USVI Public Records

Document text

special history study MASONRY FORTS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SPECIAL HISTORY STUDY MASONRY FORTS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Prepared by F . Ross H o l l a n d , J r . R u s s e l l Jones DENVER SERVICE CENTER HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEAM . NATIONAL PARK SERVICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DENVER, COLORADO AUGUST, 1973 t a b l e of Contents 1 W I.ltwJjUv' 1 1 U N o o o o o . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 SAN JUAN NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 El Moro; San Cristobal City Walls El Canuelo ST. THOMAS NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE . . . . . . . . 2 5 Fort Christian CHRISTIANSTED NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE 30 Fort Christiansvaern FORT JEFFERSON NATIONAL MONUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Fort Jefferson CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Castillo de San Marcos FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT 55 Fort Matanzas FORT FREDERICA NATIONAL MONUMENT . . 60 Fort Fredertea FORT PULASKI NATIONAL MONUMENT 67 Fort Pulaski FORT SUMTER NATIONAL MONUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 * O r X m O U . J L . X r l G e e e o o o e o o o o o o 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o '•••3 XJCLX XGX*y vctSpGI* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c*u x orx oumtGr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE . . . . 91 Fort Barrancas 92 Battery San Antonio 99 Redoubt 104 Fort Pickens 110 Miscellaneous Batteries . . . . . . . . . 120 Fort Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 ii FORT WASHINGTON NATIONAL MONUMENT „ 136 Fort Washington FORT McHENRY NATIONAL MONUMENT AND HISTORIC SHRINE . 145 Fort McHenry FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SHRINE „ . . . . . . . ' . . . 1 5 3 Fort Point CASTLE CLINTON NATIONAL MONUMENT . . . . . . 161 Castle Clinton REPORTS EXAMINED • • « « « » » » - . • • • • • • • • « « • . • . . . 163 i\J* ir X«NX*X JX . . . . . . . . . . . « « . . , » . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . 9 XOO INTRODUCTION At the request of former Director George B. Hartzog, we have made an examination of the masonry forts of the National Park Service to determine their condition and make recommendattions for their restoration and/or rehabilitation, along with estimates for the cost of the pertinent work. In the course of this work we had the able assistance of Restoration Specialist Harry Martin, who provided "estimates for the work needed at Fort Washington and Fort McHenry, and Historical Architect Norman Souder who provided all the information, including estimates, on Castle Clinton, We also had extremely fine and helpful cooperation from the members of the staffs of all the parks visited. It was this cooperation that greatly expedited our work. From the point of view of historic preservation, examining these ma- sonry forts was a dismal task. It was heartening to see the variety in styles of forts—no two of which were alike in design and/or construction— and the span of time they represented. But after looking at these forts and examining their condition it became obvious that the National Park Service has been remiss as a governmental bureau that is supposad to be engaged in historic preservation; indeed, ore historian characterized the, past restoration wurk on one prominent fort as no better than vandalism. And one would have to agree that this and other forts had received less than desirable treatment. For example, Castillo de San Marcos has had its terreplein paved"with modern white cement, which is about as historic as placing Aunt Fanny's outhouse in the middle of the White House lawn. Fort Frederica and many other forts have been repointed with modern cement that does not even remotely match the surviving mortar, and it has been applied so sloppily that such work would be a disgrace to the green- est apprentice mason. Perhaps the most serious charge against the National Park Service is the neglect to which the forts have been subjected. The castillos of San Juan National Historic Site in Puerto Rico are seriously threatened by sea erosion, a condition that did not spring up overnight. Yet no action other than studies of the problem have been programmed. The City iii Gate and adjacent wall of San Juan collapsed and the Park Service had to rebuilt it. Surely it would have been cheaper to have stopped the erosion. Further north, in South Carolina, Fort Sumter has had to be shored up at one section, and this most prominent symbol of the Civil War has been in the National Park System for twenty—five years. Indecision about the course that should be followed in the degree of preservation of these forts is another serious criticism that could be leveled against the Park Service. The soldiers' barracks in San Cristobal at San Juan National Historic Site is being rehabilitated, not becuase the historic fabric is deteriorating, but because room for interpretive devel- opments is needed. Meanwhile, the great wall of San Cristobal is eroding on the exterior and the interior, and no work on it is programmed. The Park Service procrastinates in making up its mind about what it wants to do in preserving Fort Jefferson, while the ocean and storms keep eating at the largest coastal fort the United States ever built. Nor does the Park Service know what the course of restoration should be at the impor- tant Fort McHenry which has been in the System for forty years. No remarks are being made about the badly deteriorated forts of. Gulf Islands National Seashore, because that park is so new that tie Service has not had time to program needed work. However, if the past can predict the future, the forts are in for a long wait and much more deterioration before any work is done on them. Without question, the best looking and best preserved masonry fort in the National Park System is Fort Pulaski. The fort was restored, in the 1930's and subsequent to that time the park employed a mason whose job was confined almost solely to keeping the brick fort in repair. The Superin- tendent of Castillo, de San Marcos is now thinking about hiring a mason who will spend full time repairing the castillo while using historic-type materials, and equipment, and dressed in period costume. This idea appears to us to be an imaginative partial solution to the proper rehabilitation of this most important fort. IV The finger of blame for the poor state of the masonry forts should not be pointed at any one group or person in the Park Service; the finger should be pointed at every level. However, the chief blame can be laid at the feet of the management system of the Park Service which emphasizes transient management over permanent professionalism, at the severe expense of historic preservation. The all too frequent transfer of personnel in the parks and Regional offices has resulted in a continual changing of minds on what preservation should take place and their priorities, so that nothing ever happens. In the competition for money and personnel within the Service be- tween