1975 Maintenance of Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina:
Final Environmental Statement. Savannah District, Savannah,
Georgia.
1978 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of Bogue Banks, North
Carolina. Wilmington District, Wilmington, North Carolina.
1986 Cultural Resources Studies For the Eastern North Carolina Above
Cape Lookout Study Area. Wilmington District, Wilmington,
North Carolina.
U. S. Department of Agriculture
1979 Soil Survey Advance Sheets, Carteret County, North Carolina.
Ms. on file, North Carolina Soil Conservation Service, Raleigh.
U. S. Geological Survey
1952 Swansboro, North Carolina Quadrangle, 7.5-Minute Topographic
Sheet (photorevised 1983). Washington, D.C.
Ward, Trawick
1982 Archaeological Salvage of the Jarretts Point Ossuary, Onv304.
Ms. on file, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University
of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Ward, H. Trawick and Jack H. Wilson, Jr.
1980 Archaeological Excavations at the Cold Morning Site. Southern
Indian Studies 32:5-40.
Whitehead, Donald R.
1965 Palynology and Pleistocene Phytogeography of Unglaciated
Eastern North America. In The Quaternary of the United States,
edited by H. E. Wright, Jr, and David G. Frey, pp. 417-432.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Williams, Stephen (editor)
1968 The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr. Papers of the
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 58. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge.
Woodall, J. Ned and Alan Snavely
1977 Final Report of an Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Randle-
man Reservoir Area. Ms. on file, Archaeology Laboratories, Wake
55

Forest University, Winston-Salem.
56

1

11
C

' P. 1 ; SPECIMEN CATALOG
ACC # DESCRIPTION PROVENIENCE
202 1 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERD S. T. 1, Z-I I (10-30anBS)
302 1 SOIL SAMPLE S.T.
S. T. 1, Z-II
1, Z-I
(0-IOanBS)
' 302 1 SOIL SAMPLE S. T. 2-Ill
1 (30-•40anBS)
302 1 SOIL SAMPLE S. T. 7
Z-IV
1 (40-76anBS)
302
188 1
1 SOIL SAMPLE
HANOVER/CARTERET-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD S. T. ,
2, Z-II (8-30anBS)
202 E CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS S.T. 2, Z-II
Z-I I
BS)
(5-24
202 2 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS S.T. 3, an
302 1 SOIL SAMPLE S.T.
T
S 3, Z-II.
Z-III
3
(24-44cmBS)
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD .
. ,
302 1 SOIL SAMPLE S.T.
T
S 3, Z-III
Z-IV
3
(44-80cmBS)
' 302
197 1
1 SOIL SAMPLE
OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-INDET DEC BODY SHERD .
.
S.T. ,
4, Z-III
I (12-38anBS)
BS)
(4-32
187 1 MT PLEASANT-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD S.T. 5, Z-I an
197 3 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERDS S.T. 5, Z-11
202 1 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERD S.T. 5, Z-II
' 302 1 SOIL SAMPLE S. T. 5, Z-I I
I
(32-84anBS)
302 1 SOIL SAMPLE S. T. 5, Z-1
I
-I (0-15anBS)
187 1 MT PLEASANT-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD S. T. 6, Z
202 2 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS S.T. 6, Z-1
(15-45canBS)
202 3 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS S. T. 6, Z-1I (0-22cmBS)
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-INDET DEC BODY SHERD S. T. 7, Z-I
201 1 UID CERAMIC-BURNISHED, MED PASTE, MED SAND TEMP BODY S. T.
S
T 7, Z-I
2-I
7
202 4 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS .
. ,
187 1 MT PLEASANT-UNDEC BODY SHERD FIELD SURFACE
188 3 HANOVER/CARTERET-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD FIELD SURFACE
' 188 1 HANOVER/CARTERET-UNDEC BODY SHERD FIELD SURFACE
197 3 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD FIELD SURFACE
197 2 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-INDET DEC BODY SHERDS FIELD SURFACE
' 202 1 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS S. T. 9, Z-I
Z-I
10 (0-17cmBS)
202 1 CERAMIC'-RESIDUAL SHERD S. T. ,
202 2 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS S.T. 11, Z-I
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD SURFACE, N
' 198 1 NEW RIVER-CORDMARKED BODY SHERD SURFACE, N
202 1 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERD SURF ACE, N
202 2 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS S. T. 12. Z-I (0-25anBS)
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-INDET DEC BODY SHERD S. T. 13, Z-I (0-23anBS)
302 1 SOIL SAMPLE S. T.
S. T. 13, Z-I
Z-111
13
(23-52anBS)
302
302 1
1 SOIL SAMPLE
SOIL SAMPLE S. T. ,
13, Z-III (52-73anBS)
)
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-INDET DEC BODY SHERD S. T. 17, Z-11 (7-26anBS
187 1 WHELK COLUMELLA FRAGMENT S. T. 19, Z-11 (7-33anBS)
74 1 UID BONE FRAGMENT S. T. 19, Z-11
' .
187 1 MT PLEASANT-CORDMARKED BODY SHERD S. T. 20, Z-11 (10-20anBS)
188 1 HANOVER/CARTERET-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD S.T. 20, Z-II
202 1 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERD S.T. 21, Z-II (16-57anBS)
173 1 HEAT TREATED CHERT-SECONDARY FLAKE S. T. 22, Z-I I
Z-11 (10-34anBS)
202 3 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS S. T. cam:,
201 1 UID CERAMIC-UNDEC, FINE PASTE, MED SAND TEMP BODY S. T. 23, Z-11 (5-20anBS)
' 202 2 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS S.T. 23, Z-II
Ii
i (20-46anBS)
188 1 HANOVER/CARTERET-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD S. T. 23, Z-
201 1 UID CERAMIC-WELL POLISHED, FINE SAND TEMP BODY SHERD S. T. 224, 2-I l (7-26anBS)
202 2 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS S.T. 24, Z-II
' 27 2 CONTAINER GLASS-COBALT BLUE, ABM BODY SHERD S. T. 25, Z-I (0-7anBS)
57
P. SPECIMEN CATALOG
ACC # DESCRIPTION PROVENIENCE
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD S. T. 26, Z-I I (6-12cmBS)
197 E OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-INDET DEC BODY SHERD S.T. 26, Z-II
202 3 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS S.T. 26, Z-11
202 1 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS S.T. 26, Z-IV (25-52anBS)
197 2 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERDS SURFACE
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD SURFACE
202 8 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS SURFACE
202 6 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL. SHERDS S. T. 27, Z-I (0-18anBS)
202 6 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS S. T. 28, Z-I (0-24anBS)

202
1
CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERD
S. T.
29,
Z-I
(0-16cmBS) ,
188 1 HANOVER/CARTERET-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD T. U. 1, Z-I (0=8anBD)
197 2 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-INDET DEC BODY SHERDS T. U. 1, Z-I I (8-12anBD)
202 2 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS T. U. 1, Z-II ,
73 2 CHARRED WOOD FRAGMENTS T. U. 1, 2-111 (12-27anBD)
74 2 WHELK COLUMELLA FRAGMENTS T. U. 1, Z-III
173 1 NON-LOCAL CHERT-PRIMARY, CORTICAL FLAKE T. U. 1, Z-III

197
5
OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY
T. U.
1,
Z-III '
197 6 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY T. U. 1, Z-III
197 5 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-INDET DEC BODY T. U. 1, Z-III

197
1
OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-BURNISHED BODY SHERD
T. U.
i,
Z-III '
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-UNDEC BODY SHERD T. U. 1, Z-III
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-UNDEC RIM SHERD T. U. 1, 2-Ill
201 1 UID CERAMIC-UNDEC, MED SAND TEMP BODY SHERD T. U. 1, Z-III
202 3 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS T. U. 1, Z-III
73 3 CHARRED WOOD FRAGMENTS T. U. i, Z-IV (27-37anBD)
188 2 HANOVER/CARTERET-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERDS T. U. 1, Z-IV
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD T. U. Z-IV
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD T. U. 1, Z-IV
197 i OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-INDET DEC BODY SHERD T. U. 1, Z-IV
202 1 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERD T.U. 1, Z-IV
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD T. U. 2, Z-II (8-13cmBD)
202: 12 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS T. U. 2, Z-II
73 3 CHARRED WOOD FRAGMENTS T. U. 2, Z-I I I { 13-29anBD)
74 6 WHELK FRAGMENTS T. U. 2, Z-111
163 1 CERAMIC ABRADER T. U. 2, Z-111
169 1 FIRE CRACKED ROCK T.U. 2, Z-III
187 2 MT PLEASANT-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERDS T. U. 2, Z-III
188 1 HANOVER/CARTERET-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERDS T. U. 2, Z-III
197 2 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERDS T. U. 2, Z-III
197 4 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERDS T. U. 2, Z-III
197 7 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-UNDEC BODY SHERDS T. U. 2, Z-III
197 2 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-INDET DEC BODY SHERDS T. U. 2, Z-III
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED RIM SHERD T. U. 2, Z-III
201 1 UID CERAMIC-BURNISHED, FINE PASTE, FINE SAND TEMP BODT.U. 2, Z-III
202 10 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS T. U. 2, Z-III
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-UNDEC BODY SHERD T. U. 3, Z-11 (8-13anBD)

197 2 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERDS T. U. 3, Z-II ,
197 2 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERDS T. U. 3, Z-II
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD T. U. 3, Z-II
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED RIM SHERD T. U. 3, Z-II
202 5 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS T. U. 3, Z-II
73 2 CHARRED WOOD FRAGMENTS T. U. 3, Z-I I I (13-28=11D)
74 6 WHELK FRAGMENTS T. U. 3, Z-I I I

