DOCSLIB.ORG

A Phase I Remote-Sensing Archaeological Survey Near the Location of a Proposed Groin at Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County, North Carolina

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Phase I Remote-Sensing Archaeological Survey Near the Location of a Proposed Groin at Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County, North Carolina A Phase I Remote-Sensing Archaeological Survey Near the Location of a Proposed Groin at Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County, North Carolina Submitted to: Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina 4038 Masonboro Loop Road Wilmington, North Carolina 28409 Submitted by: Gordon P. Watts, Jr. Principal Investigator Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc. P. O. Box 2494 Washington, North Carolina 27889 7 March 2015 i Abstract Coastal Planning and Engineering of North Carolina (CPE-NC) is the project engineer representing Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina in its efforts to control erosion at the eastern end of Ocean Isle Beach immediately west of Shallotte Inlet. In order to determine the effects of proposed terminal groin construction activities on potentially significant submerged cultural resources, CPE-NC contracted with Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc. of Washington, North Carolina to conduct a marine and terrestrial remote-sensing survey of the proposed construction area. Field research for the project was conducted on 12 through 14 December 2014. Analysis of the remote-sensing data generated during the Ocean Isle Beach survey identified a total of 22 magnetic anomalies in the offshore project environment and 4 anomalies in the terrestrial project environment. Sonar identified 16 targets in the marine environment. All of the anomalies and all of the sonar images are associated with previous groin structures or small objects that represent debris associated with those groins or perhaps residential material deposited by storms. None of the anomalies and sonar images appears to represent more complex signatures associated with historic vessel remains. No additional investigation is recommended in conjunction with the proposed groin construction. ii Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ iii Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Research Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 3 Literature and Historical Research ..................................................................................................... 3 Remote-Sensing Survey ..................................................................................................................... 3 Remote-Sensing Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 7 Historical Background ............................................................................................................................ 8 Description of Findings ........................................................................................................................ 15 Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 19 References ............................................................................................................................................ 20 Appendix A .......................................................................................................................................... 22 Appendix B ........................................................................................................................................... 24 Appendix C ........................................................................................................................................... 26 Appendix D .......................................................................................................................................... 28 Appendix E ........................................................................................................................................... 30 iii List of Figures Figure 1. Project Location Map (USGS "Cape Fear, North Carolina" 1:24,000). ................................ 2 Figure 2. Survey map coordinate locations. .......................................................................................... 4 Figure 3. The EG&G GEOMETRICS G-881 cesium vapor magnetometer. ............................................ 5 Figure 4. The KLEIN SYSTEM 3900 digital sidescan sonar. ................................................................... 6 Figure 5. Computer navigation system located on the research vessel helm. ....................................... 6 Figure 6. The Geometrics G-856 magnetometer and Trimble DGPS terrestrial survey. ....................... 7 Figure 7. Magnetic anomalies and contoured magnetic data. ............................................................. 16 Figure 8. Previous groins and dredge spoil pumped on beach in project area ca. 1993. ..................... 17 Figure 9. Sonar coverage mosaic with target locations. ...................................................................... 18 1 Introduction Coastal Planning and Engineering of North Carolina (CPE-NC) is the project engineer representing Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina in its efforts to control erosion at the eastern end of Ocean Isle Beach immediately west of Shallotte Inlet. In order to determine the effects of proposed terminal groin construction activities on potentially significant submerged cultural resources, CPE-NC contracted with Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc. (TAR) of Washington, North Carolina to conduct a marine and terrestrial remote-sensing survey of the proposed construction area. As a consequence of that agreement, CPE-NC contracted with TAR to conduct a magnetometer and sidescan sonar survey of the offshore construction site and a magnetometer survey of the terrestrial construction area. The marine and terrestrial remote-sensing investigations conducted by TAR archaeologists were designed to provide accurate