natural, recreational, and historic areas, and between management and professional personnel, historic preservation has been a consistent loser. Management's accent on catchy and essentially meaningless terms such as "people-serving" and "environment" has led to an emphasis on devel- opment of expensive new facilities and not preservation of the historic resources that Congress has charged us with preserving in perpetuity. The National Park Service faces a basic decision: Does it want to keep the masonry forts? If it decides in the affirmative, then the Service is simply going to have to face up to the problem, make decisions about what it wants d.me at these forts, and start laying plans to obtain the massive appropriations needed to do the necessary stabilization and reha- bilitation work. On the other hand, if the Park Service feels that it cannot afford these forts, then it is going to have to look at the whole activity of historic preservation and reach the conclusion that it will play a minor and dwindling role, perhaps to the point where there is no place for it in a National Park System wherein history has been reduced to play-acting. The masonry forts represent such a large segment of history, that to ne- glect them as we have is to admit that the National Park Service cannot or will not effectively handle the task of historic preservation. We realize that the cost of rehabilitation and restoration of any one of these forts to a degree that will give an aura of their past glory is high, but it must be remembered that the work proposed is aimed at v correcting the inroads of weather, neglect, vandalism and normal aging of more than 100 years, in most cases. But once these forts are put into good physical condition, it will not be difficult nor exceptionally expen- sive to keep them that way, if. manpower and appropriations are consistently applied to their maintenance. It will be foolish to put one of these structures into good condition and then forget about its maintenance, as is so frequently the case. It doesn't take long for a structure, whether masonry or wood, to deteriorate in a climate that has heavy rainfall, as is the climatic condition where the masonry forts are located. vl SAN JUAN NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE El Moro San Cristobal City Walls El Canuelo SAN JUAN NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE San Juan National Historic Site embraces two massive forts, or castillos, the thick walls surrounding the old city of San Juan, outer defensive works and a smaller fort across the harbor channel. One is overwhelmed by the enormousness of these fortifications, all other forts within the National Park System appear like toys beside these defensive works. Indeed, there are no other fortifications in the Western Hemis- phere that can compare in size to the ones in San Juan, Spain's other principal fortification in the New World, Cartagena, embraces more land, but in complexity and massiveness it can in no way compare to the works that are in San Juan. For centuries Spain played a gigantic role in the exploration, settle- ment, and exploitation of the New World, and that country has left a large and enduring imprint on more than half of the Western Hemisphere, from the southern tip of South America northward to the southern part of the United States. For example, Spanish is the native tongue of more, people in the New World than any other language. A significant physical reminder of Spain's role in the New World is at San Juan in the form of the extensive fortifications. Placed here to guard the entrance to the Caribbean and to be a base to protect the riches bordering the "Spanish Lake" from incursions by other European powers, these fortifications had their beginning in 1539 and evolved, as changing conditions demanded, through the centuries to their present state. The Dutch and the British attacked San Juan several times through the centu- ries, and even those assaults that were successful, - in the end, did not lead to permanent control by these other powers,, for Spain continued^ to hold Puerto Rico until the late nineteenth century when it was wrested from her by the United States at the end of the Spanish-American War. All of the;> fortifications comprising San Juan National Historic Site are an important symbol of the Spanish presence in the New World and of the contribution that country made to the culture of what became known as Latin America. Moreover, these defnesive works are a strong reminder of the centuries-long struggle between Spain and other European powers for control of the New World. 2 Sea Erosion Today the physical historical remains embraced in San Juan National Historic Site are for the most part structurally sound. But there are key points in them that are threatened or in need of repair work. The most serious and immediate threat is that of sea erosion. At several points along the city walls, at El Morro, and at San Cristobal and its outer works, the sea is cutting under the foundation that supports the footing for these structures' walls and buttresses. Unless something is done soon to halt this cutting away of the bank, there is only one logical outcome of erosion; the walls will topple into the sea. In some places the erosion has cut so deeply into the bank that there are those who think certain sections of the forts should be closed for the safety of the visitor. Representatives of the Corps of Engineers made a study in 1971 of this erosion problem, and their report, thorough and detailed In its analysis of the situation, recommends filling in these cavities with cementpacks, grouted rock, and riprap. We concur with their recommen- dations, and urge that the proposals in thei?" report be undertaken with rapidity. A detailed breakdown of these repairs and the cost can be found in the estimates section following this narrative. We have revised the Corps of Engineers' cost figures to reflect normal inflationary rise in prices and additional erosion since the time of their inspection. The Corps of Engineers' report also treated the condition of suf- face erosion which is eating away in several places at the foundation of the forts and associated structures^ One of •'•the first things that should be done is to repair damaged drains, all of which are historic. After that cavities should be cleaned out and filled with grouted rock. Gullies formed by surface erosion should be refilled with rock and dirt. 3 Wall Erosion In a number of places on El Morro, San Cristobal, the city walls,, and El Canuelo there is serious wearing away of the plaster covering the walls. At certain points the plaster has been gone so long that the stone is beginning to wear. The most serious consequence of the missing plaster is the eroding of the mortar from between the stones comprising the walls. It would be much too expensive to attempt to replaster the walls of the fortifications. Indeed, to do so would take away the patina of anti- quity the walls now possess. The walls, however, should be repointed at the more eroded mortar joints. The continued wearing away of the mortar will, of course, contribute to the destruction of the historic fabric by