DOCSLIB.ORG

Excavation of a Fort Fisher Bombproof

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Excavation of a Fort Fisher Bombproof Underwater Archaeology Branch North Carolina Division of Archives & History Department of Cultural Resources Kure Beach, NC 1981 Excavation of a Fort Fisher Bombproof By Gordon P. Watts, Jr. Mark Wilde-Ramsing Richard W. Lawrence Dina B. Hill Underwater Archaeology Branch North Carolina Division of Archives and History 1981 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF FIGURES___________________________________________________iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS _______________________________________________ iv INTRODUCTION ______________________________________________________ 1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ___________________________________________ 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE WORK __________________________________________ 4 METHODS____________________________________________________________ 5 CONDITION OF STRUCTURAL REMAINS ________________________________ 9 ARCHITECTURAL AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES ____________________ 21 ARTIFACTS__________________________________________________________ 26 CONCLUSIONS ______________________________________________________ 27 UAB 1981 Watts, Wilde-Ramsing, Lawrence, Hill ii TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Location of excavation site______________________________________________________ 1 Figure 2: Excavation site in 1971 ________________________________________________________ 7 Figure 3: Cave-in at the excavation site____________________________________________________ 7 Figure 4: Overburden being removed by hand ______________________________________________ 8 Figure 5: Mobile crane utilized during excavation ___________________________________________ 8 Figure 6: Terraces and shoring constructed at site ___________________________________________ 9 Figure 7: Remains of roof _____________________________________________________________ 11 Figure 8: Remains of tunnel structure ____________________________________________________ 11 Figure 9: Sills of bombproof entrance ___________________________________________________ 12 Figure 10: Wall studs along entrance tunnel _______________________________________________ 12 Figure 11: Architectural details of entrance tunnel __________________________________________ 13 Figure 12: Remains of bombproof roof ___________________________________________________ 13 Figure 13: Remains of entrance tunnel and bombproof_______________________________________ 14 Figure 14: South corner of bombproof____________________________________________________ 14 Figure 15: Construction details of bombproof______________________________________________ 15 Figure 16: Tenon from bombproof wall ___________________________________________________ 15 Figure 17: Mortises in bombproof sills ___________________________________________________ 16 Figure 18: Evidence of vent locations and construction ______________________________________ 17 Figure 19: Mortice from wall stud tenon __________________________________________________ 17 Figure 20: Bombproof sills ____________________________________________________________ 18 Figure 21: Evidence of interior planking __________________________________________________ 19 Figure 22: Diagonally attached planks ___________________________________________________ 20 Figure 23: Fort Fisher bombproof entrance section _________________________________________ 22 Figure 24: Fort Fisher bombproof entrance baffle___________________________________________ 22 Figure 25: Fort Fisher bombproof room___________________________________________________ 24 Figure 26: Fort Fisher bombproof complete structure _______________________________________ 25 Figure 27: Phtograph showing tunnel entrance_____________________________________________ 28 Figure 28: Fort Fisher gun emplacement and bombproof excavations ___________________________ 29 Figure 29: Fort Fisher gun emplacement and bombproof locations within mounds _________________ 29 UAB 1981 Watts, Wilde-Ramsing, Lawrence, Hill iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Fort Fisher excavation would not have been completed without the determination and perseverance of Richard Sawyer, Administrator of Historic Sites Section of the Division of Archives and History. His continuing interest in and support of the project are most appreciated. Actual work in the excavation was facilitated and supported by Gehrig Spencer, manager