173
1
NON-LOCAL CHERT-PRIMARY CORTICAL FLAKE
T. U.
3,
Z-III '
58

P. 3 : SPECIMEN CATALOG
ACC # DESCRIPTION PROVENIENCE
187 1 MT PLEASANT-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD T. U. 3, Z-I I I (13-28cn-BD)
197 3 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERDS T. U. 3, Z-III
202 7 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS T. U. 3, 2-111
74 1 UID BONE FRAGMENTS T.U. 3, FEATURE 2 (20-44anBD)
74 7 OYSTER FRAGMENTS T. U. 3, FEATURE 2
74 7 CLAM FRAGMENTS T.U. 3, FEATURE 2
74 E UID SHELL FRAGMENTS T. U. 3, FEATURE 2
187 1 MT PLEASANT-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD T. U. 3, FEATURE 2
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD T. U. 3, FEATURE 2
202 3 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS T.U. 3, FEATURE 2
205 1 HEMATITE BEAD FRAGMENT-TUBULAR, DRILLED HOLE T. U. 3, FEATURE 2
303 1 C-14 SAMPLE-CHARRED WOOD T.U. 3, FEATURE 2
74 1 TURTLE SHELL FRAGMENT-BURNED T. U. 4, Z-1 (0-]9anBD)
188 1 HANOVER/CARTERET-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD T. U. 4, Z-I
197 5 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERDS T. U. 4, Z-I
197 1 DAR ISLAND/COLINGTON-BURNISHED BODY SHERD T. U. 4, Z-I
197 1 OAR ISLAND/COLINGTON-UNDEC BODY SHERD T. U. 4, Z-1
197 2 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERDS T. U. 4, Z-1
197 2 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-UNDEC RIM SHERDS T. U. 4, Z-I
197 2 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED RIM SHERDS T. U. 4, Z-1
201 1 UID CERAMIC-UNDEC, MED PASTE, FINE SAND TEMP BODY T. U. 4, Z-1
202 12 CERAMIC=:-RESIDUAL SHERDS T. U. 4, Z-1
163 2 CERAMIC ABRADERS-OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON BODY SURFACE SHELL
197 12 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERDS SURFACE SHELL
197 2 OAR ISLAND/COLINGTON-UNDEC BODY SHERDS SURF ACE SHELL
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD SURFACE SHELL
197 2 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-INDET DEC BODY SHERDS SURF ACE SHELL
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED RIM SHERD SURFACE SHELL
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-INDET DEC RIM SHERD SURFACE SHELL
202 14 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS SURFACE SHELL
74 2 WHOLE WHELK SHELLS T. U. 5, Z-I (0-20anBD)
188 3 HANOVER/CARTERET-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERDS T. U. 5, Z-I
163 It CERAMIC ABRADER-OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON RIM T. U. 5, Z-1
197 8 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERDS T.U. 5, Z-I
197 3 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERDS T. U. 5, Z-I
197 2 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-UNDEC BODY SHERDS T. U. 5, 2-1
197 2 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-INDET DEC BODY SHERDS T. U. 5, Z-1
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED RIM SHERD T. U. 5, Z-1
197 6 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERDS T. U. 6, Z-1 (0-21cmBD)
197 3 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERDS T. U. 6, Z-1
197 4 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-UNDEC BODY SHERDS T. U. 6, Z-1
197 2 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-INDET DEC BODY SHERDS T. U. 6, 2-1
197 1 OAK ISLAND/CO'LINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED RIM SHERD T. U. 61 Z-1
202 17 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS T. U. 6, Z-1
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD T. U. 6, Z-I I (21-25anBD)
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-INDET DEC BODY SHERD T. U. 6, Z-II
197 3 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERDS T. U. 7, Z-I (0-18cmBD)
197 1 DAR ISLAND/COLINGTON-UNDEC BODY SHERDS T. U. 7, 2-1
197 7 DAR ISLAND/COLINGTON-INDET DEC BODY SHERDS T. U. 7, Z-I
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED RIM SHERD T. U. 7, Z-I
202 10 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS T. U. 7, Z-I
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-INDET DEC BODY SHERD T. U. 7, FEATURE 3 (20-38anBD)
202 2 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS T.U. 7, FEATURE 3
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERD T. U. 7, Z-II (18-28anBD)
59

P. 4 .
SPECIMEN CATALOG
ACC # DESCRIPTION
202 2 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS
197 5 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED BODY SHERDS
197 1 OAR ISLAND/COLINGTON-CORDMARKED BODY SHERD
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-UNDEC BODY SHERD
197 4 OAK ISLAND/COLINGTON-INDET DEC BODY SHERDS
197 1 OAK ISLAND/COLINBTON-FABRIC IMPRESSED RIM SHERD
202 44 CERAMIC-RESIDUAL SHERDS
Number of artifacts in printout: 454
# of artifacts excluded by security rating: O
Output completed: 19DEC86 2:09
PROVENIENCE
T. U. 7, [-I I
SURFACE BE FIELD
SURFACE BE FIELD
SURFACE BE FIELD
SURFACE BE FIELD
SURFACE BE FIELD
SURFACE BE FIELD
(18-28anBD)
60

ATTACHMENT C

I
• Mr. Jaynes G. Cacao i as, p. E. March 17, 1987
Hussey, Gay & Bell International
' of South Carolina
P.O. Box 7967
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
I Subject: Revised Guthrie Tract Report
Gentlemen:
Based on a telephone conversation on this date with Mr. Dave Cotton
of North Carolina DHEC, we have found and corrected two errors in our Guthrie
Tract report dated February 23. Both errors were in reporting total angering
depth for auger borings 3 and 8 on Table I. For boring 3, total auger depth
shown was 312" which we have changed to the correct depth of 3111".
I Similarly, for boring 8, total auger depth shown was 412" which we have
changed to the correct depth of 418". The enclosed copies of the report
reflect these changes.
Please accept our revised report, and our apologies for any
inconveniences that this has caused.
Very Truly Yours,
I COAST L ENGINEERI" & ESTING CO pNAY
i
Michael L. Allen, E.I.T.
Project Engineer
1
' W. Chuck Rushing, 1=. E.
Senior Registered Engineer-
I MLA/s
attatchments

I
Geotechnical / Materials Engineering Consultants
n
?J
i Mr. Jaynes G. Cacavias, P. E.
Hussey, Gay & Bell International
' of South Carolina
P.O. Box 7967
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Subject: Report of Geohydrologic Survey
Guthrie Tract
Swansboro, North Carolina
t Gentlemen:
As authorized, Coastal Engineering & Testing Company has completed
field and laboratory work, and engineering analyses associated with the
referenced geohydrologic survey. Based on conversations with you prior to
commencing with work on this project, we understand that the purpose for this
survey is to provide shallow soils and groundwater table information, to be
used in preliminary foundation evaluations, and design of pavements and
subsurface exfiltration systems for storm water and sanitary sewer effluent.
' SITE & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located on NC Hwy 24 approximately 0.5 miles
' east of the town of Swansboro, North Carolina. The property boundaries
include Hwy 24 to the north, the Cedar Point Villas development to the west,
the Intracoastal Waterway to the south, and a trailer park/ carzpground to the
east. Generally, site contours are level, and vegetation consists mostly of
short and tall grasses, and a single row of mature cedar trees. Existing
structures include a paved access road, several shed-type buildings, and a
bulkheaded boat slip along the waterfront.
The proposed development includes several condominium buildings, a
dry storage boat stack, a bulkheaded marina, a clubhouse and swimming pool, an
' on-site package plant sewage treatment facility, and associated paved
driveways and parking areas.
t FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES
Thirteen hand auger borings were performed at locations indicated
on Figure I in the appendix to determine shallow soil stratification and to
obtain samples for laboratory testing. Groundwater table measurements were
obtained at each boring location. Typically, on similar sites where the
shallow soils are fairly clean fine sands, the groundwater table is considered
' to be the depth at which the auger cuttings are totally saturated, and upon
retracting the auger, the soils flow rapidly into the open hole. A more
accurate groundwater study would require installation of a piezometer with a
well screen. Table I in the appendix provides a log of each boring, listing
' soil stratigraphy and groundwater measurements.
Geotechnical / Materials Engineering Consultants
I "
Guthrie Tract Geohydrologic Survey
page
In the laboratory, bag samples of hand auger cuttings were analyzed
by the Project Engineer for classification and assigning required laboratory
i
i
tests. Laboratory testing included natural moisture n s
ze
content, gra
analysis with a 200 wash, and falling head permeability on remolded samples of
representative soils. Tabl e I in the appendix provides laboratory test
results.
' FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
As indicated by the hand auger boring logs, the shallow soil
stratigraphy at this site is quite uniform. A generalized description would
' consist of 6 to 10 inches of light to dark brown fine sand with varying
contents of fine roots in the upper 1 to 1.5 inches, underlaid by tan to
orange slightly silty fine sand to clean fine sand to the total depth of
investigation. The surface layer at boring locations 11 R 12 was a darker
brown to black silty fine sand with a higher organic content and shell
fragments to 8 to 12 inches. Boring 13, located in the area where the
proposed marina will be excavated, encountered this same surface layer to a
' depth of 2.5 f eet, and with an even greater organic content. This layer was
underlaid by a gray brown slightly silty fine sand layer to termination depth.
Groundwater. measurements at the time of boring indicated a
generally shallow groundwater table, as would be expected based on the low
site elevations. Measurements ranged from 210" to 418" beneath the ground
surface. Figure I illustrates the various groundwater depths at the locations
' measured. We expect that groundwater depths at this site fluctuate with tidal
influences and variations in amounts of seasonal rainfall. Givers a
combination of high tides and more than moderate amounts of precipitation, we
estimate groundwater could rise as high as 18 inches beneath the existing
ground surface at lower elevations.
Laboratory test results indicated that the predominant soil type
encountered at this site would be classified under the Unified Soil
Classification System as SP materials, or poorly graded fine sands with 80 to
85 percent of the soil particles falling between the 50 and 200 sieve sizes.
' The average percentage of silt-size particles in the major group of the
samples tested was approximately 3 percent. The surface layer at borings 11,
12, & 13 had a higher silt content in the range of 6 to 8 percent, and the
' layer from minus 5" to 21£" at boring 13 had a silt and organics content of
13.9 percent.