permitting stones to slip out of position, thus doing damage to the main historic resource and result- ing eventually in needed major and expensive repair work. Terreplein The covering plaster and cement on the upper gun deck has worn away in many places, permitting water to soak through the earth-fill of the walls. This water causes serious internal erosion and deterioration of the walls. To prevent the water from penetrating the walls, the terreplein will have to be sealed with a cement-like covering. The walls are basic to the structures. If their innards are allowed to erode and deteriorate, they will eventually collapse and take with them the remainder of the structures. Vegetation . Many sections of the walls of the two main forts and the city walls are covered with vegatation, including ferns, vines, and trees. The 4 brick top of El Canuelo periodically becomes covered with vines, some with roots several inches in diameter. On several sections of the city wall trees are rooted in the stones well above ground level. All of the vegetation should be removed from the forts and city walls, and a herbicide should be sprayed on the walls to hinder return of these growths, . The roots penetrate the stone walls of the castillos and the city walls as well as the brick roof of El Canuelo, pushing out the mortar and disaligning the stones and bricks. Moreover, the swaying of the more rigid growth, such as the trees, break up the stones. Displacing of the brick and stones weaken the structures, leading to severe damage and eventual expensive repairs. 5 The low ramparts or the front curtain fail to Erive. ar.v indication of the massiveness of EJ Morro. The true strength of El Morro is only revealed from '.he seaward approach* The action of t lie surl has eroded the protecting point dangerous Iv close to the walls of the fori . 1 .' rv i • < - r : ) c k s ii,. v<- s i - r i < IUN i - *-|',lk'-!!« i| ! ;K.> Hi -,JVW -I f< ] 'A,I I ' S !»r<tiiiK r-(i,"s ' I'UI • * t'cj *o ?•,[!*!" nf'i s u r f a c e - i t i k e r h a v e (•-Tfjiff-Hi -.ni", <- niH>' i v i r r v o . t ' i ; < - i r o i - i p i c a ] r u n e * i o - Most of the fort walls need repair and expensive rppoini irsg it IMey are to be preserved. Conditions ^iri< hazardous to the visitor. r<»;i_u < i o n s sue!! a s ' V i s a r e a 1 a r a l f ' i,e ' l i - ' p r i n r ,..!'•• ol "tiie l l i s l o r i c l a b r i f : San Juan National Historic Site El Morro Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule HEM NO. 1. 2. 3. 1 4.. 5. 1 6. i 1 7. I " 8. 9, ITEM • Repair, Repoint and Stabilize Masonry Walls Vegetation Removal Plaza Repair and Repointing Repair, Waterproofing and Stabilization of Terreplein and Roof Decks Foundation Repair and Stabilization Repair and Replacement of Wood Construction Repair and Replacement of Misc. Ironword and Historic Hardware Painting ITEM COST rOTAJ, COST 1,553,000. 84,000. 156,000. 54,000. 188,000. 56,000. 159,000. 4,000. 1 Rehabilitation of Utility Systems j I 84,000. 10. jConstruct Breakwater i j 1 Erosion Control (a) Fill Boles and Crevices, Place Gun-ite and 1 I Intrusion Groute at North Slope 523,000. 0,422,000. 1st YEAR j 2nd YEAR 94,000. 54,000. 188,000. 3rd YEAR 1,563,000. 10,422,000. I , i 1 j 4th YEAR 8th YEAR j 156,000. i i j - j 56,000. ! I 1 1 139.0GQ.__ 1 ! i 4,000. I i 94,000. ' 1 i | i i 1 | i t I ! i 1 1 o El Morro (cont'd) ITEM NO. • TOTAL: J ITEM b) Construct Grade Beam, Fill Cavities, Place Riprap, Gunite and Intrusion. Groute on North Exposure c) Repair and Protect Retaining Wall East and West of Steps on North Exposure, Install Grouted Rock, Earth Fill and Anchors NET COST BUILDING, BREAKWATER, AND EROSION CONTROL ITEM COST 244.000. 550,000. TOTAL COST 1.317,000. 1st YEAR $ 14.117,000.$10,422,000. V 2nd YEAR 1,317,000. PI. 653.000. 3rd YEAR $1,563,000. 4th YEAS $306,000. 5th YEAR • $173,000.. )-• r-» Erosiovi of ' he s e c w a r d H i d e 01 Sap, C r i s t o b a l i s v e r s t-vi'.l«n< in t h i s p h o ' o g r n p s . l i e a r e a ' YV{; t i o; lis 1 s e a c a r d s i d e ol d a s ( " r i s ' o b a l Hi!- h s r i ' l O i a l s i :1 !'P.! i ." :-!:'rr s * 'Oi' s * Sir v 1 i s ; i : Karl » witKi nt i r a i l a r e sTowJv e-ai i n g nuaiy !he s o i i on »!;ic-, S.ti" ( V i s * o b n ! i s b u l l 1 l'r-f> sal", or- s* o n e s useii i n '. iic c o n s i. rue :. i o n of San "rj.siob.i! i;iv(' romp J e i e I \ ti i s i n ' c u r e ' *"i The e x t e n s j v« (;!•»•* :;. of v e g e i .: i on a l s o f o n t ril.xii.es '. o tlie pi (.-i'. t • r o t n l i '• i or:. r„v, ,. • •;( v .. 1 ! y ... re -"if ' f r - • >v > •, : " i'. i t - . : it ,<-'fV oi i':i-' f o r ? wnui-l bp u'rtvi' .1 \ eitn.iiu'ed t •••pi ffittfi.l of 'tiodoftt p o v i r i ^ ' o i ' e i ' i d ' s . SAN. JUAii NATIONAL .HISTORIC. SITE_ . San Cristobal Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule ITEM NO. 1. 2. • ITEM • Foundation, Tljnriel Repair and Staht11zal1pp Vegetation Removal 1 i 3. | Repair, Repoint and Stabilize Masonry Walls 4.' 5. 6. 7, 8. 9. 10. 11. I'laza Repair and Kepointinp Repair, Waterproofing and Stabilization of Terreplein and Roof Decks Kepalr and Replace Misc. Metalwork.and Hardware Repair and Replace Wood Construction Remove Navy Housing and Restore Historic Grade at El Abanlco Tainting Rehabilitate Electrical System Rehabilitate Water System 1 -J , 1 ITEM COST % TOTAL COST 1,013,000 106,000. 2,313,000. 19,000. 1,094,000. 219,000. 107,000. 344,000. 7,000. 53,000. 44,000. 1st YEAR 1.013.000. 103,000. 2nd YEAR 2,313,000. 3rd YEAR 1,094,000. 4th YEAR 19,000. 219,000. 107,000. „ 7,000. " i 5th YEAR • ———-' - — — 344,000. 55,000. j 1 1 44,000. 1 I L 1 01 San C ITEM NO. 12. ristobal (cont'd) ITEM Erosion Control a) Cliff Slopes; Repair Sea and Surface Water Erosion, Fill Cavities and Construct Necessary Protection b) Devils Sentry Box: Repair Wall and Sea Erosion c) Fort Walls; Repair Undercutting and Erosion Fill Cavities and Construct Protection d) La Princessa: Repair Walls, Fill Cavities and Construct Protection 1 i TOTAL i_ JNET .C0ST_WJJJ3ING_ANn_ EROSION i ITEM COST 43,000. 18.000. 68,000. 155.000. $ \ * TOTAL COST 289,000. ),661,000. 1st YEAR 289,000. a,458,000. 2nd YEAR $2,313,000. 3rd YEAR 51,094,000. 4th YEAR $352,000. 5th YEAR - $444,000. -J The e r o r i i n of •. oe p i a s t e r 1 roil' t i e f a c e ol t h e i i. t \ VVa! ' I C o t e s t h e b r i n k ;.;i i s t o r e * o r h e x p o s e s to .H.'Striit'i , vr \u-.i , h e r iiiji hie I oui.iiai ion ot t h e Well i s s e r i o u s l y t h r e a t e n e d a t ninrv l o c i h i i e s , t e t i c i i i t i o i i 01. t h e f o r e -uiii t o p of t h e H u l l i s d e s t r o y i n g The m o r t a r b e t w e e n t h e b r i e h s am; s t o n e s . i'rt*os I...W b e e r perrr.i t t e d t o grow or. t h e C i t y Wad i » ' I b i s r;a\ 'Do an i n t o r e s t l o g f e a t u r e but t h e i n g r o w t h ot ' 'to r o o t s door.'. t h e w a l l t o dfstrt.it.'. iott it t h e y a r e DO! r e m o v e d . ! b SAN JUAN NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule, City Walls, San Juan to o ITEM NO. 1. 2." 3. TOTAL ! - ITEM Remove Vegetation Foundation Repair and Stabilization Repair, Repoint and Stabilize Masonry < NET COST CITY WALLS t ITEM COST $ •- TOTAL COST 73,000. 