and reliable identification, assessment and documentation of submerged cultural resources in the study area. The assessment methodology was developed to comply with the criteria of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 11-190), Executive Order 11593, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Procedures for the protection of historic and cultural properties (36 CFR Part 800) and the updated guidelines described in 36 CFR 64 and 36 CFR 66. The results of the investigation were designed to furnish CPE-NC with the archaeological data required to comply with submerged cultural resource legislation and regulations. Field research for the project was conducted on 12 through 14 December 2014. Analysis of the remote-sensing data generated during the Ocean Isle Beach survey identified a total of 22 magnetic anomalies in the off shore project environment and 4 anomalies in the terrestrial project environment. Sonar identified 16 targets in the marine environment. All of the anomalies and all of the sonar images are associated with previous groin structures or small objects that represent debris associated with those groins or perhaps residential material deposited by storms. None of the anomalies and sonar images appears to represent more complex signatures associated with historic vessel remains. No additional investigation is recommended in conjunction with the proposed groin construction. Project field personnel consisted of Gordon P. Watts, Jr., principal investigator and Ralph Wilbanks remote-sensing operator. John W. Morris from the Underwater Archaeology Branch (UAB) of North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources (NCDCR) was aboard the survey vessel for the marine investigation. Dr. Watts and Morgan V. Arnold conducted the terrestrial survey. Senior Historian Robin Arnold carried out the historical and literature research. Dr. Watts and Ms. Arnold prepared this report. Project Location The remote-sensing project area is situated at the east end of Ocean Isle Beach immediately west of Shallotte Inlet (Figure 1). The terrestrial survey area is rectangular in shape measuring 450 feet in width and 800 feet in length and equals 8.26 acres. The marine survey area is approximately square measuring 750 feet in length and 800 feet in width and equals 13.77 acres. Data was collected on 50- foot survey lines in the marine environment. That same line spacing was carried out as vegetation permitted in the terrestrial environment. 2 Figure 1. Project Location Map (USGS "Cape Fear, North Carolina" 1:24,000). 3 The survey boundaries (Figure 2) defined in North Carolina State Plane Coordinates, based on NAD 83, U.S. Survey Foot are shown in the following table. Table 1. Survey boundaries defined in North Carolina State Plane coordinates, NAD 83, U.S. Survey Foot. Research Methodology Literature and Historical Research TAR historians conducted a literature search of primary and secondary sources to assess the potential to find significant historic and/or cultural resources within the proposed dredge site. A general background history of Ocean Isle Beach and the lower Cape Fear region was prepared from source material in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Independent Republic Quarterly, 2010, Vol. 44, No. 1-2 Horry County Historical Society
    Coastal Carolina University CCU Digital Commons The ndeI pendent Republic Quarterly Horry County Archives Center 2010 Independent Republic Quarterly, 2010, Vol. 44, No. 1-2 Horry County Historical Society Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/irq Part of the Civic and Community Engagement Commons, and the History Commons Recommended Citation Horry County Historical Society, "Independent Republic Quarterly, 2010, Vol. 44, No. 1-2" (2010). The Independent Republic Quarterly. 151. https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/irq/151 This Journal is brought to you for free and open access by the Horry County Archives Center at CCU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The ndeI pendent Republic Quarterly by an authorized administrator of CCU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Independent Republic Quarterly A Publication of the Horry County Historical Society Volume 44, No. 1-2 ISSN 0046-8843 Publication Date 2010 (Printed 2012) Calendar Events: A Timeline for Civil War-Related Quarterly Meeting on Sunday, July 8, 2012 at Events from Georgetown to 3:00 p.m. Adam Emrick reports on Little River cemetery census pro- ject using ground pen- etrating radar. By Rick Simmons Quarterly Meeting on Used with permission: taken from Defending South Carolina’s Sunday, October 14, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. Au- Coast: The Civil War from Georgetown to Little River (Charleston, thors William P. Bald- SC: The History Press 2009) 155-175. win and Selden B. Hill [Additional information is added in brackets.] review their book The Unpainted South: Car- olina’s Vanishing World.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Update and Boundary Increase Nomination
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional certification comments, entries, and narrative items on continuation sheets if needed (NPS Form 10-900a). 1. Name of Property historic name Fort Monroe (2013 Update and Boundary Increase) other names/site number VDHR #114-0002 2. Location street & number At the intersection of Mercury Boulevard and Mellon Street not for publication city or town Fort Monroe vicinity state Virginia code 51 county Hampton (Ind. City) code 650 zip code 23651 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this x nomination request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property x meets does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: x national statewide local ____________________________________ Signature of certifying official Date ____________ ____________________________________ ________________________________________ __ Title State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • "Now My Brave Bays, Are You Ready?!"