1

Falling head permeability tests were run on remolded samples of
blended soils from the surface layer at boring locations 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10,
and from the underlying layer at boring locations 2,4,5,6,8, and 9. The
results of 1.7 and 2.2 inches per hour, respectively, indicate fairly rapidly
permeable or" free-draining soils in the upper three to four feet. A third
permeability test was run on a sample of the 5" to 216" layer of dark brown to
black silty organic fine sand from boring location 13, assuming that this
excavated material would be used to raise grades in the wastewater effluent
exfiltration areas if suitable. This soil was found to have much slower
permeability characteristics because of its higher silt and organic content,
with a result of .0033 inches per hour.

Guthrie Tract Geohydrologic Survey
' page 3
EVALUATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on Our evaluations of field and laboratory test results, and
our knowledge of the proposed construction, we have the following
recommendations relative to building foundations, pavements, and storm water
and treatment plant effluent exfiltration systems.
• Foundations: Assuming the condominium buildings and dry boat
' storage shed will be located in the vicinity of our borings 6,7,8,9,10, and
11, the shallow soils in this part of the site are suitable for providing
shallow bearing support of conventional spread footing foundations. However ,
' we recommend a representative number of deeper soil test borings be performed
within building footprints once final building locations have been determined.
The purpose for this additional deeper investigation would be to delineate any
' soft sail layers that might exist within a critical affected depth beneath the
buildings (15 to 20 feet). Also, as part of your conceptual building design,
we recommend that you consider the potential uplift or overturning forces on
the proposed buildings resulting from storm-velocity winds. It may be
' necessary to anticipate a pile foundation system for anchorage to resist
overturning moments even if soils are capable of providing adequate bearing
capacity for footings.
Pavements: The shallow soils at the site are capable of providing
uniform subgrade stability for asphaltic pavements on proposed driveways and
parking areas. After stripping the grass and topsoil veneer (three to six
inches) from the grassed areas, and/or clearing and grubbing the trees and
stump/root systems from the wooded area, we recommend that the sandy subgrade
be proofrolled with a loaded dump truck to delineate any isolated soft or
' unstable areas. These should be undercut and backfilled with suitable
compacted structural fill similar to the in-situ soils. Then, prior to
placement of base course, the subgrade should be densified by making two to
four full passes with a vibratory steel-drum roller.
Based on an assumed CBR value of 8 to 10 for the soils encountered,
and assumed traffic consisting mainly of passenger cars and light trucks, we
' recommend normal duty pavements in access roads and condorniniurn 'park irig areas
consist of a minimum of 4 inches of compacted Stabilized Aggregate Base Course
conforming to local State Highway Department standards. A topping of 1-1/2
' inches of Asppaltic Concrete Surface Course could then be applied in
accordance with approved Highway Department procedures. We recommend
implementation of a heavy-duty pavement in the vicinity of the dry boat
' storage shed where fork lift trucks will be operating. This should consist of
a minimum layer of 6 inches of SABC with a 2 inch topping of asphalt.
Exfiltration Systems: The shallow soils encountered at the site in
the vicinity of the proposed package treatment plant location (CETCO's boring
locations 1 through 7) exhibit suitable properties for land application of
treated effluent. The fine-grained sands are fairly rapidly permeable in a
remolded compacted state, and although their undisturbed field permeability
' properties are likely more rapid due to their looser state, we recommend that
the values reported above be used in design since these soils will be
densified by earthwork and other construction traffic. The minimum
groundwater seperation in this area of the site was 318" at the time of our
measurements, but we feel that higher groundwater conditions could exist as
described above and raise t o within 2 fe et of the ground surface.

Guthrie Tract GeohYdrola9is Survey
' page 4
We recommend that grades be raised in the proposed exfiltration
' area using sandy, free-draining soils similar to the in-situ soils. Based on
the results of boring 13, the upper 2-1/2 feet of soils excavated from the
proposed marina will not be suitable for this application. These soils should
be stockpiled on-site for later use in landscaped areas or other areas of
non-structural application. However, soils encountered below this surface
layer exhibit good permeability characteristics and would therefore be
suitable.
' We feel that the groundwater table may be too shallow in the
vicinity of the proposed condominium buildings to implement an underground
' exfiltration system for storm water runoff. At the time of our measurements,
we encountered groundwater as shallow as 2 feet. Assuming, as before, that
this could fluctuate higher than this during coincidental high tides and more
than moderate precipitation, then the subgrade exfiltration drains could flood
t and overflow. We recommend exploring some other options for this application.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this service. Please
contact our office at your convenience with any questions you may have
regarding this report, or if we may assist you with additional foundation
borings when final building siting has been determined.
' Very Truly Yours,

' MLA/s
attatchments

COASTAL ENGINEERI G & EST G 0 PANY
Michael L. Allen, E.I.T.
Project Engineer
W. Chuck Rushing, P. .
Senior Registered Engineer

1
1

S.R. 24
GRASS FIELD
6-1
PAVED
ACCESS
ROAD`
CEDAR POINT
VILLAS PROPERTY
1
PROPERTY
LINE
?-3 6-4
4'0SITE
LIMIT
4'D
OVERGROWN
FALLOW FIELD

1 _?.. GRASS FIELD

45

t •r ' r ,

C?u?e?ET¢AC?
??K???l? `?u2?EY
?/?? N G
1
1
1
1.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE I
HAND-AUGER BORING LOGS
Guthrie Tract Geohydrologic Survey
Swansboro, North Carolina
HAND SAMPLE % FALL.
AUGER DEPTH % PASS. HEAD
NUMBER (feet) SOIL DESCRIPTION FOIST. #200 PERM.
1 0 -110" Brown fine SAND 8.8 3.6
1' 011-2' 2" Tan fine SAND
212"-410" Light tan fine SAND
Groundwater Encountered at 3110''
2 0 - 10" Light brown fine SAND 6.2 2.7 1.7
10"-318" Orange fine SAND 13.6 3.2 2.2
Groundwater Encountered at 318"
3 0 -112" Brown fine SAND 11.8 2.7 1.7
- 112"-3111" Light tan fine SAND
Groundwater Encountered at 3111"
4 0 - 8" Brown fine SAND 6.5 2.7 1.7
811-412's Orange fine SAND 17.5 3.2 2.2
Groundwater Encountered at 410"
5 0 - 8" Light brown fine SAND
8"-4' 6" Orange tan fine SAND 10.2 3.2 2.2
Groundwater Encountered at 410"
6 0 - 8" Light brown fine SAND 6.8 2.7 1.7
W-410" Orange tan fine SAND 12.0 3.2 2.2
Groundwater Encountered at 410''
7 0 - 10" Light brown, fine SAND 7.2 2.7 1.7
10"-416" Light tan fine SAND
Groundwater Encountered at 416"
8 0 - 7" Light brown fine SAND 7.2 2.7 1.7
- 711-41811 Orange tan fine SAND 6.8 3.2 2.2
Groundwater Encountered at 418"

TABLE I (cont.)
HAND-AUGER BORING LOGS
Guthrie Tract Geohydrologic Survey
Swansboro, North Carolina
HAND SAMPLE % FALL.
AUGER DEPTH '/. PASS. HEAD
NUMBER (feet) SOIL DESCRIPTION MOIST. #200 PERM.
9 G - 5" Red oranae fine SAND
5"-3'G" Orange tarp fine SAND 14.6 3.2 L 2 L• 2P
Groundwater Encountered at 316"
10 0 - 6" Brawn to dark brawn 12.4 5.7 1.7
slightly silty fine SAND
6"-3'6" Orange fine SAND
Groundwater Encountered at 3' 0"
11 0 - a" Dark brown, to black 15.5 7.9
silty fine SAND w/
shell fragments
S"-1'0" Brawn fine SAND
1'0"-3'0" Brawn tan fine SAND
Groundwater Encountered at 2110"
12 0 -110" Dark brown to black 15.5 7.9
silty fine SAND w/
shell fragments
1'0 '0" Brown to tar; fine SAND
Groundwater Encountered at 2' 0"
13 0 - 5" Brown silty fine SAND w/ 26. 3 6.1
fine roots
5"-2' 6" Dark brawn & black silty 29. a 13.9 .003
fine SAND w/med. orq_anics
2' 6"-3' 0" Light brown silty fine 20. 6 G. 2
SAND
Groundwater Encountered at 2'10"