104,000. 1,706,000. 1,883,000. 1st YEAR 73,000. 104,000. "00,000. $377,000. 2nd YEAR 376,500. $376,500. 3rd YEAR 376,500. $376,500. 4th YEAR 376,500. $376,500. 5 th YEAR - 376,500, $373,500. '. . i . ' ; • ' i -.< • - !< . 1 ; ' i i r o s s • : . i • • , i r b t : i f*.' r.••>_;<• f : < J p f f j ' • , , . • • i - . • ] ; ; ; ~- , i - ; . , v n - - ( - r : - ! •;>•' < j ; ' i ,<• ;• - r h < ' r i : > • < • ! • , . ! i !i ' 1 : i- i i ) l ' < , ' I » ! I ; / | S t ' l M r l l c J , i S e r i o u s i l - \ ( . : ! . '•if f o r i ' e n s p r e s e r x u i i o r w o r k " a n b e u ' u ' o i i ' p i } : ; t u " i . b e , , , l : , ' _ • I , > ; ; ; - ' ! , ; , ' U P f MV O V f ' " I I' W I S I ' I P ' I ' f l ' l - j l ! f i •' , • ' • • : V, , | I I ' I e , - ' I I . • ! . . : • • I '; . ' ) ' . < > ' ' • . - p i : s V r a n I ! I ' I ' k » i l l ' K '1 :•.*•' f I ..-" • ci' '-u\ f-r ! !'!,' t h e p a r a p e t ami * ' i i ! l s h a s c r a n k e d i i-nu: a r t e , p c r a i i i S i p ' A'ater '<> p t i i e v ' h e w a l l s ami CHUSIIIK I >"' <• r ,.i ; le -. P I ' i o r e ; i on 1 ho surf has eroded the shoreline lo within a lew I ee 1 of 'he ]'orl,. Soiiif repair has been made hut it will be neeessarv to rebuilt the shore by the plaiting oi riprap and fill. 'iti M . i i r v . . i v I row trie l e r r e p l e i n ami !:e lower rooms m s ' be r e s t o r e d M£_JUAN NATIONAL HISTORIC .SITE El Canuelo Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule ITEM NO. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. fi. 7. 8. S. TOTAL: 1 „ - ,;.. ITEM • Remove Vegetation Remove Debris and Material Resulting From Collapsed Terreplein From Interior of Fort Repair and Waterproof Terreplein Restore Cistern Repair, Repoint and Stabilize Masonry Walls Repair and Restore Wood Construction Restore and Replace Misc. Historic Metalwork and Hardware Painting Erosion Control: Place Fill, Riprap and fti-rvnto NET COST EL CANUELO ITEM COST " TOTAL COST 2,000. 3,000. 29,000. 7,000. 38,000. 3,000. 3.000.. 1,000. 49,000. $135,000. 1st YEAS . 2,000. 49,000. $51,000. 2nd YEAR 3,000. 29,000. 3rd YEAR 38,000. ' | $32,000. $38,000. 4th YEAR 7,000. $7,000. 5th YEAR 3,000. 3,000. 1,000. $7,000. ST. THOMAS NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE F o r t C h r i s t i a n 25 ST. THOMAS NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE Fort Christian Located in the town of Charlotte Amalie on the Island of St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, Fort Christian was built in 1680 by Denmark to defend the town. Like Christiansvaern at Christiansted on St. Croix, this fort is a typical brick and stone fort in design and is painted barn red. Though it has been established as a National Historic Site since 1960, the National Park Service has little control over the structure. There is a memorandum of agreement between the Park Service and the Virgin Islands government over the use of the fort, but it is general and certainly not clear on whose responsibility it is to maintain the building. A new and more specific agreement should be negotiated. For some years the fort has been the headquarters for the Virgin Islands police. At the time we visited the structure there was tight security about the place because of certain prisoners being held there; consequently, our access to the fort was limited. We could only walk around the exterior of the fort and around the courtyard. As a result the estimates for repair work given herein are based on little more than a cursory examination of the structure. It is obvious from this examination that much work will have to be done to the fort to return it to its historic appearance. Windows have been punched into walls where embrasures once were; shed-like appurtenances have been constructed against the fort; the courtyard has been paved with modern concrete; the interior of the fort has been adapted to meet the needs of its present use; and modern fixtures, as well as modern door and window coverings, dot the inside of the structures. These are but a few items that will have to be corrected. Basically, the fort seems to be in sound condition and but minor repairs will be needed to the masonry. Please keep in mind that the following estimates are based on a limited examination of the structure. 26 ']"':>; -• is onfi of s e v e r a l motiern s t r u c t u r e s fit* ached t o i he l o r t . '•«S ST, THOMAS NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE ITEM ITEM NO. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. TOTAL. 1. Repair, Repoint and Restore Masonry Walls Repair and Restore Wood Construction Repair and Restore Roof -and Terreplein Restore Plaza (Courtyard) Restore Floors Restore Misc. Metalwork and Hardware Remove Exposed Electrical Wiring Remove Exposed Water and Sewer Lines Rehabilitate Utilities (Water, Sewer, and Electric) Painting 'NET COST FORT CHRISTIAN ITEM COST , TOTAL COST 359,000, 188,000. 219,000. 44.000.' 440,000. 219,000. 13,000. 14,000. 107,000. 19,000. ] 51,822,000. 1st YEAR 359,000. $ 359,000. 2nd YEAR 219,000. 13,000. 14,000. 107,000. $353,000". 3rd YEAR 440,000. i | $440,000. 4th YEAR 188,000. 44,000. $232,000. 1 5th YEAR 210,000. 19,000 1 1 1 $238,0 to Fort Christian Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule CHRISTIANSTED NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE Fort Christiansvaern 30 CHRISTIANSTED NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE Fort Christlansvaern Fort Christiansvaern is one of the six structures included in the Christiansted National Historic Site on St. Croix, Virgin Islands. The fort was built by the Danish Westindien and Guinea Company during the period 1738—1749, Its purpose was to protect the harbor of Bassin around which the town of Christiansted grew during the second quarter of the 18th century so rapidly that in 1755 it replaced the earlier town of Charlotte Amalie on St, Thomas as the capitol of the Danish West Indies. Fort Christiansvaern today is structurally sound generally, however, finishes are run down and show deterioration. With the except- ion of the brick roofs of the stables and wagon shed and the terreplein of the west curtain, masonry work is limited to finishes and surface treatments and pavements. The bulk of repairs required are on the wood portions of the fort. Structurally this includes the replacement of beams carrying the masonry decks and roof as well as the reconstruction of the more conventional roof over latrines, washhouse, etc. It also includes frames and sash, interior and exterior, as well as paneling and floors. This work will be the costliest part of the restoration of the fort. It should be noted that Fort Christiansvaern has retained a high percentage of early hardware and sash even though at this stage these items present a ragged appearance. In view of the fact that the fort is of considerable historical and cultural interest and that it can be restored at not too great an expense, we recommend that this cause be followed. An estimate of the needed work is as follows. 31 Over "ve ve-u-r some r i ' S l u r . : : i o n and a t a b i 1 i .'.a' i on work has boor done tm hor* Hi r i s ' i ans van n u i e s p t ' o n j f l o o r o f f i r e r s ' q u a r t e r s w i l l be r e s t o r e r ! t o uf.'