    Volume 2, Issue 4 I A Newsletter for the Supporters of the Hampton Roads Naval Museum I "Now My Brave Bays, Are You Ready?!" A joint American force turns back the British at Craney Island by Joe Mosier n the first few months after Congress declared war on I England in June 1812, Norfolk and Portsmouth were largely untouched by the conflict. It was an unpopular war with most of the merchants in the twin seaport cities. They had suffered heavily d · g.lhe embargo of 1807-1809 and had found it difficult to recover their markets under the Nonimportation Acts which followed. After the Federal government lifted the embargo of 1807, Hampton Roads merchants found that exporting grain to the British Army was a quick way to The target-during the War of 1812, the main objective of the British forces in Hampton Roads recover lost profits. The English need for was to seize and destroy the 36-gunfrigate USS Constellation. The British blockaded Hampton American foodstuffs had led to a gradual Roads with several warships including two to three ships-of-the-line which prevented Constellation from leaving its base in the Elizabeth River. (Sail plan from National Archives) relaxation of its long-standing anti­ neutral shipping policies. The British of the Jeffersonian Republicans and the three 74-gun ships of the line and four even repealed their policy of seizing desire to wrest Canada away from frigates. Warren was to be reinforced in neutral merchant ships that Americans Britain. March by a ground force contingent en­ found so offensive shortly before the war In the first year of the war, United route from England via Bermuda.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil War Shipwrecks
    encyclopedia of CIVIL WAR SHIPWRECKS W. Craig Gaines encyclopedia of CIVIL WAR SHIPWRECKS encyclopedia of CIVIL WAR SHIPWRECKS W. Craig Gaines Louisiana State University Press Baton Rouge Published by Louisiana State University Press Copyright © 2008 by Louisiana State University Press All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America First printing Designer: Barbara Neely Bourgoyne Typeface: Goudy, display; Minion Pro, text Printer and binder: Maple-Vail Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gaines, W. Craig, 1953– Encyclopedia of Civil War shipwrecks / W. Craig Gaines. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8071-3274-6 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. United States—History—Civil War, 1861–1865—Naval operations—Encyclopedias. 2. United States—History—Civil War, 1861–1865—Antiquities—Encyclopedias. 3. Shipwrecks—United States—History— 19th century—Encyclopedias. I. Title. E591.G35 2008 973.7'5—dc22 2007019754 The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. ∞ This book is dedicated to my wonderful wife, Arla, who accompanied me to numerous libraries, Civil War battle sites, and museums during the writing of this work. I also dedicate this book to the memory of the soldiers, sailors, and civilians whose legacies live on within these pages. Contents Preface ix Maine 77 Abbreviations xiii Maryland 78 Massachusetts 79 Alabama 1 Mexico 80 Arkansas 8 Michigan 81 Atlantic Ocean
    [Show full text]
  • USS PETERHOFF and UNCW's CIVIL WAR CANNON
    The Cape Fear Civil War Round Table USS PETERHOFF and UNCW's CIVIL WAR CANNON By David Norris Quietly sunning itself on a grassy lawn on the campus of UNC-Wilmington lays a very large souvenir of the Civil War-a 30-pounder Parrot rifle. The Parrot rifle was once part of the armament of the USS Peterhoff, a captured blockade-runner assigned to the U.S. Navy's North Atlantic Blockading Squadron. The Peterhoff was British-built, iron-hulled sidewheel steamer. She left Falmouth, England on January 27, 1863, bound for Matamoras, Mexico by way of St. Thomas, Danish Virgin Islands. On February 20, the USS Alabama halted the Peterhoff just off the Danish island of St. John's by firing first a blank cartridge, then a shotted gun fired across her bow. Although the Peterhoff was flying the British flag, and was well within Danish waters, they were searched by a Union boarding party. The Federal sailors found nothing wrong and let the ship proceed to St. Thomas. Also in the harbor at St. Thomas were two U.S. Navy ships commanded by Acting Rear Admiral Charles Wilkes, who had gained notoriety for his seizure of the British mail steamer Trent in December 1861. (Wilkes removed two Confederate diplomats on their way to Europe; the seizure of the Trent angered the British so much that there was a chance of war breaking out over the 'Trent Affair' before cooler heads defused the situation.) In 1863, Wilkes was no less aggressive in searching out potential blockade breakers. As the Peterhoff left St.