n

ATTACHMENT D
j
' 654-8 King Street
Charleston, SC 29403
ENGINEERING AND TESTING [phone]
' December 16, 1987
Mr. James G. Cacav i as, P. E.
Hussey, Gay, Bell & DeYoung International
of South Carolina
P.O. Box 7967
' Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Subject: Report of Geohydrological Survey, Phase II
Guthrie Tract
Swansboro, North Carolina
' Gentlemen:
As requested, Coastal Engineering & Testing Company has performed
additional hand auger borings and water table measurements, as well as field
' permeability tests at the referenced project site. The purpose for this
additional investigation was to provide information to the Project Civil
Engineer for use in his final drainage design and to facilitate approval by
' the applicable regulatory agencies.
FIELD & LABORATORY PROCEDURES
' Twenty-four hand auger borings were performed at locations indicated
on a 501-scale drawing which acccompanies this report, corresponding with
proposed storm water retention areas throughout the development. A log of
' each auger hole was maintained in the field including visual soil
descriptions, depths to strata changes, and depth to groundwater. A summary
of the hand auger boring logs is presented on Table I in the appendix.
' Field' permeability tests were performed at five representative hand
auger locations across the site. The double-ring infiltrometer test (ASTM
D-33601) was used for determining field permeability. Each test site was
' pre-soaked prior to initiating the test in order to simulate permeability of
saturated soils. Shallow groundwater monitoring wells were installed in four
of the hand auger holes to allow subsequent groundwater measurements to be
' obtained for seasonal high groundwater information. . Groundwater measurements
were obtained following several rainfall events.
Laboratory procedures included analysis of soil samples by the
' Project Engineer for classification and assigning lab tests. Representative
samples were selected for natural moisture content and 20103 wash testing.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS •
1Generally, the, soil stratification encountered across the site
' corresponded closely with the widespread hand auger borings performed for the
preliminary site investigation. The soil layering within the 4 to 4-1/2 foot
depth of investigation consisted mostly of interbedded brown, tart' and orange
fine sands, with a mat of grass roots in the surface 1-1/2 to 3 inches, and a
slight shell content to 1-1/2 feet in the grassed areas at the south one-third
" of the site. Isolated layers of black, organic silty fine sand were "
encountered in the areas of lowest elevation between the +5 and +7 foot
' :; contours. Geotechnical /- Materials Engineering Consultants
Guthrie Tract Geohydrologic Survey, Phase II
' page
Field permeability test results ranged from 13 inches per hour at
boring B-3 located. in the plowed area of the property to 0.25 inches per hour
at boring B-23 located near the +6 foot contour near the east property line.
Groundwater table measurements at the time of the investigation
ranged from 473" at the higher elevations to 1'10" at the lowest elevations.
All but three test locations had a minimum of two feet of groundwater
seperation. Subsequent groundwater measurements in the four monitoring wells
indicated the groundwater level at the higher elevations of the site
fluctuated very little as a result of periodic rainfall, but groundwater at
the lower elevations (below elevation +8) fluctuated more significantly. At
' the time of our investigation, the water levels in wells 3 and 41 located at
baring locations B-21 and B-84, were 213" and 118", respectively. Subsequent
measurements following several rainfall events indicated water was as shallow
as 119" and 019", respectively.
' Laboratory test results indicated the sandy soils on-site were quite
uniform in particle size distribution, with most samples having less than 4
' percent silt-sized particles. Several of the surface layer samples from the
grassed area had 4 to 6 percent silt, and one sample obtained from the surface
layer at boring B-24 had 8.4 percent silt.
Reference to Table I in the appendix will provide complete
documentation of field and laboratory test results. Table II, also attatched,,
provides subsequent groundwater readings obtained in the groundwater
' monitoring wells.
EVALUATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
t Inasmuch as our preliminary report provided some evaluations
regarding project foundations and pavements, and since all our field test
locations for this phase of the survey were in proposed stormwater
' exfiltration areas, we have limited our evaluations and recommendations in
this report to the proposed exfiltration plans.
Based on the results of our hand auger borings, field permeability
testing, and groundwater monitoring at this site, we conclude that the
stormwater exfiltration system currently proposed for that part of the site-
' exisiting at an elevation above +8 feet meets the minimum requirements
outlined by the State permitting agency for this application. Below elevation
+8 however, minimum groundwater seperation and soil permeability requirements
are not met at most test locations.
' The hand auger borings and groundwater measurements performed at
proposed stormwater storagelexfiltration areas located between contours +8 and
' +12 indicated groundwater seperation met the minimum requirements by a narrow
margin. So final site elevations in this part of the site must be designed so
that the existing ground surface is the lowest elevation. In other words, the
' building and parking areas surrounding the proposed exfiltration areas will
require filling to promote positive overl-and flow of runoff into these areas,
as opposed to cutting these areas to promote required drainage flow. Above
elevation +12, groundwater seperation far exceeds minimum requirements, so you
' should have more flexibility in designing finish grades. In fact, you have-
the option of lowering elevations in this part of the site in order to obtain
adequate fill sails to elevate the lower areas of the site (all soils cut from
' this area would be suitable for use as structural fill except the tap one to
three inches).

Guthrie Tract Geohydrologic Survey, Phase,II
Pape 3
Reference to your STORM DRAINAGE MASTER FLAN that was submitted to
us for use in this investigation, the inadequate groundwater separation at the
lower elevations of the site could result in the elimination of at least one,
and maybe two proposed buildings. Normally, when faced with a shallow
groundwater problem, we would recommend elevating the ground surface in the
affected area to increase groundwater seperation. But it is our understanding
that the regulations which apply to this development specify that e>filtration
areas cannot be established in fill soils for some reas n. So we recommend
that you re-evaluate your proposed building layout in this area in light of
this information.
We appreciate the opportunity to continue our involvement in this
project. Please contact our office at your convenience if we can further
assist you in any way.
Very truly yours,
COAS ENGIN RI STI G ANY
Michael L. Allen, E.I.T.
proje t Engir er
W. Chuck Rushing, P. E.
Senior Registered Engineer
MLA/s
attatchments

TABLE I
HAND-AUGER BORING LOSS
Guthrie Tract Geohydrologic Survey, Phase II
Swansboro, North Carolina
HAND .SAMPLE % FIELD
AUGER DEPTH % PASS PERM
NUMBER (feet) SOIL DESCRIPTION MOIST #200 (in/hr•)?
1 0 -(05" Light brown fine SAND
03 5"-4' G" Tar, orange fine SAND 610 5. 1
Groundwater encountered @ 413"
L C+ -015" Light brown fine SAND
0753'-49611 Brown orange fine SAND
Groundwater encountered @ 413"
3 0 -017" Light brown fine SAND 5.6 3.2 13.0
C}' 711-4' 6" Tan orange fine SAND 28.1 3.0
Groundwater encountered @ 411"
4 0 -018" Brown fine SAND
018#'-49611 Tan fine SAND
Groundwater encountered @ 410"
5 0 -110" Brown fine SAND
11011-41611 Tart fine SAND
Groundwater encountered @ 410"
6 U -0110" Brown fine SAND
0110"-476" Tart fine SAND
Groundwater encountered @ 411"
7 0 .-1' 4" Brown fine SAND
11411-41611 Tart fine SAND
Groundwater encountered @ 411"
8 0 -015" Brawn fine SAND
015"-416" Tart fine SAND
Groundwater encountered @ 410"
* Double-ring infiltrometer method, ASTM D-3385-75

TABLE I (cont.)
HAND-AUGER BORING LOGS
Guthrie Tract Geohydrologic Survey, Phase II
Swansboro, North Carolina
HAND SAMPLE
AUGER DEPTH
NUMBER (feet) SOIL DESCRIPTION

9 0 -016" Brown fine SAND
t>' 61_- j
6"
Tars fine SAND
21611-416's Tan orange fine SAND
Groundwater encountered @ 319"
10 0 -014" Brown fine SAND
0' 411-2' 10" Tan fine SAND
2110"-416" Tan orange fine SAND
Groundwater encountered @ 317"
11 0 -016" Dark brawn fine SAND
w/ oyster shell
0'6"-410" Brown grange fine SAND
Groundwater encountered @ 314"
12 0 -017" Dark brown fine SAND
w/ grass roots
01713-410" Brawn orange fine SAND
Groundwater encountered @ 312"
13 0 -110" Dark brown fine SAND
w/ grass roots
1'0"-4'0" Tan fine SAND
Groundwater encountered @ 210"
14 0 -112" Brawn fine SAND w/ grass
roots in top 3"
1'2"-4'0" Tar, fine SAND
Groundwater encountered @ 211"
15 0 -013" Dark brown fine SAND
w/ grass roots
013"-410" Tan brown fine SAND
Groundwater encountered @ 210"
% FIELD
% PASS PERM
MOIST #P200 (in/hr)}

9.6 5.0 8.5
25. 8 2.0
8.0 3.8
13.5 3.3
13.3 3.7
26.3 2.5
17.8 5.9
24.1 2.8
0.45
18.4 3.4
23.8 2.6
* Double-ring infiltrometer method, ASTM D-3385-75

i
i
i
TABLE 14cont.>
HAND-AUGER BORING LOGS
Guthrie Tract Geohydrologic Survey, Phase II
Swansboro, North Carolina
HAND SAMPLE % FIELD
AUGER DEPTH % PASS PERM
NUMBER, (feet) SOIL DESCRIPTION MOIST 41200 tin/hr>*
16 0 -0111" Dark brown fine SAND
.w/ grass roots & shells
0' 11"-410" Tars fine SAND
Groundwater encountered @ 2'2'
17 0 -1101, Dark brown fine SAND 20.7 5.7
w4 grass roots
1'0"-490" Tars fine SAND
Groundwater encountered @ 1'11"
18 0 -112" Dark brown fine SAND 17.9 5.9 0.61
w/ grass roots & shells
112"-41010 Tars fine SAND 24.3 2.9
Groundwater encountered @ 212"
19 0 -110" Dark brown fine SAND .22.2 4.1
w/ grass roots.-
170s'-41011 Tan fine SAND 25.7 2.8
Groundwater encountered @ 2'0"
20 0 -017" Black silty SAND 23.4 3.6
w/ grass roots & shell
07711-199" Dark brown sand w/ shell 21.1 4.6
119"-310" Tar, gray fine SAND
Groundwater encountered @ 210"
21 0 -016" Dark brown fine SAND 21.6 5.9
w/ grass roots
0'6"-1'6" Black silty SAND w/ shell 20.1 4.3
1'6"-310" Tar, gray fine SAND
Groundwater encountered @ 211"
* Double-ring infiltrometer method, ASTM D-3385-75

i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i

TABLE I (cont.)
HAND-AUGER BORING LOGS
Guthrie Tract Geohydrologic Survey, Phase II
Swansboro, North Carolina
HAND SAMPLE
AUGER DEPTH
NUMBER (feet) SOIL DESCRIPTION