!1' ( v i c i n a l eon.'ii' i o n s. i'i.f •-, i s i ' o r i'>'s:i'oi)i^ .tt'i.- -a>w b e i u a impt'iu'i-u rti;il ..uit i;ii-:i. p Writer are I a c w c r t i n e s install led.. '!•.•• -'- iti'r-- ,,'••! .- ! .a-! i-y, n'ii w i l l a l s o be r e s l o r t ' i i i' « i i (low.-;, . l o o r ; i i h l H i i n l C U ' i - .' I-MI •! i c i - i n n c i i » - r » i l iit'f".! r c . ' p . i i i " t s u i r f » s * < i r , i '• i i>i; .. T-ji p i - . - r - i • n i f ' 1 . : ! c o v r - c i i M p p e i r o o l (>| t h f o l l i c - e r s ' ' i u , i C ' c r . ~ i l l ! : . ( • ••<•-•' < i i v " i Note the (if it; 1 n.i'l row! j o i h l CHR1 STI AN5TED NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE Fort Christiansv'aern Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule ITEM NO. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. ITEM Masonry Repair. Repointine and Restoration Repair and Restoration of Floors Restoration of Courtyard (Replace Concrete Surfaces) Repair and Restoration of Wood Construction Replacement of Deteriorated Metalwork and Hardware Complete Restoration of Historic Roof Restoration of Stables and Stableyard Restoration of Historic Plaster Repair and Waterproofing Terreplein Reconstruction of Historic Dock and Laundry House Removal of Exposed Electrical Wiring and Plumbing Pipes ITEM COST •* TOTAL COST 169.000. 119,000. 32,000. 91,000. 66,000. 150,000. 200,000. 81,000. ' 110,000. 53,000. 4,000. 1st YEAR 91,000. 150,000. 4,000. 2nd YEAR 169.000. • 110,000 3rd YEAR 119,000. 81,000. 4th YEAR 200,000. 5th YEAR - 32,000 66,000 53.00( . u Fort C h r i s t i a n s v a e r n (cont'd) NO. 12. 13. TOTAL i ITEM R e h a b i l i t a t e U t i l i t i e s P a i n t i n g • : NET COST FORT CHRISTIANSVERN - ITEM COST •- TOTAL COST 11 ,nnn 6.000, $1,112,000. 1st YEAR 31f000 $276,000. 2nd YEAR $279,000. 3rd YEAR $200,000. 4th YEAR $200,000. 5th YEAR 6,000 $157,000, u 01 FORT JEFFERSON NATIONAL MONUMENT Fort Jefferson 37 FORT JEFFERSON NATIONAL MONUMENT Fort Jefferson The Army began building Fort Jefferson in 1846 and worked on it over the next 28 years, never completing the fort. The lower level of case- mates was completed and armed, as was the upper gun deck or terreplein. The middle tier was not finished and today displays prominently its uncom- pleted embrasures of ragged bricks forming the general outlines of the gun ports. This fort is located on Garden Key at the end of the long curving chain of Florida Keys. It was the largest of the coastal forts built to defend the shores of the United States. During the Civil War it became a prison, and after the war contained several involved in the Lincoln Assas- sination, including the falsely accused Dr. Samuel Mudd. The upper tier, or terreplein, of Fort Jefferson is covered with sand and grass-type vegetation. The moat, formed by a brick counterscarp, still has water in it, though sand has blown into sections of it; one section, on the back side of the fort, has a sizeable portion filled with sand. Water swirls under some parts of the counterscarp and one segment, about 30 feet long, has been washed away, exposing the moat to the sea. The fort never engaged in battle, but it stands today as a fine and remarkably complete example of nineteenth century fortifications. Today the fort is seriously threatened with deterioration, and something should be done to preserve it. However, in view of the isolation of the area and the attendant small annual visitaion, one is reluctant to think in terms of expensive restoration to the fort. Consequently, the action we recommend is that needed to slow deterioration of the old structure. If the recommended course of action is followed, deterioration of the fort should not go at a rapid pace for the next 25 or 30 years, and by that time conditions may change so that then there may be good reasons to save the whole fort. The Park Service should concentrate now its efforts on restoring only the front section of the fort and the two associated bas- tions, one of which was Dr. Mudd's cell. The four major causes of the fort's problems are: (1) exfoliation of the metal framing of the gun ports, (2) the damaged counterscarp, (3) leakage of water down from the terre- plein, and (4) deterioration of the masonry from the atmosphere. 38 Metal Framing of Gun Ports The heavy iron that is buried in the brick surrounding the gun ports is rusting and the resultant expansion is pushing the outer layer of brick away from the wall. In some places the brick has already fallen away, while the bricks around some of the ports are bulged out like huge blisters. Through the years this condition will continue until the bricks around each gun port will be pushed away from the wall to fall into the moat. Since the only section of the fort to be restored is the front section and its bastions, there is no need to be deeply concerned about the exfoliation of the metal gun port frames on the other five sides of the fort. However, the metal in the gun ports on the two sides flanxing the front should receive some treatment to slow destruction of the gun ports. The metalwork should be wire-brushed as far as can be reached without removing the surrounding bricks, and the metal should then be coated with a preservative. On the other three sides the metal should be left to rust and to push away the bricks. Such action will do no harm to the basic structural strength of the fort's walls. The metal framing and shutters of the gun ports on the front side of the fort, however, should be removed and new components, treated with pre- servatives, should be installed and covered with brick as was done when the fort was constructed originally. Consideration should be given to replacing these features with material that is non-exfoliating. In view c. the desire to restore only one side of the fort—the front side—it will, of course, be necessary to restore the gun ports there to their original appearance so that in at least some of the case- mates guns may be placed. The Counterscarp and Moat The counterscarp forming the moat appears to be in reasonably good condition. There is, however, one gaping hole in it where time and the sea have gnawed out a segment about thirty feet long. In addition, the gateway built into the wall to control the level of water in the moat now stands open, permitting the water to flow freely into and out of the moat. These two openings allow the water in the moat to rise and fall with the tide causing water action around much of the foundation of the fort, especially during storms. 