    [Show full text]
  • The August 1864 Cruise of the Css Tallahassee
    MISERABLE BUSINESS OF WAR AFLOAT: THE AUGUST 1864 CRUISE OF THE CSS TALLAHASSEE Michael D. Robinson A Thesis Submitted to the University of North Carolina Wilmington in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Department of History University of North Carolina Wilmington 2007 Approved By Advisory Committee ______________________________ _____________________________ ______________________________ _____________________________ Chair Accepted By ______________________________ Dean, Graduate School TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................v DEDICATION................................................................................................................... vi CHAPTER ONE-INTRODUCTION...................................................................................1 CHAPTER TWO-MOTIVATIONS ..................................................................................19 CHAPTER THREE-THE CRUISE ...................................................................................40 CHAPTER FOUR-RESULTS...........................................................................................68 CHAPTER FIVE-CONCLUSION ....................................................................................93 BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................................98
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological Assessment of the Northern Portion of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
    REDACTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA by Joseph R. Blondino, Mike Klein, and Curtis McCoy Prepared for Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Historic Resources Prepared by DOVETAIL CULTURAL RESOURCE GROUP June 2018 REDACTED Archaeological Assessment of the Northern Portion of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia by Joseph R. Blondino, Mike Klein, and Curtis McCoy Prepared for Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, Virginia 23221 Prepared by Dovetail Cultural Resource Group I, Inc. 11905 Bowman Drive, Suite 502 Fredericksburg, Virginia 22408 Dovetail Job #17-097 June 2018 June 13, 2018 D. Brad Hatch, Principal Investigator Date Dovetail Cultural Resource Group This page intentionally left blank ABSTRACT Dovetail Cultural Resource Group (Dovetail) conducted an archaeological assessment of the northern part of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. The study area was bounded to the north and east by the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean, to the west by the city limits of Virginia Beach, and to the south by North Landing Road, Princess Anne Road, and a line extending due east from the intersection of Princess Anne Road and General Booth Boulevard to the Atlantic Ocean. The assessment was performed on behalf of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources as part of the Cost Share Survey and Planning Program. This work was completed in February of 2018. This report includes a discussion of previously identified and potential archaeological resources located within the study area. The assessment included a review of previously identified resources, previously surveyed areas, settlement patterns characteristic of precontact and historic archaeological sites, historic maps, as-built maps, aerial photos, United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, and vehicular and pedestrian survey.
    [Show full text]
  • "This Insulting Bravado": William B. Cushing and the Martial Culture Of
    "This Insulting Bravado": William B. Cushing and the Martial Culture of 19th Century America. A paper completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for HH486A The Naval Career of William B. Cushing United States Naval Academy Spring, 2012 MIDN 1/c Zachary Schwartz © The Spanish gunboat Tornado apprehended the American vessel Virginius on the high seas near Cuba on October 31st, 1873. The Virginius had been running arms to Cuban rebels and the Spanish military governor, General Juan Burriel, had decided to make an example of her “pirate” crew. After a summary court-martial, thirty one of the 165 man complement were executed. The arrival of HMS Niobe on November 7th failed to stop a further twelve deaths. Of the fifty three executed, eight were United States citizens. The American Vice Consul in Havana, E.G Schmitt, desperately wired the Navy for aid. His pleas were answered by Commander William B. Cushing, commanding officer of the USS Wyoming and a 32-year-old career naval officer. Disgusted at the Niobe’s failure to save the Virginius’ remaining crew, Cushing steamed into Santiago de Cuba like a shark after the scent of blood. It was November, and the aura of tension that permeated the port city must have been even more stifling than the tropical climate. Cushing sent Burriel a curt letter demanding an audience and an immediate end to the “murders.” The general declined. Burriel must not have comprehended the sensitivity of his caller, for CDR Cushing was not one to take refusal lightly. Cushing’s response shoved diplomacy off the table.
    [Show full text]
  • Cape Fear Civil War Shipwreck District
    ii NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES NOMINATION CAPE FEAR CIVIL WAR SHIPWRECK DISTRICT PREPARED BY MARK WILDE-RAMSING AND WILSON ANGLEY SEPTEMBER, 1985 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS _______________________________________________________iii SECTION I. _________________________________________________________________ 1 VESSEL DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION ___________________________________ 1 CIRCUMSTANCES OF LOSS ______________________________________________________ 5 POST DEPOSITIONAL HISTORY __________________________________________________ 5 MODERN DISCOVERY AND INVESTIGATIONS_____________________________________ 7 BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION ____________________________________________________ 10 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT______________________________________________________ 11 SITE DESCRIPTION _____________________________________________________________ 12 TABLE I – Cape Fear Civil War Shipwrecks ________________________________________________14 New Inlet Unit __________________________________________________________________________15 0001NEI - Modern Greece ______________________________________________________________15 0003NEI - CSS Raleigh_________________________________________________________________15 0006NEI - Condor _____________________________________________________________________16 0007NEI - Unknown Vessel _____________________________________________________________17 0008NEI - Louisiana ___________________________________________________________________17 0009NEI - Arabian ____________________________________________________________________18
    [Show full text]