of the Fort Fisher State Historic Site. His participation and willingness to provide tools, equipment, and personnel greatly contributed to the completion of the excavation. The participation and assistance of numerous additional individuals must also be recognized and acknowledged. These include Everett Balderson, Kenny Koch, Don Taylor, Ray Jackson, Paul Longnecker, Clarence Jones, Mike Lovell, Richard Olson, Randy Bright, and Linda Williams of the Fort Fisher Museum staff; James Duff, Cynthia Elliott, Dixie Ward, Sherry King, William Cottingham, Tim Smith, Mike Diamond, Jeff Johnson, C. R. Judy, and Margaret Godber of the Underwater Archaeology Branch; Jack Holt and Patricia Bland of Cape Fear Technical Institute; Terry Erlandson of Historic Sites Section; and Eleanor Crown. These individuals all assisted in bringing the excavation to completion and their contribution to the project is gratefully acknowledged. Appreciation is expressed to Barbara Brooks, who prepared the final copy of the report for publication. Note: All photographs in this report were prepared by James A. Pleasants, Underwater Archaeology Branch, North Carolina Division of Archives and History. All Illustrations in the report were prepared by Joan P. Jannaman, Underwater Archaeology Branch, North Carolina Division of Archives and History. UAB 1981 Watts, Wilde-Ramsing, Lawrence, Hill iv INTRODUCTION Fort Fisher was constructed during the Civil War to guard the entrance to New Inlet and provide protection for the port of Wilmington. Under the direction of Colonel William Lamb the fortification was developed into a formidable structure that enabled blockade-running activities to continue long after other southern ports had fallen into Union hands. When designated a state historic site in 1960, Fort Fisher had sustained considerable damage from occupation as a United States Army training base during World War II as well as from severe erosion along the oceanfront. Development plans for the historic site included reconstruction of a portion of the fortification and the construction of a bombproof as an interpretive exhibit. To obtain architectural and construction details a bombproof under one of the surviving traverses was excavated. Figure 1: Fort Fisher location of excavation site. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND On April 19, 1861, newly elected President Abraham Lincoln declared a naval blockade of those states attempting to secede from the Union. In response Confederate civil and military authorities initiated the construction of fortifications designed to protect the major port facilities of Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, and New Orleans. Three days after Lincoln’s declaration North Carolina Governor John W. Ellis appointed Major W. H. C. Whiting as inspector general and charged the West Point engineer with developing defenses for the state. Realizing the importance of the port of Wilmington, Major Whiting immediately dispatched Captain Charles P. Bolles of Wilmington to “construct sand batteries . to command the entrance of (New) Inlet.” The batteries initiated by Captain Bolles were completed under the direction of Captain William L. De Rosset and named Fort Fisher in honor of Colonel Charles F. Fisher of Salisbury, who was killed on July 21, 1861, in the battle of First Manassas. Although work on the fortification continued, progress was nominal until Brigadier General Samuel G. French was assigned to command the Cape Fear River District on March 15, 1862. General French devoted considerable attention to the fortifications during his four-month command and assigned a sizable labor force to expand the works. When Colonel William Lamb took command of the fortification on July 4, 1862, the complex of earthworks mounted a total of seventeen cannon. From Shepherd’s Battery on the extreme left near the river a quadrilateral work constructed partially of sandbags extended approximately 100 yards in the direction of the ocean. To the right Meade’s Battery had been constructed of heavy palmetto timbers covered with sand and turf. South of Meade’s Battery and located adjacent to the beach was Cumberland’s Battery. Two additional batteries, Hedrick and Bolles, had been constructed to the southwest to form the southern extreme of the fortifications. Although impressive, Fort Fisher in Lamb’s opinion was too weak to defend properly New Inlet, and he immediately began to strengthen the works. From the summer of 1862 until the United States Navy attacked the fort in December, 1864, Colonel Lamb worked continuously