39 Past efforts to repair and plug the break in the counterscarp have been only temporarily successful. It has been proposed that a bridge- like structure be erected at the broken section of the counterscarp, and let the water flow in and out during storms. This procedure, it would seem to us, would do nothing to inhibit the action of the water around the foundation of the fort proper. We, therefore, recommend that the damaged section of the counterscarp be rebuilt and a tide gate restored to control the ingress and egress of water into the moat. Moreover, in one or two places the sea has eroded the sand from beneath the foundation of the counterscarp. Though small, these holes should be plugged, A recent examination of this section of the counterscarp has led one member of a private engineering firm to recommend that the holes be plugged with nylon bats inflated with cement. We suggest that a second 1 firm be hired to determine the feasibility of this technique. Control- ling the flow of water in the moat will not stop the deterioration of the fort's foundation, but it will slow it considerably since there will be less swirling action of the water. Further, this work will not be expensive, and should add years to the life of the fort. Terreplein Water seeps down from the upper gun deck, or terreplein, through the walls of the fort, leaching mortar from between the bricks. In e num- ber of places on the first and second level one can see stalagmites and stalactites froming from the lime in the mortar. This erosion, of course, is weakening the walls of the fort. The sand on the terreplein should be stripped back and a waterproof membrane should be installed. The sand should then be placed back over the masonry to serve as the wearing surface. At the same time, since the bulk of it is on the terreplein, the water catchment system should be repaired. Exposed portions should be restored to historic appearance, but the remainder may utilize modern materials and techniques. The same type of repairs should be made to the cisterns. 1. Joseph P. Welsh to Jack Stark, Cherry Hill, N, J,, February 19, 1973, in files of Everglades National Park. Welsh is District Manager of the Soil Technology Department of Raymond International, Inc. 40 This work will not in itself halt deterioration of the fort, but it will appreciably slow it, stopping the water from seeping down into the interior of the wall and eroding the mortar within the structure. Perhaps just as important, this work will buy time by slowing deterioration to the point that should conditions change twenty years from now, the Park Service could decide upon a course that would aim toward a greater degree of resto- ration than now envisioned. It is essential to repair the catchment sys- tem and cisterns since this is the only source of fresh water for monument personnel and the visitors. Miscellaneous The remainder of the work at Fort Jefferson should consist of stabi- lizing foundations of structures in the courtyard, removal and/or repoint- ing of bricks that are hazardous to visitor safety, stabilizing of the hot shot furnace, and stabilizing of the uncompleted powder magazine. This work will be expensive, but beside providing an increased degree of visitor safety, holding the various structural remains mentioned above in their present condition will add depth and clarity to the interpretation of life and activity at the fort. Officers' Quarters The officers' quarters, now little more than a rubble pile, should be reconstructed to its historic appearance on the exterior, but the interior should be adapted as modern living quarters. Additional housing is needed for park personnel who are presently jammed into jury-rigged quarters in the casemates. 41 These two photographs can on.ly suggest the magnitude el For! .Tf Iprso.ry ; He largest tsasourv fortification eonst ructfii by this couture „ l:'. The sal Iv-port ami historic entrance of Kort Jefferson will be restored. In places where 'he cracking of the walls is serious foundation repairs will probably have to be made, CM her areas may only require minor wall repair and repoin'ing of 'he cracks. TOKXJ.EFFHiS0^NJlATIONALJiQJiraENTl Fort Jefferson Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule ITEM SO. i 1. 2. j 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 1 11. I ! i i ITEM Foundation Repair and Stabilization Stabilization of Exterior Masonry Walls Stabilization of Interior Masonry Walls and Ceilings (2 tiers) Stabilization of Slate Floors (2 tiers) Terreplein Waterproofing and Water Catchment System Repair Cistern Repair and Restoration Restoration of Sally Port, Reconstruction of Drawbridge and Historic Approach Interior Restoration and Furnishing of One (1) Casemate Complete with Cannon Interior Restoration and Furnishing of Dr. Miidri'K Prison r;p-ji Stabilize Large Powder Magazine- Stabilize Hot Shot Furnace ITEM COST \ « TOTAL COST i,nfln|onn. 823,000. 1,034,000. 220,000. 402.000. 121,000. 480,000. 112,000. ' 35,000. 23,000. 22,000. 1st YEAR 1.033.000. 2nd YEAR 823,000. 3rd YEAR : 1.084,000. 462.000. 220,000. 4th YEAR 121,000. 4S0.000. 23,000 22,000 5th YEAH - 112,000 IS^OflD 1 1 | A ITEM NO. 12. 13,. 14. 15. 14. 17. 18. TOT A .- ITEM • ITEM COST Restore Metal Embrasure Shutters and Embrasures on Front Curtain Exterior Restoration o£ Front Curtain Stabilization and Partial Removal of Exfoliate Metal Embrasure Shutters Repair and Stabilization of Counterscarp (Outer Moat Wall). Includes Reconstruction of Missing Section Rebuilding.and Adapting of Third Officer's Quarters as N.P.S. Quarters Restoration of Other Misc. Ironwork and Hardware Painting :.: NET COST FORT JEFFERSON 1 '- TOTAL COST 235,000. 295,000. 109.000. 395,000. 94.000 1*3,000 6,000. $5,578,000. 1st YEAR 395,000. $1,461,000. 2nd YEAR 235.000. 109.* ooo. $1,629,000. 3rd YEAR $1,304,000. 4th YEAR 295,000. $941,000. 5th YEAR 94,000. 6,000. $243,000. -%1 Fort Jefferson (cont'd) CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT Castillo de San Marcos 48 CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT Castillo de San Marcos Probably no masonry fort in the National Park System has been more in the forefront of National Park Service thinking, for publicity pur- poses, than Castillo de San Marcos, Since the 1930*s it has been the premier symbol in the United States of Spanish settlement in this country. Indeed, these remains are directly linked to the establish- ment of the first city in the present United States. Jt comes as a distinct surprise to find the fort in its present condition. There are serious vertical cracks in the curtain of the fort, but preliminary investigations by Archeologist George Fischer indicate they do not extend much beyond the waterline in the moat. Consequently, the foundation may be in better condition than the cracks would indicate. Erosion of the curtain is much in evidence, particu- larly at mortar joints. This same erosion condition holds true for the counterscarp, which forms the outer wall of the water moat, the covered way which is beyond the counterscarp, and the sea wall. The ceilings and walls of the fort leak indicating internal erosion; indeed, in one room of the fort where museum artifacts are stored it has been necessary to build another room within the masonry room to protect the artifacts from moisture. To step this leakage the Park Service a few years ago paved the terruplein with "Laycold." This glaring white asphaltic coating is not historic in texture , color, or appear- ance, and the only thing positive about it is the fact that it serves as a wearing surface to protect the coquina stones of the terreplein. It inhibits, but by no means halts, the flow of water into the inter- ior of the Castillo's walls. The woodwork is generally in fair condition, but some major repair work needs to be done. The drawbridge needs to have wood replaced, and many of the doors within the fort show signs of serious rot. This masonry fort is much in the public eye, and it is the out- standing symbol in the National Park Service of Spanish penetration and settlement of the United States; consequently, we feel this fort should be fully and accurately restored. But since restoration work in the past has been haphazard, an orderly scheme of rehabilitation should be worked out. But it must be kept clearly in mind that any such work needs to be based solidly upon thorough historical and archi- tectural research. The fact that Castillo de San Marcos National Monu- ment is a Bicentennial park lends urgency to the need to begin work soon. 49 ( V u e k i m: " ! 