22 0 -114" Dark brown fine SAND
w/ grass roots
114"-37 011 Tarr gray fine SAND
Groundwat er encountered @ 210"
23 0 -1'01, Dark brown fine SAND
w/ grass roots
11011-410" Tan brown fine SAND
Groundwat er encountered @ 1110"
24 U -0181, Black silty SAND
w/ organics & roots
018"-1'6" Gray brown SAND w/ shell
11911-310" Tan gray fine SAND
Groundwat er encountered @ 1110"
% FIELD
% 'ASS PERM
MOIST #200 (in/hr)*
16.9 3.9 0.25
23.0 4.1
50.7 8.4
21.8 6.0
* Double-ring infiltrometer method, ASTM D-3385-75

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE II
GROUNDWATER TABLE MEASUREMENTS
Guthrie Tract 6eohydrologic Survey, Phase II
Swans6oro, North Carolina
DATE MEASUREMENTS
MEASURE LAST WELL NO 1 WELL NO S WELL NO 3 WELL NO 4
DATE RAIN TIDE @ $-10A @ B-16A @ $-21A @ R-24A

12110 -- high 3'7" 272" 2'1° 1'10"
12/17 12/16 low 3'4" 2'6" 2'3" 119"
12/23 12/22 raid -1 411 21 5#1 11 /311
1 01 913
t
7
12/30 12/29 low 3' 3° 21 2" 1
' St1 1, 2
„

L'I

ATTACHMENT E

YC,

----•- 77
.
,??'RsyJ/N? RuNOf,? ' .?6 PT? yS/ ? --Sc 5 ? - 55 ' ??L?L,E Z -/

6

JY7

AND.
US/rY__. CN=.'
iNTr-.PfTc
Iff

G'©MPc??c VDLTJME ' OF ??NoF?
AWN or' VMUME = . RjFD vc /Z?,yoFf •©E?H X .Ord/rYr TE A
_ 3??2 cv--->_
,? _ vN j/eLvr 1,11-74.17-.8,9-siH f-.Dietci /N .rU?y. f3RsiN.
x?sIt?
O? L / ?7.2,A77ort/ R
4S'/N yoLUME
I?dLU?E _ -4GSitiN .9?PT? X iNF/?, 977IV Zs'?s??5!
VP 4- UA-d Er r X.
i
LL
?A>NF?tL i C'

_/. 5 O.O?'S O•/65 O 2 O. ASS O G85 .OI /. ZS

:. 7?07?L .

Jy°. .?Rr9/N? RUNor" ? FPTt/ rJS/?U? Sc 5 T??- 55 ' ?f?L.,?: 2 -/ -

R/?NFh+t? , ?

75
D
S
d 9A3 91?
/. 0.085 O. /65 D. 2 O. y55 O. X 85 . D/ / Z S

I -V7

C'P1WR J7c you-.// OF TwNoFF
RUN sFf= vo"ME : = . /eiF..D vCFD Raw AEP?H. X . •Or?f/ry/?t?C . ?`?fI
rf
7z car-Tt:
cvr??? Z&,ge?T.!E' -r/One AA 5/N
16
.EP/ _ .Ap!/iS? Vd L dr?E :-' lN?7Gjs?N f..l?t.?tc% ?A?/yF?LL
•Ocs/ ?? ..O?yT?. ? ?
D?? /NF/?.7?A770?[ Bf?S//Y V?LC/ME•
VOLUME _ •Ocsi?,?/ •?E?'i? .X 1//?Ly?2f?1l? T'?s/h!
VmI- lJ t4 F =

? z ` /7'

HUSSEY, GAY & BELL
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
COMP. BY CHKD. BY

APVD. BY
JOB. NO. 2 Q?
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
SuB-! RSA ? / -
I T Ce?:NCRAL -OA 7-A
1 ?: -/p . 9Z
-rO -rA 4- 4;2
o. io;rg4. AREA ?EXGL ?1?Ii`!r? r?vF/?-7 f1 % /Onj S?N? 57
' 3 p7 1s 1- /?If 'fc?rovs 4-QVEe 412EA = O.4-3
4 . /MPE2V/BUS c?c?c? 6. Z/-.3 x 1,90 =
' X?r
O. 5.7R?
,OE?c?»IrNE yVF/rP7r-D 2cfNoF cU•?IlE /?/UM6EP (-cN) ?scs 7-K-55
L,4?lD ysE / c/Y??'!? -- -Z 19'oAvc7
-
7-51-144

i

I

I

SHEET _ OF PAGE NO
SUBJECT ---
9/ 7.
Rr7ini? Ru?yoFF" .??PT?/ V S/ty4? .s'c 5 77?'- 55 ?Aft z

0 75 0 S
d
5 0,095 0-16-5 o 0.4.55 0 695 fl, f a8
u.51mq C" V%= AND P - 1-:5 rN74,e1 .z47,= g w i cN= %O ,q.vv 75 I elAlOF - -025-."T// -m' 1%' 8,_11NC/ls
cOti11°tJTL VOt1J!`171f- -
RuN 6FF l/o`UME _ ,ercD vc£? /?v/VOfi/f ?EPly X
1UAIOA--2v- V01 u?7AE ?a. ? INcr r? s x l //zrN<° ?? ?O S7' x 41- 35
/?0 90 cv ?/--
c"o?P?7?
G Zi?A 7/0/y S 4 S/,k/ 4 e,r: A= Q. ?S 1
B,4 l/
7r47?{?i% ?2AT/«1 _-_8•?5/N -.___Vc?ciM_ E:..__
?J
? 2107 ? ,J r`-?--
I
HUSSEY, GAY & BELL
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
COMP. BY-
CHKD. BY
APVD. BY
JE ?OA ; a
JOB. NO. Q?
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
SUB-A,e?l1 ? ?_
SHEET OF PAGE NO.
SUBJECT
7-t9 7-4 4-
' z. ioTRt_ AREA ('?CGLtJDI!`lc? 1,qF14-T2AT/CUn/ 70 /¢z
3 Tar-f?< /? Fc?rovs covjE)E' AREA -= ©- 5¢ /4--
OE?c721-rJ/NE yVF/?W1 Tr-D
. 2?-fNOF? CURI/E NUM6ER (-C/`/ v'scs Tie-SS
LAID ysE / ?/Y??? z-Z ?o,?vcT

67PC? SP.9zC/l rah ScRj"? Z Z ??p 75? / (p c'l 2
' 7oTA?- y z S z
. -7 0
1
?ETERrrI/Nt RUN?Ff ??f'Tf/ ?S/? S'c 5 7'? - 5? ??f??!-E 2 ?/
_ C

R??,vFAzL
P0mcw ,, 0 75 o 5 O
15 0,095 0-165
O.2
O. SS
0 G 85
/. O/
/. z$
US/N? CN = 13 ANO /--' - / S ivcs/?s
/.vTc ef?? T BEiw? cT/= ?Q .q.?v y5
9,ct viceo F2vuoFr -a O. g$
GOMF?UTG Vou1ME of -__1'?yAeEF -
Rt1t4 Vo<c4ME _ DvcE-L>r? Avorf -?cPjH X
/!utof'f 1/ocun&4- = O 9?1/^1 x Py x 43sZ, r? ?1 z
5 ©: ' UT2F /41.!?-i-ZE477OA1 O- / Z Alie
s
Die
12.55
x?o/Zs9c. x s off/??
Voi- vp) - _ 75 yr-t
?9Z© cu-??