on developing the capability to withstand the heaviest bombardment. Occasionally working on Sundays, Lamb’s combined force of UAB 1981 Watts, Wilde-Ramsing, Lawrence, Hill 2 soldiers and slaves, at times more than 1,000 in all, made dramatic changes. When Major General W. H. C. Whiting submitted a brief description of the fortification in July, 1863, the progress was obvious. This work has been a gradual development of designs of different commandery, commencing with battery Bolles . The different batteries are connected by long covered ways. On the left flank at Shepherd’s battery flanking defence . A 12' palisade line from Shepherd’s battery around to Meade’s battery is being constructed which also includes a demilune between the carronade and A [a point on the eastern
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ocm06220211.Pdf
    THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS--- : Foster F__urcO-lo, Governor METROP--�-��OLITAN DISTRICT COM MISSION; - PARKS DIVISION. HISTORY AND MASTER PLAN GEORGES ISLAND AND FORT WARREN 0 BOSTON HARBOR John E. Maloney, Commissioner Milton Cook Charles W. Greenough Associate Commissioners John Hill Charles J. McCarty Prepared By SHURCLIFF & MERRILL, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL AND BIOGRAPHICAL CONSULTANT MINOR H. McLAIN . .. .' MAY 1960 , t :. � ,\ �:· !:'/,/ I , Lf; :: .. 1 1 " ' � : '• 600-3-60-927339 Publication of This Document Approved by Bernard Solomon. State Purchasing Agent Estimated cost per copy: $ 3.S2e « \ '< � <: .' '\' , � : 10 - r- /16/ /If( ��c..c��_c.� t � o� rJ 7;1,,,.._,03 � .i ?:,, r12··"- 4 ,-1. ' I" -po �� ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We wish to acknowledge with thanks the assistance, information and interest extended by Region Five of the National Park Service; the Na­ tional Archives and Records Service; the Waterfront Committee of the Quincy-South Shore Chamber of Commerce; the Boston Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy; Lieutenant Commander Preston Lincoln, USN, Curator of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion; Mr. Richard Parkhurst, former Chairman of Boston Port Authority; Brigardier General E. F. Periera, World War 11 Battery Commander at Fort Warren; Mr. Edward Rowe Snow, the noted historian; Mr. Hector Campbel I; the ABC Vending Company and the Wilson Line of Massachusetts. We also wish to thank Metropolitan District Commission Police Captain Daniel Connor and Capt. Andrew Sweeney for their assistance in providing transport to and from the Island. Reproductions of photographic materials are by George M. Cushing. COVER The cover shows Fort Warren and George's Island on January 2, 1958.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography of North Carolina Underwater Archaeology
    i BIBLIOGRAPHY OF NORTH CAROLINA UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGY Compiled by Barbara Lynn Brooks, Ann M. Merriman, Madeline P. Spencer, and Mark Wilde-Ramsing Underwater Archaeology Branch North Carolina Division of Archives and History April 2009 ii FOREWARD In the forty-five years since the salvage of the Modern Greece, an event that marks the beginning of underwater archaeology in North Carolina, there has been a steady growth in efforts to document the state’s maritime history through underwater research. Nearly two dozen professionals and technicians are now employed at the North Carolina Underwater Archaeology Branch (N.C. UAB), the North Carolina Maritime Museum (NCMM), the Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and East Carolina University’s (ECU) Program in Maritime Studies. Several North Carolina companies are currently involved in conducting underwater archaeological surveys, site assessments, and excavations for environmental review purposes and a number of individuals and groups are conducting ship search and recovery operations under the UAB permit system. The results of these activities can be found in the pages that follow. They contain report references for all projects involving the location and documentation of physical remains pertaining to cultural activities within North Carolina waters. Each reference is organized by the location within which the reported investigation took place. The Bibliography is divided into two geographical sections: Region and Body of Water. The Region section encompasses studies that are non-specific and cover broad areas or areas lying outside the state's three-mile limit, for example Cape Hatteras Area. The Body of Water section contains references organized by defined geographic areas.