'he couti.ii'.,i it;,, i i s is uudi>iiliU?'ll \' due lo iour.'Sa* .ion f a i l u r e or movement over l lie years,. The more Serious ,irons, * i 1 1 r e q u i r e r e - p a i r ar;ri m i r- forremen < t o the f o u n d a t i o n , i t i other areas r e p a i r an ! rt-piMnlloR •>. i i ! lie s u l f i r i e n ' to c o r r e c t t h i s riamune. Trie present eon-lit i o n of the- res', oreti ilra'.vlir i ripes w w . - ' i s i " r i ' e s t h e r e p I n< en ei •' of t h e w o n ! e o n s ' r u e ' i f" - CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT Castillo De San Marcos Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule ITLM NO. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. e. 10. i ITEM Foundation Repair and Stabilization Repair and Repoint .Masonry Walla Repair, Waterproof and Restore Terreplein Repair and Partial. Restoration Interior Floors Repair and Stabilization Interior Walls and Repair Drawbridges Repair and Stabilization Counterscarp (Moat Wall) Repair and Replacement of Wood Construction Painting Repair and Stabilization of Misc. Metalwork and Historic Hardware , ITEM COST '- TOTAL COST .79,000. 235,000. 93,000. 9,000. 103,000. 17,000. 122,000. 9,000. 4,000. 11,000. 1st YEAR 79,000. 93,000. 2nd YEAR 235,000. 3rd YEAR 103,000. 17,000. 9,000. 4th YEAR 122,000. 5 th YE.AR - 9,000. 4,000. 11,000. t w ITEM ITEM * NO. 1 1 . 12 . !?JLA Repair and S t a b i l i z a t i o n Tide Gates (2) Repair and Repointing Seawall „: NET COST CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS - i 1 . ITEM COST •- TOTAL COST 27,000. 104,000. $813,000. ! 1st YEAR $172,000. 2nd YEAR $233,000. 3rd YEAR $129,000 4th YEAR 27,000. $140,000. 5th YEAR 104,000 S128,000. en C a s t i l l o De San Marcos (cont'd) FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT F o r t Matanzas 55 FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT Fort Matanzas This coquina structure was a watchtower built about 1742 by the Spanish of St. Augustine to warn that settlement of approaching enemy vessels. It is basically a three story building roughly 48 feet square. The first story which is solid except for a cistern supports the terre- plein that could have held six cannon. From the terreplein one enters a room that probably served as quarters for the detachment stationed there. Above this is another small room that served as the detachment commander's quarters, and is entered by a wooden stairway from the terreplein. A ladder through the ceiling of this upper room leads to the observation deck. Matanzas was restored in the 1930's. The degree of accuracy of the restoration has yet to be fully measured. Many of the wooden members placed in the structure at that time show marked signs of rotting and should be replaced. The beams in the second floor room have rotted. The wooden stairs leading from the ground outside the fort to the terre- plein is deteriorating and needs to be replaced. Moreover, they are not historic in appearance. The stairway from the terreplein to the upper room is also rotting and it, too, lacks historical appearance. Safety for the visitor is an important reason to replace the wooden stairs. The stairways should be replaced only after a study has been conducted that will indicate a design of stairs more accurate histo- rically. 56 The itoi'Mr j o i n t s have eroded and r e q u i r e e x h h i s i r r repot n i i rig , FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT Fort Matanzas Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule * This estimate does not include replacement of the existing non-historic wood docks with a stone quay and groin, which could be incorporated with item #8 for an additional $65,000. If the project is programmed separately it could beln excess of this. ITEM NO. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7, 8. 9. 10. | j TOTAI i ITBI Foundation Renair and Stabilization Masonry Repair and Repointing Repair and Restore Terreplein Repair end Restore Cistern Repair and Restore Second Floor of Observation Tower Waterproof, Repair and Restore Observation Deck ITEM COST Reconstruct Wood Ladders and Door3 (Provide 1 Access Stair for Visitors) j River Erosion Control (Install Riprap and Earth] * V Fill!)* Misc. Ironwork and Hardware Restoration Painting : NET COST FORT MATAN'ZAS TOTAL COST 51,000. 19,000. 13,000. 4,000. 4,000. 5,000. 3,000. 63.000.* 3,000. 1,000. 1st YEAR 63.000..* $160,000. $63,000. 2nd YEAR 51,000. 3,000. $57,000. 3rd YEAR 19,000. $19,000. 4th YEAR 13,000. 4,000. 5th YEAR 4,000. 5,000. 3,000. 1,000. $17,000. $13,000. to FORT FREDERICA NATIONAL MONUMENT Fort Frederica 60 FORT FREDERICA NATIONAL MONUMENT Fort Frederica Founded in 1736 by Gen. James Oglethorpe as a barrier to the Spanish in Florida, the town of Frederica in time consisted of houses, taverns, barracks, and a fort. A wall surrounded the city. The fort has since disappeared and what remains of it today is a portion of the powder magazine, which had been built of brick and tabby. These remains are in remarkably good condition and will require little expenditure and v/ork to bring them up to first class condition. The tabby is eroding in a few places and it will have to be repointed. Below the fort the river has over the years changed course and has eaten away a sizeable portion of the bank. This erosion has been success- fully halted by the installation of riprap with a partial surfacing of gunite running from low water to the level of ground on which the fort resides. This gunite cover blends in nicely with the natural bank. However, water washes under the riprap and slowly eats away at the earth behind it, causing occasional cave-ins. At such times the park has been filling in the holes with earth. This fill usually lasts for little ov3r a year before another cave-in occurs. To solve the problem on a more permanent basis it will be necessary to extend the toe of the rip- rap deeper into the water to inhibit underwashing and to fill behind with additional riprap rather than earth as has been done in the past. The remains of the fort are in good condition and the repair work necessary would have low priority among work needed on masonry forts generally, for others are in much more critical condition. But if the work on the powder magazine is done soon, the deterioration will be caught at an early stage and will, therefore, be much less expensive. Presently the park has the erosion of the river bank under control, but a permanent solution to the problem would be the extension of the riprap lower into the water and the placing of rock and grout into the erosion holes. This work, however, would be more expensive than the 61 regular park budget could afford. A special funding for this project will be needed, but the work would have a low priority among that needed for masonry fortification generally. The rock and grout will be one initial expense whereas the present method of repairing the erosion will be a periodical expense. 