-
- 1 I HUSSEY, GAYi&
- -OONSUtT&G-ENGINEERS { t---?
-Bl? ? - --+
- Mf?
OB-i
ATE'
N

-- -
St?EE
-sUBJE
_
T
Tr j
O PRG ;
G?-?r?? `t /

- -'-
1
- -CHKO.- BY ----1--
i I i
I i
I
? ? - - ' -
/ `
- Ra/D-BYt--
?+ -
-- -i
- -
ATE r - F13 --

l
J
r
i

.OE?c?Z? ,
?NE ' yS/E/?;HT?D? _R?I
N.
?
j::: ?C?/?PI
/?{
Un_s
18
E2?cN)_ _scsj TK-S
S __

i

0 X75 j S ?j i
._?... 0.085 OySS 0685 .D/! /Z8
1
TwIaFTF'.•Oi7f/_
I
G'oMPcJ?c Vo?ME ! of JPc?NoFF • _ :. -. : _ ` . :. :
2
o, s x 35"
'/ x i _6 7,4
VIA/
IF c77 00s ?NF.f1LL /N. /f35%• .(3AsiN.
1 ;
- 1107AL. ' /NF/L7.2A TlON ?,?5/N Vycc/ME.. _ _
! I HUSSEY, AYj& BELL I T j ! {--- -
-j ,_ ---- ---'?- -
--CON
t - t - - --CONSULTING ENGINE '
ERS -T ?O Z HE
ET E O? ?AG i O. i - -
- --
1-- - ATE - --SUBJErT
-- i- j - - - ?HK: $Y, -?--?---- ---,--{SAT
j f
i - P-VD' -BY ' ? ! I AT - - /J -r-f? -' - I -
i 1 i ( I ? 1> I I
! 1 SUB Q? i.
-_ ' ! I?4?4L..???'!l_-?R_ ?/_4_t[s ?? FQ ilk`. ? ?" i I-1----i--
1-7 VS
ly.
i •
,OED- E/v'f/T?D _RyNaF _I _ : ?:GU?PY -/U'U!?l8 !-! w , Sc s TK-S$ ---! --
- I
1-74 laki
!! ''' i O i j ' 2 !
- --- -- - --- -- - . --- - --_.-- ; -- - --' '----- --?- Qom: -- - -
,Zs
' i I I ? 1
+ i.
?___-- TERhJ/NE RtaN?F,r 1.?FP7t/ t?SIN?' _ .SC S 77e- 5? TT l?L,E ' "/ _ I
? i
D 1 5
lD o5 a
45 0085 O. /65 b2 D?55 0685 ,OIj %?S
-- - - ---- ---- - -
75
?'? G©MPtJ?G VOt1JME OF JPUN?F? - . _ ._ .:. : _ _ ' _
RED
ch Ad va _
•?E H ?' _ i in/.9't,
00=7 'VMOME v /
" /n4F? Ak.: X__?#
?L
xz-P
.:C9?PU7ZG' /N.?/LTi?A7/ON 1Ri15/N? S/.zE,
_.?EIy/ ..= vN Ye ?w1E ; :.. h,IFILj 89?N. t,Di erc?_ R!??NFf1LL -:/N . ?niFj?,%. BAsiN.
.OErF?-:? ?p. D x!f356o.-f??] .-. f/"/- S iN.-?, -? 0 7'rf
_ ?.07A' L. /NF/G.7 0,4 774W Bs4-'VN 1/o?uME•
l??J?/?E _ -4c'S?tiiS/ _.?C?'f.// _?C lyF/?.?T?fJT/Or? .13?s?iS/. :. _
2

l
- t i H
-

.4 USSEY, bAYI& B LL
ON?t1LTlNGfNGN}IEERS

R-$?

'. i I
JOB-1N
-L-4
S ? EET iOF- - 7 -7 --=

-5 BJE T

AG O.I

--

--

f ?
-C J
HKD. $Y -?- +-
ATE-
I - I

?

j I ? S ' Br y2 !G I 1? f ? i ? ? ( I

?• . T
i
bE??tyl?l?IE_ _y?/E/?%H?t?--R?-tNA cU?C'Y? ?U?v18F2 ? ?c

?!)'.?5? TR-S5?

. I
.
a
ly - Rte!/NE RUNOFF
T t

-10
{ S D
S
a

_ ..-
i j
_.. _ -' :_._..RuNs? ?l/c?.uME': = R?DvcFV.??v?Ff •??if/__ X : ,O?i?.9??r.?.??h+
Cam'! 'V72 ' ` /NFi?T.?.C1T/on/ RA 5/N
._ .fS/ lt,:• L3AS/N.
:../NF.I4r. &93/is/. f.h4 4 Rs??ry 44 ._.11V
O?lJf.<?f?cfD=O.Z?,x3560/ X ?m =. Z
A -,O4FPT,1_ C . _
_ T47•AL
I?4??I?E _ •Ocs??i1/ •??Pi'?/ .X ??S/F/L,7T?i?17? .13?s }/. . %rrz:= i?? -
74 ?
I I HUSSEY, GAY i& BELL - I I- 1-?--

-- --
- - - - -
JOB
CON
NO
-
ULTINGfN
I
I
-
-
-- i
-
-
j
S
G
EFRiS
SF E
It
IOF- i
PAG O.I
i
- - - GOMR-8Y ? -?- -dATE;- 1 - t --±--SUBJE T-4 --
. .. !- - •- -- --GHKD: BY'--- - - -;----1- *----HATE'-----+---;------?--- - - ;_45- - ?
i 44
-?- - -- -- ?RVDI BY ATE
-- - - --? -- ---

_ . -
.

+ - ---?--- ;- --- -1--?- --- ---1---?- -- ---t--i---- --- --?-- - -----
1 fl,
{ 1 -f { - ,
17

--I---=--
up
91
Ae
-
-
I A_ 11-01

17 .DET?k-slIiVA'C-' v?ior-_rlieN?D I RlriVOFF ! '?r:C(Y?PI/E! NUMRF,P. ! cNi Ac51 7-9-5 6Y {
.
-=--
Y

<, c s Ia 1s ;?
/ -5 0.085 _p. /65_ J z O ttSS O r,
?
lo/
. ZS

a ,
T"oc-72
a?,?r1lN. -- -
_ . RuN :VmuME /eD vc4 . /zv?vmFf •?f/ X . •Oi?y.9t?C ..-cA .
1
C©?PUTL?' T/ON Ri15/N S/2E",
IF
./N:. ?+Vf3?,%• .4
t.Di.Ptc Rogl4o=144 L3
X
V-26 0,
_To?AL lNFi?7-.2,4 2ZQr Z BSS/N
(?a??/?E 4ts?tiN •9E?°' .ac %S/?L,?T?917?n/ I3AA5 7
h!
- ' _ G?
V~9L 0 !4F >C n ,?:71 kf?
ZZT
-=-- -
a
o
i
?". c©MPc?Tc Vot1tME of JP?N?FF• : _ _
- - -RuN ._ 1%uME RED vc - ?N ?iH_ X_ • le4x"I9eE
37
ca/?'l?UTL° 47/ON Ri) 5/N S12E1,
:...+_=_.?!/.N vex : _./?/FILj 8.9s?N .Di.QcT .. ?s?iNFi1LG _ ./N _ .x/Fjy. !3/>asiN. .
t
cle
-17
fit/Fi? ?.2A?7?N ?i?S/N Vo?c/ME.
V??U?E _ •4tsitiN .D?T? _x iyF/C.,7T?jT0i? :Is'?si? .. _
71

??!N,F444
r

0
O 085
17S,
20,
` 5
O. 41-5:5
a
Q. 6g5
9,5
?9e
j
r--
Y, GAY?& BELL 1 I { 1
r r?n1r_ Gnir_?erGFac -1-- ---1nR -iNn t...7??-:Z; -St?F?T, _.. - inG t . •`: --0 nrr-nrn?--t
-- - .-DATEi--? - -;-SU
--?.nnv.-nr I- -DATE-
,
{ r ( { .?_
i I
y I i
.. :.. _.. __.._. APVO:-$Y.-- - ' .- _..: DATE:....
i I ! i j ? 1 I SUB; i ?
??J-?L4E4?6X?.tD??SF?1Q?7.T?D?1?.s? / '' ?' ?5?y --•: - I- -
;
_ -=----=--3.?Qr_??i/?'?l?R-I _ ?w?tS_?cey_? ??4R?14 _,? ,i? ?---?--' - - ----- --
-
,
•
+ I I ! I I i - t - -
o 'cu?cl!? ' _?UM6EiP?cN). ?s TiC 55
AW?
/I C7
,
-- - -- - - - - -t 1
.
;
.7?Rs?liN? RUNOFF' ?EPJ t/SI -sue 5P?- 56'
c?1/=
hV22; ;;pc-7r. ,h?JNE ._.
?. GOMf'cJ?C VOL1/ME OF ': JPyN?Fi? • _
¦ RuN 9AF- -YO4 UME -_ R Dvc /Zv?yo _% X
¦ ?,
/?«f:?
IF
:/N 4/ 1iy-. R.4-SIN.
ZZA? /ryFi??2ATlON g?S/N 1/oGU?%1E.- ;._._..
?Q SlgAl .Qef?°r21- X 1,oV loA/ \l3s?sr.?

-6 d

./ 5
0 0?5
0•_/65 - o.a

o. x-55

Q GSS

. O/

Y z,8
!
!
1 i I I USSEY, GAY & BELL
I i
. - - -
ONSUL?fNGENGI EER

S
1
JOB.-.N
,?j??
Z
I!
SHEEI,

AG O
I

-
- i -- {
- - M ?-$N l -DATEr- I - - ? --SI
B;IECT F
.
- - - HKD.-$Y ?
-t - Pa/D -$
--DATE+---1- - - ---r-

I ar Ti ME? ? x t.?tD?d's5 1 Ale, 4- - I I
- 6tl4

r-,
' _R-fNo _ %`C%PYE_ . J1/U/?1BER ?c N ).. s s i TR-SS? -----
-
z' I '

:??`7?R?!/NE RU?/?FF .?FPJ? t/SIMra? -SG 5 Tip!- 55 I --

' i (

o s 'd is a,

5..: _ 8s
_o, o '
x?. -65
0. z
0. x-55
0. ss
: oi'
z,8

7107-AL ; f i?T2ATlOrc/ Bi?S/N VoGC?ME.- -
If7C
1
-
-? ! i USSEY,' AY & B
?- ---- -' '
UONSULTiNG£NGIl?
i I
I LL

lEER

S ---
-II
t ?-- -- } - - ?- '
-Z
-JOB-jNO.

'
j
i
-?
SNEE

p
p
I

_

q?, , I
i
- --
- i - - -( O- MR-BY
HKD 8Y
' - -
--
AT& --SIJBJE T -

- ' i
Pa/r,
ATE-l--
-
-?- I
-
?-
- i
-.

i
'
I
--
U- I s
! a

CU?2Yr-7 _

UM

JB

FPJ

1A

c s l

TR

-5
-
r
5? _:.. _.