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Ramona M
    North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History Secretary Susi H. Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry July 31, 2020 Braden Ramage [email protected] North Carolina Army National Guard 1636 Gold Star Drive Raleigh, NC 27607 Re: Demolish & Replace NC Army National Guard Administrative Building 116, 116 Air Force Way, Kure Beach, New Hanover County, GS 19-2093 Dear Mr. Ramage: Thank you for your submission of July 8, 2020, transmitting the requested historic structure survey report (HSSR), “Historic Structure Survey Report Building 116, (former) Fort Fisher Air Force Radar Station, New Hanover County, North Carolina”. We have reviewed the HSSR and offer the following comments. We concur that with the findings of the report, that Building 116 (NH2664), is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places for the reasons cited in the report. We have no recommendations for revision and accept this version of the HSSR as final. Additionally, there will be no historic properties affected by the proposed demolition of Building 116. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or [email protected]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number. Sincerely, Ramona Bartos, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer cc Megan Privett, WSP USA [email protected] Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: (919) 814-6570/807-6599 HISTORIC STRUCTURES SURVEY REPORT BUILDING 116, (FORMER) FORT FISHER AIR FORCE RADAR STATION New Hanover County, North Carolina Prepared for: North Carolina Army National Guard Claude T.
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee Erosion & Sediment Control Handbook
    TENNESSEE EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK A Stormwater Planning and Design Manual for Construction Activities Fourth Edition AUGUST 2012 Acknowledgements This handbook has been prepared by the Division of Water Resources, (formerly the Division of Water Pollution Control), of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). Many resources were consulted during the development of this handbook, and when possible, permission has been granted to reproduce the information. Any omission is unintentional, and should be brought to the attention of the Division. We are very grateful to the following agencies and organizations for their direct and indirect contributions to the development of this handbook: TDEC Environmental Field Office staff Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage University of Tennessee, Tennessee Water Resources Research Center University of Tennessee, Department of Biosystems Engineering and Soil Science Civil and Environmental Consultants, Inc. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Georgia Department of Natural Resources California Stormwater Quality Association ~ ii ~ Preface Disturbed soil, if not managed properly, can be washed off-site during storms. Unless proper erosion prevention and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMP’s) are used for construction activities, silt transport to a local waterbody is likely. Excessive silt causes adverse impacts due to biological alterations, reduced passage in rivers and streams, higher drinking water treatment costs for removing the sediment, and the alteration of water’s physical/chemical properties, resulting in degradation of its quality. This degradation process is known as “siltation”. Silt is one of the most frequently cited pollutants in Tennessee waterways. The division has experimented with multiple ways to determine if a stream, river, or reservoir is impaired due to silt.
    [Show full text]
  • Ally Two Houses, the Original Home Was Built by Captain Patrick Boggan in the Late 1700S; the Alexander Little Wing Was Built in the 1800S
    North Carolina State Library Raleigh N. C. Doc. VoLUME XVIII, NuMBER 4 JULY, 1970 H. G. JoNES, Editor in Chief MRs. MEMORY F. MITCHELL, Editor Published by the State Department of Archives and History Box 1881, Raleigh, N. C. 27602 BOGGAN-HAMMOND HOUSE DEDICATED May 9 was the date of the dedication of the Boggan-Hammond House in Wadesboro and of the Cedar Creek Meeting House in Lilesville. The resto­ rations have been continuing projects of the Anson County Historical Society. Dr. H. G. Jones was the main speaker for the dedication ceremonies; Mr. Linn D. Garibaldi, president of the Anson group, welcomed dignitaries and guests. Taking part in the Lilesville program were the Reverend 0. M. Burck­ halter, pastor of the Lilesville Baptist Church (the congregation of which donated the meetinghouse to the society), Congressman A. Paul Kitchin, Lieutenant Governor H. Pat Taylor, Jr., and Representative Fred Mills. Par­ ticipants in the Wadesboro dedication, in addition to those mentioned above, were the Reverends Joseph Lash, Cherry Livingston, Ernest Page, James B. Sides, and H. Howard Smith. The oldest wing of the Boggan-Hammond House is thought to be the first house built in Wadesboro. Actually two houses, the original home was built by Captain Patrick Boggan in the late 1700s; the Alexander Little wing was built in the 1800s. The Boggan-H3mmond House was dedicated May 9; the Alexander Little wing is shown at the right. (All photographs by State Department of Archives and History unless otherwise specified.) \ Pictured above is the restored Cedar Creek Meeting House. FOUR MORE NORTH CAROLINA STRUCTURES BECOME NATIONAL LANDMARKS Four North Carolina buildings were designated National Historic Landmarks by the Department of the Interior in May.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter Volume 12 No
    Federal Point Historic Preservation Society P.O. Box 623, Carolina Beach, North Carolina 28428 Newsletter Volume 12 No. 1 January, 2005 Darlene Bright, editor January Meeting The Federal Point Historic Preservation Society will hold its regular monthly meeting, Monday, January 17, 2005, 7:30 PM, at the Federal Point History Center, 1121-A North Lake Park Blvd., adjacent to the Carolina Beach Town Hall. Featured speaker will be Mr. Bennett Langley of the Cape Fear Civil War Shop. Mr. Langley will share a close look at the ordnance used by Confederate Fort Fisher and the U. S. Navy fleet during the final battle for Fort Fisher, January 15, 1865. Mr. Langley is a native of the area, and through his passion for Civil War history, has developed a keen knowledge of arms, armament, and associated material of the period. Members and the public are cordially invited to attend. Refreshments will be served following the meeting. Last Month Our Christmas parties are getting better and better. More food than you could shake a fork at, along with music and carols by John Golden, made for a grand old time at the History Center last month. Approximately 50 members and guests chowed down to a wide variety of dishes and desserts while anticipating a visit by “Old Saint Nick”, and for some the grandbabies. Thanks to each and everyone who brought dishes and helped out to make it the best yet. Message From Your President Patricia Gray Bolander GREETINGS in this NEW YEAR! I hope all of our members had a pleasant holiday and are looking forward to the challege of a new year.
    [Show full text]
  • Definitions of "Soil" and "Mineral"
    OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior COALEX STATE COMPARISON REPORT - 113 June 12, 1989 William O. Roller Division of Mineral Mining P.O. Box 4499 Lynchburg, Virginia 24502 TOPIC: DEFINITIONS OF SOIL AND MINERAL INQUIRY: A permit is required for an operator to extract minerals from the earth. Is clay which is excavated from a borrow pit and used for fill dirt in construction considered a "mineral", requiring a permit, or "dirt" which would not require a permit, for removal? Locate state laws which define "minerals", "soil", or "dirt". SEARCH RESULTS: Research was conducted using the state code files on LEXIS. At the time the research was performed, codes for 32 states were available. Summaries of the identified state code sections are listed in table format below. Excerpts from the identified sections and the list of states searched on LEXIS are included as appendices. Research was also conducted using the state and federal case law files on LEXIS. The decisions identified as a result of the research and the topics they discuss are listed below. Copies of the decisions are enclosed as appendices. STATUTES AND CODES FINDINGS 1. Many mining- or natural resource-related sections include "clay" in the definition of "mineral". In some cases, the definition of mineral is qualified by the phrase "in this Act". 2. Many mining and natural resource sections use the words "soil" and "earth" almost interchangeably; the word "dirt" is virtually never used. 3. When used in state codes, the word "dirt" usually means "foreign substance", "filth", or "stain" and appears in codes dealing with food, agricultural products and dry cleaning.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Retail Price List
    GRASS SEED FIREWOOD 2021 Retail Price List LB BAG Cord (4' x 4' x 8' - 128 Cubic Ft.) $374.99 50/50 (Full/Partial Sun) $4.89 $208.00 2/3 Cord (32" x 4' x 8') $269.95 50% Bluegrass, 50% Rye; Fast establishment with good mix of 1/3 Cord (16" x 4' x 8') $159.95 both types of seed for residential use. For full to partial sun Double Trunk Stack (16" x 4' x 4') $89.95 areas. Trunk Stack (16" x 4' x 2') $49.95 Great Lakes P&A (Sun/Shade Mix) $4.79 $204.00 Camping Bundle (16" x 2' x 2') $29.95 35% Rye, 30% Blue, 35% Fescue; Great all around performer with the ability to be planted in any area from shade to full sun BAGGED ORGANICS Moo-Nure 25 LB $3.49 8997 Columbia Rd, Olmsted Falls, OH 44138 Premium Athletic Mix (Sun) $5.29 $225.00 Compost/Manure 40 LB $4.99 Phone: 440-235-2358 Fax: 440-235-2359 70% Bluegrass, 30% Rye; Slowest to establish, but nicest Peat Moss 3.8 CF $19.99 email: [email protected] residential lawn seed. Full sun. Soil Magic PLUS 1.2 CF $8.95 web: www.mryardoh.com Shade Mix (Shade) $4.79 $204.00 Topsoil 40 LB $4.99 90% Fescue, 10% Bluegrass; good for light to heavy shade areas. YOU PICK UP OR WE DELIVER All prices listed are for pickup at our yard. LAWN/GARDEN CARE There is an additional charge for delivery which varies by 18-24-12 Starter Fertilizer 50LB Bag $29.95 city - see our delivery price list or call for pricing.