,
A-ND

i

-------- --- -------------
57FR /AoI E AfUAJ; F r/Sink-.` Sc S: TPi
- 5
5 ( l
zL l pGE I Z

1
99
_ !..5- _ 4.0 _bo 65_ a 04-55 a 695 .0/.5 / 2,S

----
!
c©M?°c??c V04V OF JPuNoFF
.RUN AF/?.I?AG?I/`!lE /eiED vG /ZvNdFf •EP'f/. X__.?ilirC " /?}'.A
IrB?9$/iy f-7`R.414 F_f1LL_./N: ??S/f3.IV B.4-VV.
.oE 1 yy 0' 6 ZI !
O• ?j - - _
-To?AL 7-4-74 77DAI BASIN 1/o?uME.
k
2 ?o.T?i Xj

_ .OED 1-??I?N? ' yVE/?HTED R?-tNoF? '-C41RIl?' Nt)A49EP : -?cN) tsc s ?,e-S5
toc
LTERsyJ/N? RUNOFF .??"PTf>' r/S//vim Sc S Wif - 55 2:A494,e 2 -?
?. C

P? o ?s o ' s 190
/. 5
- 0.095
: O. 165 O. z
1 O y $S O. 685 . /NTr..Pfts7T . _.BW??r/

1?•. coMPy?c Vot1JME of ?PuNo
gov Vm UME = . RED vc? /zv?voFf ?`?°?H X •Ori,114el . 17, 4
1 /?un?FF Yo?urr?E / //N X 1 ?? / • 13 L?? >c ?3S6f? f'
c©r?-IP?T?• /?y.?i? sP?7/Dn/ R.H 5/N -S/.zE.
1 .© i/ -SUN !/64 dr?E _ /?/F>Lj 89s!s/ ¢-.DiP?cT ?Ain/F?LL hV ?/??. l3AsiN.
vS25
-r-0-7-AL 770rV BSS/N VoLt/ME.
Vd?-c%E = 4ts?tii?/ •??'i?// .X ?NF/1?T?9?? I3?s?h!
HUSSEY, GAY,& BELL QS Z
CONSULTING ENGINEERS JOB. -NO..
SHEET- OF
PAGE NO.
'

CAMP, BY Cf3 DATE:
'lt
SUBJECT Z
.CHKD.BY DATE: S

APVD:. BY _ DATE:.
Sc?B-,4R?A ?

ToTi /. cJ 0 f

1 2- ro_M_ . -AgIF-A
3. -Tore _'I iev?©vS_ 'c©v?e 'qR'=A = /
m
0_3

:.-.,OE??h'I/NE ' vV?/?HT_E?. . R/-fNoF? :.CU?PY? /1/Utv16F2_.?c?`/) scs TK-SS

12616
CAl
/
1
-SC 5 77? -
?"R/?/NE RUNOFF ?FPTX ?SIN?a

E

P<
o 75 S a

I

l

IY

pl

4-5 O 08S? O /65 0,-2.7 ? D X55 I 0 G85 t /. O/5 I /. 4Z
U51NC7 CV ?'IZ ANO
IwHaFF . •E7?i?ry D. ?Z /r/ CrfcS _
COMPV?c VQLUME of T?c?NoFF
SUN sY?' l/?IGI.IME _ . ? D vc? /Z N? XE11 X •?i?9//Y/?t?r A
Al
Ca/y1P?T? __ /.y.e4ZeA7/ON RA5/- -S/2E, / s= Rr,
( / z
/N?11_ 1-gA T/0/y L3 y S/N f?iPE,A =
,?s _ ?Uy l/e?dw 1,Y1-7,C1 &ogZlA/ f-•Diet?T ,Cs?iNFALL /N 4VP3 f3A.s?N.
D?AL /rVF/??2AT10?[ F,4s/N Vol-4M,1 -
Vmt c%E _ OGs?tiA1 ?E?"? x ?ic/F/G,?l2i/?!©?? I3?s?h!
V©4. vjk4E z

r
HUSSEY, GAY & BELL
CONSULTING ENGINEERS JOB. -NO. -sc 0:5.:z SHEET" OF PAGE NO.'-
COMP. BY DATE: e l SUBJECT 5760!?te
CHKD. BYE DATE:
APVD: BY: DATE:.
II G??n/CRAL -,06t TA .
s
. _ 2• : 7"o.T?t ..AREA ??CGt.?JD1N?? : /wFit-T?2AT/Dn/..?SiN? ?- _ _
I`

/.VTr-.Pla?tI 13?wt! c?? ..Utz. j' '7
co ,py?c ouJME' of Rc?NoF f'?'/? / /
,QuN VMUME
f'.P etcT R,4,' /F444 /N 4/f7?. QA-VN.
-Zf 004' x y35 Ft%) / 4
/6'
?Z.rN.>
i ? o?AL J?1/,f7G7.PLI 1QN BSS/N • t/oLC/ME•
Vd ?/?E = Oc s?ci/?/ O?r'i•? . X /?/F/G,712917?/ I3?s?,}!
' 1/©L(J/rJF = ?.???•= T x (O-G?>f?? x4??S?o?-t ??1
J /
=..
%J//xI
.??E7?R/y!/N? RUNoFF ?EPTi yS/A?C'? SG S 77;P - 55 ' ? I??,E 2 -?
RA?NFfItL C
- P? 75
E S a
5 0. o? o. /65
0.2
0. ?i•55
a ass
. of
/. z,8

' HUSSEY, GAY & BELL

`-CONSUL TtNG ENG/NERS

-

! JQB: N'0:-

?52
I
SH ET -
1
?
I
OF
--L
P +
?1GE NO

-
}--COMP.
BY

-
DATE'.-
K -?}
-
--
SUB
JECT -
I -
_ I
,/? I
•?
r
I I
j
I
I
-
-
--

i
--
?
? ?1
- CHKD $Y r- - - - -- - -DATE: - - - - - ?? 1 ?
/ L
i I
,
I I 57
-
-
- -
?
-
-
-APVD BY I- - -DATE: --; --- - f -'
oil I
I
I
I
i
I
I
1
I
I
O
A
U
-- G-

UZ, Z ???°- -° -
I --- ---

t - -- -I /S: 5-- -1 -- ., 5 - .
I
;

-
?• 1-

?
?
--
- J

I
g#?L.
.5F 5" _n------
4_7

-
-- i
;
i '91V
iA0_
16-
_1
9-1

.Qb
---- ---- _ ? - -- -- I - - -1 - - ? !
/?' O©
-
_Al

I

1

-

F
.?.

I?

1 I
I
?
I

./?- , #l?
3z. ?1 _ 9
1 _ZO
! _
;
`?
-
.T Z o--
- /
•--
?
-
'fi
b
.11
' 1 ?
3
.0 , - -
? . ? f

/ -GET
o © ,

4

1 ;
i

i

d

7

_

_ ,

-

T

7

- -,-I
--- -.
I _I I I ?f ? ' ? I I ?I I I

40 HUSSEY, G
AY &
CONSULTING EN
BEL
GIM
L
R

JO

B: N

o. _

s

-
c
rte

SHE

ET I
I
-_
I
F
I

E
I i
O

COMP.i BY ; T DA TE: i - -
? S

U

JEC

T
- 1
-T
i
- - I I

-

--
CHKD 1BY ---
--
- GA
TE:

-- -

-

--

?T

'J

= I

t r

-- - -

t

- 1

f

--

ARVD ;BY
4 I
I
--DA

TE: ,

r

-

---I

r

'-" 1
?

---
- --
--- 1
} -- !
-- -- -
---
---
-- -.
---
-- -
_ -'
? t- ,
.:
rat
yyl
1_ _ i
.G,?'
I

? ? ? }
-! ---I --- -- ---- ----?- --- - ----- -? ---- _- _..? .- ?- -- - --- ----? Viz, o•

:

I Vz?

/

?

?

v

11I!
I
0
.3
'
?
A_
1
?
4 I

1

_
L i 1 -?--I
--
---?
-----
- --
- -
Ij---- -evl
- - - -

- - l I

I

+
`-- -1-

_

T
Cam=

.L

-
-- -

-
-

-
- -

--

- _
..

-

- °
- -

,
,. A
-

7.

-

-

-

-
_

-

-
- _

--

-

--

---

-, I

Ir----
II

-

-

i
I
----

I - -
- - --- - 2- f
1

I
r

F G l/?

'1 ....__ ?.

? _L-.?

~ -

-

--

1

:

i '!

! - C-111: I

? X1

3

?" ?z
-

7?1 ?1 C d

??4f'LsfCG

- i _

1
_o
? 3-
c? i _-_
'-- 1-
1,11/
L-
} - - --
_
--
' -
f
- _
--' 1-- i
_'04/
.
}
I -
.
.. t I 1
I
I I ?
;

t

1
-I

- I

} HUSSEY, G

ONSULTIN

OMP BY AY &
F

G EN BEL
_ •

G?IN L

i
_ ?

---
-.

-
. 1 !.

OB. N

I
DATE
_ I

?

O

.
-. !

SG c

2
----?