    [Show full text]
  • Artillery Through the Ages, by Albert Manucy 1
    Artillery Through the Ages, by Albert Manucy 1 Artillery Through the Ages, by Albert Manucy The Project Gutenberg EBook of Artillery Through the Ages, by Albert Manucy This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org Title: Artillery Through the Ages A Short Illustrated History of Cannon, Emphasizing Types Used in America Author: Albert Manucy Release Date: January 30, 2007 [EBook #20483] Language: English Artillery Through the Ages, by Albert Manucy 2 Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ARTILLERY THROUGH THE AGES *** Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Christine P. Travers and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net ARTILLERY THROUGH THE AGES A Short Illustrated History of Cannon, Emphasizing Types Used in America UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fred A. Seaton, Secretary NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Conrad L. Wirth, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. -- Price 35 cents (Cover) FRENCH 12-POUNDER FIELD GUN (1700-1750) ARTILLERY THROUGH THE AGES A Short Illustrated History of Cannon, Emphasizing Types Used in America Artillery Through the Ages, by Albert Manucy 3 by ALBERT MANUCY Historian Southeastern National Monuments Drawings by Author Technical Review by Harold L. Peterson National Park Service Interpretive Series History No. 3 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1949 (Reprint 1956) Many of the types of cannon described in this booklet may be seen in areas of the National Park System throughout the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Review Committee Meeting Minutes, 2016 03 03
    Kingm County Department of Permitting and Environmental Review 35030 SE Douglas St., Ste. 210 Snoqualmie, WA 98065-9266 206-296-6600 TTY Relay: 711 www.kingcounty.gov REGULATORY REVIEW COMMITTEE - MINUTES - MEETING DATE: March 3, 2016 Minutes finalized December 9, 2016 TO: Jim Chan Steve Bottheim Wally Archuleta Chris Ricketts Sheryl Lux Steve Roberge Ty Peterson Scott Smith John Starbard, Director Lisa Verner, Legislative Coordinator and RRC Co-Chair Devon Shannon, Prosecuting Attorney’s Office FM: Randy Sandin, Resource Product Line Manager and RRC Co-Chair Present: Ty Peterson, Devon Shannon, Wally Archuleta, Randy Sandin, Chris Ricketts, Sheryl Lux, Steve Roberge 1. Is topsoil mixing permitted in the Mining (M) zone? Background This question was reviewed by the RRC on May 30, 1997. Topsoil screening or mixing includes importing sand, sawdust, finish compost, peat, and dirt and mixing and blending of the materials into topsoil mixtures. Standard Industrial Code (SIC) Major Group 14 is allowed in the M zone. (K.C.C. 21A.08.090) Major Group 14 includes peat screening and fill dirt pits, (SIC 1499) The group therefore concluded that topsoil mixing is allowed in the M zone. There were two subsequent RRC decisions from 2000 that, when taken together, would suggest a different conclusion. RRC Minutes 10-27-16 Discussion Topsoil production involves a variety of activities that, when not being done in conjunction with a mine or quarry, are more closely related to industries categorized under Major Group 32: Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Produces. For example, SIC 3295: Minerals and Earth, Ground or Otherwise Treated covers “establishments operating without a mine or quarry and primarily engaged in crushing, grinding, pulverizing, or otherwise preparing clary, ceramic, and refractory minerals; barite; and miscellaneous nonmetallic minerals…” This activity falls under Division D: Manufacturing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Puget Lowland Earthquakes of 1949 and 1965
    THE PUGET LOWLAND EARTHQUAKES OF 1949 AND 1965 REPRODUCTIONS OF SELECTED ARTICLES DESCRIBING DAMAGE Compiled by GERALD W. THORSEN WASHINGTON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES INFORMATION CIRCULAR 81 1986 • •~.__.•• WASHINGTONNatural STATE Resources DEPARTMENT OF Brian Boyle - Commissioner ol Public Lands -- Ar1 Stearns • Supervuor • J I·' • F ront oove r : Falling parapets and ornamentation, rooftop water tanks, chimneys, and other heavy objects caused widespread damage during both the 1949 and 1965 events. Such falling debris commonly damaged or destroyed fire escapes, such as the one in the upper left. This Seattle Times photo shows Yesler Way on April 13, 1949. (Photo reproduced by permission of Seattle Times) Back cover: A. Earthquake-triggered landslides cut rail lines in both the 1949 and 1965 events. This slide occurred between Olympia and Tumwater. (1965 Daily Olympian photo by Greg Gilbert) B. "Sand boils" were created by geysers of muddy water escaping from saturated sediments along Capitol Lake. Soil liquefaction, such as occurred here, was a common source of damage in low-lying areas of fill underlain by flood plain, tide flat, or delta deposits. Sidewalk slabs in this 1965 Oivision staff photo provide scale. C. Suspended fluorescent light fixtures, such as this one in an Olympia school, commonly sustained damage du ring the 1965 quake . Three mail sorters were injured in the newly completed Olympia post office when similar fixtures fell. (Daily Olymp ian photo by Del Ogden) WASHINGTON DIVISION Of GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES Raymond Lasmanis. State Geologist THE PUGET LOWLAND EARTHQUAKES OF 1949 AND 1965 REPRODUCTIONS OF SELECTED ARTICLES DESCRIBING DAMAGE Compiled by GERALD W.
    [Show full text]
  • Gazette Mk II
    E - Gazette Mk II New Zealand Antique & Historical Arms Association Inc. # 21 September 2012 EDITORIAL Again my thanks to those who have sent comments and contributions, I hope to see you at the Half Year General Meeting on 22nd September. If you have comments to make or news or articles to contribute, send them to [email protected] All views (and errors) expressed here are those of the Editor and not necessarily those of the NZAHAA Inc. Phil Cregeen, Editor [email protected] AN INTERESTING BAYONET by Phil Cregeen © 2012 I must confess I bought the top bayonet in the above picture on Trade Me on impulse, because it intrigued me. Was it 1.a genuine officially modified Pattern ’07 or 2. one cut down by a collector to emulate a trials bayonet such as the Australian Shortened and Lightened No 1 (see BCB A12) or Owen bayonet (see BCB A 13), or 3. had a pig hunter cut it down for a pig sticker? As you can see it is very similar to an Australian Owen gun bayonet (lower) and it came in an Owen bayonet scabbard marked MANGROVITE ’44. However the bayonet itself is manufactured by MOLE and dated 3/18. Like the Owen Mk I Bayonet introduced in 1944 it has a10 inch blade, however the fuller carries through the point and this has only been curved on the lower side unlike the Owen which has a slight curve on the top of the point. Note too that India shortened many Pat ’07 bayonets including British & Australian ones although these normally had 12 inch blades.
    [Show full text]