Z,
__- J

----
- 1

SHE

-- --I

SUB
__ }_ a_ +- _ 1

ET OF

..__-

JECT
? 1
--PA
-.
GE

NO_

'
-- - I
CHKD BY
744?'/ '?
El
BY
APVD DATE: I . . 1 1 ! ?!•tf1? ar: i1??1 i f ;
.
?
I I
I _
Q ;
?
i
I I . ?
171
I _
---- - --- -----
t

I

,

I
L
I_-
t -
f -
I
r---
}-----
-
--- 1-- J
I
'S
I
I _
I
?
I I
G
1
1 2

G

sl

c

/

--

c

t
-c cT9

- =-

1
? Lf

73
I I I i I
'

Q
.1
?C
i

- -

-

,

-- -

-

---

-O

1-1---? 44

1

{L
t

i

-
I

f

- ICY

a_

r

,
_1
_

k /,7

i y_w

1

?

t
I
i
I
I
i
? i t '
i _
I I ? i , I
USSEY GA !
t
_ ? I ! S2 SHEET ! i OF ! I PAGE_ ..0
CONSULTING ENGINEERS JOB. NO.
I ? Esc ---? :-
__ - SU8JECT
COMP.] -BY ; 1 DATE.
t f- A I
DATE:
I i
,
I '
I
- - - -- ---
fi APVD. jBY?--, -?---? -- -'/ T-?f? j - -- -
I DATE' ?
I
I I I ? ? i
-? -T©?? --. ?-?>? ? ----? ? _?- ? o.I?z -fit, --_ _--i- -- - ?--- - - - ? -- - - _ --- -I--
I
J, ? IPA /4? ?;?- _ _?_ ??'?`?/? ` 1- • -X --
I
i
I I
?.1 __ -? __ / ! - -? ?- =- -- - _ - 110•; f?ti! l --- - - - - -- - - - - -1-
.10
i
' I I
i I - - - --- I I- J 1

I
_ ---- ? HUSSEY, SGAY & BELL I
- - -- ? I ---- ? ---•- -- ? L}S'Z'„ - I SHEET
c ? 1-- I --a0 f ---I -- - --- ' _
CONSULTING ENGINEERS JOB. NO.
F PAGE NO 1'
1 ?
i I I OMP`-BY-. DATE:
1- - - - } SU? CT-?T??
BJE I I I
?'-
ff T ,
CHKD:!BY ? --1----. }_-- i --DATE:.
I I I
l ?
I '
- - r - -APVD.' BY -----1 DATE:. j I tl y _ ,;
I1 I ... i
r-
11
---------- -------
,
I
1 i
I
-=- I ---- -- - - - - - 1
' ? ! I I I ? I ? I t i i zen;
,
-41
44 fly C?
,.jam _ S i
- ---1- ?- -1 - - -n
„
?_ - --?-- -- - -- -- - -- - - -i --? -- I - l -
I I - I '
,
I ! I i j l I
I ? ? i I I ! ? i ? i I I ?• ? I I
I
I
o?
I
_r
1 - -- -
Y
i
-
i ?.
l j
I
I ? I
I
i ;
HUSSEY, GAY
I - -CONSULTING i
t
.I
- - -I j - -COMP BY
-C HIM BY
i
-APVD BY
i
?e ..
-G -
BELL ! - I I. i I
I
aIN ERS JOB. NO. 1 SHEET i
1 ..- -- DATE:
t SUB!
1
DATE: I _
? i
I
'
DATE:,.
I i
.
--
57
._ r 1
1
L_-
J (K'

I
f
I ?
I?

77,
T_-
i
1 ..
? ?I?tlll II
?i
U_ /'oo
1ofg_ IA -')4
l= v -
------- ----- ------
I i.
i I ? t I
r-
I
I
- I-- HUSSEY, GAY & SELL
.-._--
- - U Z. ____
B I
LTING ENGINEERS- I JQB. NO - SHEET i OF PAGE NO
t
-COMP -- I I
---r - i '
I I
gY r---- r Z Z -S' -- l - - - - -1- -
DATE: SUBJECT
CHI, KD: -- --- I I i
i I- ' 8Y t-- -- -DATE` 1 i t- I i
- -----, ? ApVD BY -; -- t _---?-- -- ---DATE:. -; - - ? - , ? - - - ???- - --
i
I i I
I i
- - I 1
_?-11, ?5
a ,
- - - -- --
I
-- - -- -- 1
I
---- -- - -------
1
Io
-1----I-
I
i
I
i-
1
i

I

? I
:
'
I

;

I i

!

i

i

I
'
HUSSEY GAY & J L I I
EN GI ERS JOB: NO. ?S' FJSz
SH
EET
r _ ._
O
F -1
- -7
-
P
GE
}-C;P.; BY-
6M ?
.-A
- - -!
-
DATE:
) --------SU
'
BJEC
T

•

_.
--
-
-
-
i CHKD.i BY. _ _.
. I
i I
L_
DATE: i - - !- - -

-
-
- I

,
- _ i.

-- ? IBY--
D
ATE'} i

-
1- ---
_
- -
- I
-
-
_.
I '

II
._ I
1 I I
I I I I

I

,
I i -7 1
i
'
Y

•

I M -

_

I

(

:

I
l i
i ! I I I ?
? ? ! ? ? I
_ _

1
-- I
I 1 12
6- C. - / al Frtl /?? ??

, I

I '
I
I ??

-

I
l'
?
r --
i
i
I i
-
i ?•?? L 1
I
I ? ? I 77 , ? I I I I ? ' ? i i I
I

r
=-

-- -
-

?

-
-
I

HUSSEY, GAY &
N
--
- -

BEL
I
?

L
I
ERS
-
? ,.
I I I

? P
-JOB
- 00

HE

T_

- - j

-- -
r
OF
--

PA

E N i

L
I
O.
f
_

,

L

--- 1 G EN
CONSULTI
1--
- CbMP BY G
N
f??"

. t .
q
D TE .

- I
/

UB l

JECT

-

--

-

-

;
BY
KD

r
t

DATE: I
t
i
f

I ^

-

- .
CH
I I ? I
---
APVD BY

?-

I
-DATE I
{ I

-

-

?
k
A/

- "?-

i

?

;
j 1 I
1 ?- I
i
I _

?i
i

; ;

II

1 t I

I ? I
i

'
?..-_ I
I I 1 tI
I
1

? i

f--

I
llel

I
ea
ZI 4

? I
I
I
A ef
lh?z
7X?

' 1-

2
1
i

rt

:
1/110 A- 16//
I
'
y ,

e" Lq
x.- --3 0
_A7
I I
I
1 I
Y
1
I
I I
-
-
:

-" l HUSSEY, G
I

CONSULTIN AY &

GIN BEL

G L

ERS

_
-? J
-- pB.._
O !

c
- i
SH!

EET I
--

O

F

- -

PA

E

O

-

..

-

-- J
i I I
__COMP:LBY+

-

I

-- } I

- DATE.

-?

Z i

--SUBJEC i

T ' i

'
1
f
C KD i BY
I
- --1

-

--

--- I

- -- -

D, TE:
f
l

+
i
-- - - -

/?/

. ---

?? -

1 -- - -

_ _.
--
-rt--
;
--- I
--APVD. BY ,
-
-D
ATE:
.-? L
- - - -
i -
?
? ?7
?- -- ?-
--t
---?
--1
-- - -?

T I ,

'

I

,
!`1
O p

11-

v-

- - {??

-- _

-

-

-

I

-

- I

- --

-

---
I

r _ i L {

--

' ±-? ? r•=??-. a

-

-- --
I
?? _

--

, ?`

- -

`-_ --

-

-

-

_

-

= r

--

I ?

4
--
fix- . i i

!

_?

. ? I

_

--- I

-

-

--

-

- --

T
--

i

5
---

?

-

-+

----! 'L

?h

- . -;
{ L
? r -5 ?-- -? - - - © - s -? - - I -
-- --
, .- - - - - - ---- -

I .
I I --
i -
' I I .._. 1- _?
I I --
i - - --
? ' -
i ?---
l
?
i
e
?!
__
' i 1 I i I
l7r?f
r
, -

I
-
--
---

1
--- - J_
f 4
-- - -- -

i
4 I ,

I
U
r
z

•-?/ -L? G1/??' a 1
- - - -
?I
-- -- --
- i -
7 23-Al

-

-

a
I

I
I I I I i ? I
:I
i HUSSEY G AY & BE LL

I

-- - - - CONSULTIN
?

COMP. BY G E NGIN

? EERS

I

I J
1
I
D OB.- O. j SH

C II _ I

Z
hTE SU
i EET

?
BJEC

I

I O F PAGE NO

st??

I
I
?
-
'
4
CHKD. BY _
i D I
ATE: T
i 1 APVD.
BY - 1 T- 1 D ATE:

?
} i
(
I
1 I

t
1 i
l {x

-- -

I i - -' - .

-

- - -- -

1 1

- - -
10

-

-

-

-

_

__

L
it

! - i ;- -1 -
-1 _
A/Z
'r -- ? - -- ? - - - --1- '
- -- - - O to I .- -- - - - -- ------ ---- ---- - --

'i I I I ? I ? I I ? i ! I ? I
I ,

}

, '71 th

1
Ozy
07
? ? ! I I

I ! i T -1--T I
'
I

z - - - ---? - --._
---------- - - - _ - - - t - - - -- - _ ._ _ .
I
!
I I
i

:
u !
I

j

I
(
!

L
co co
I -ff
I
I

:
:
I ? I I? I r
T ?`?•
??
i I I I
? ;
;? ?
? I
4
I
_
r ` t-- IF -? -- !

i-t?l

. if

--?-
---111,--- -- ,z--
es I
r
?:- !-!,--?-- -r-.--r-
-?---?-
W

---;?- -rte,. --r- , _

- fi-.

I -?--

- H
m F ?/'?
i
-
I ,
I I
I I I I I
!_
:
I

j CO
N D ?
N i2 m YI
-0

OO...-- V Q - -- .
4 10

: I
I
I
_- I ?

-

"1

-

. I

.

I

I

I
: I
if If
;Ti 7
,