62 Oi.lv ,-. p.HO (0 one ol i he- Kurt K r c . i e r i r a s l n i r l u r c s !-C!!L.I 1 ' C r a c k s anai IHIIPK s i i i a a s t h i s must bo M 1 lc-j ' o s-np, iu'.orual 'iot crioi-H' i on o( t ho w a l l s ^ . T O less r<>point | i • ••pp».irir.-vc- C a r o l o s s r<.point j, i e >)t ,,.;,rb' or.-.-fo^ an u - s u t ' " ! .!iin>',ir;i:'i-i- -s"">' >',.p,) , r: n | rr-.poi ]; • i nn <n ;!,- i-.i-i,-j.; Vri.; | > , .»,_- K FORT FREDERICA NATI DNAL .MONUMENT Fort Frederica Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule ITEM NO. 1 . 2 . 3 . TOT/i i ITEM R e p a i r , a n d R e p o i n t Tabby W a l l s and b r i c k ' v a u l t i n g ; . I n s t a l l W a t e r p r o o f i n Roof R e p a i r and I n c r e a s e Depth of S e a w a l l L: NET COST- FORT FRSDERICA ITEM COST s TOTAL COST 5 , 0 0 0 . 3 , 0 0 0 . 5 0 , 0 0 0 . $ 5 3 , 0 0 0 . 1 s t YEAR 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 2nd YEAR 5 , 0 0 0 . 3 , 0 0 0 . $ 8 , 0 0 0 . 3 r d YEAR 4 t h YEAR 5 t h YEAR - FORT PULASKI NATIONAL MONUMENT Fort Pulaski 67 FORT PULASKI NATIONAL MONUMENT Fort Pulaski This brick structure, built as a coastal fortification, suffered severe damage from bombardment by the Federal fleet during the Civil War. The exterior walls are today generously pock-marked from this shell fire. The fort was restored in the 1930's, and in subsequent years, the park had on its maintenance staff a mason who devoted his time to keeping the brickwork in repair. As a result the fort Is in remarkably good condition. It is without question the best maintained masonry fort in the National Park System. The woodwork of the fort is on the whole in good repair, but some of the wooden casemate floors, window frames, and doors are deteriorating and should be repaired to bring the fort up to full maintenance standards. 68 ''• • '•-'•. ' .:•..;".;',•: •:•..•, i> ' c:i, .m-i- p>-< n>. >-,.ii;- ..•<•)• '.in- •/<••,•> s ','.,.-• ( • • • • • . < ' • • • • • • i ( i : « < ; • i . ) • ; « * - 1 - 1 1 - - > i. f j t i - ! i » t i ( - I I : , I « . ; O ; . I ' . 1 . . : • ' ) ' : P'- ,.-ik i i W r i i T , .'Of ;."<•!.' IM* i•"! | ) n ; ,1-1" • •! •"'•p -' I ' d i :- !.f'f--|fii !(••' ( I l ' i ' - u n it ill!.. I i. <.'!•«- IS ll) '•'• ':•)>' ' << ' " p . , \ i • »\n ij ini.ii'.i- «•,.,-.' .i.i ;-.>•• I is.f>!;; ','•• FORT PULASKI NATIONAL MONUMENT Fort Pulaski Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule ITEM NO. 1. ?.. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. TOTi i ITEM Masonry Repair and Bepointing Repair and Restore , Wnnd nnistrncH nil Repair and Resurface Interior Walls, Powder Magazine Waterproof Terreplein Restore Six (6) Cisterns Unplug and Repair Surface Water Drains. Repair and Restore Tide Gate and Bulkhead Repair and Restoration Misc. Metalwork and Historic Hardware Painting tL: NET COST FORT PULASKI ITEM COST •• TOTAL COST 394,000. . 78,000. 14,000, 47/000, 19,000. 9,000. 15,000 4,000. 2,000. 1st YEAR 100,000 14,000. 47,000. 9,000. 15,000. $579,000 -5185 000. . 2nd YEAR 100,000 50.000, 5150,000 3rd YEAR 100,000. 25,onp. 4,000. 2,000. $131,000. 4th YEAR 94,000. 19,000. $113,000. 5th YEAR - •^ H* » FORT SUMTER NATIONAL MONUMENT F o r t M o u l t r i e B a t t e r y J a s p e r F o r t Sumter 72 FORT SUMTER NATIONAL MONUMENT Fort Moultrie Though small, Fort Moultrie is one of the most complex of the masonry forts in the National Park System. It is a difficult fort to grasp and understand. The exterior of the fort exhibits a structure built in 1809, but once inside all one sees is 1870-1898 and later structures and arma- ments. The courtyard or parade of the fort has been well dotted with concrete and brick magazines and tunnels, and all of this has been covered with earth so that all that shows of these structures are entranceways and ventilator shafts. Resting on this overburden are series of gun emplacements, or batteries, designed for the long range artillery of the turn-of-the-century period. During World War II the defense establish- ment built a large concrete structure, several stories in height, that was part of the harbor protection system designed to keep enemy subma- rines away from U. S. harbors. It was built outside of but adjacent to the fort's walls, though it appears to be inside the fort. Much of the structure was covered with sand, but the building is so tall that it sticks well above ground, dominating the scene. Antennae and a signal- ing yardarm are perched on the summit of this structure, adding height and unsightliness to the fort. With all of these additions and intrusions, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the visitor to visualize the fort as a bastion fort sym- bolizing the second system of defense works. But to remove all the later additions and restore the fort to its original appearance would require an expenditure of funds gigantic in proportion. Perhaps for that prac- tical reason, the approved master plan calls for restoring the fort to its appearance as of 1903-1910. To accomplish this objective and to render the fort into a good structural condition it will be necessary to remove the World War II harbor defense, or calibration, station and restore the exterior of the fort that the station apparently rests against, remove the foundation piers of the World War I position finding station southeast of the sally port, repair and restore Batteries Bingham, McCorkle, and Lord, restore gun platforms of the 1872-76 period, remove an early twentieth century latrine, and determine grade of the 73 ditch that fronted the sea side of the fort in order to restore it. In addition, the concrete floor of the 1809 magazine should be replaced with a historically accurate brick floor. In many places on the exterior walls, or curtain, of the fort repointing of brick should be done to stop sur- face erosion. And in other spots it will be necessary to replace bricks that have fallen away. The southeast corner of the fort will have to be rebuilt since the pressure of the earth fill in the fort over the years has forced the wall out. To halt deterioration from rain water it will be necessary to remove earth from the area over the sally port and case- mates, apply a waterproof membrane, and then replace the earth. And final- ly, much of the metal work throughout the fort should be repaired, and in some instances replaced. The new master plan, still in draft stage, and the interpretive pro- spectus call for the main thrust of the story to be that of the evolution of harbor fortifications in the United States through World War II. This latter concept would permit the retention of most of the structures now at the fort, including the calibration station. Some of the earth fill lmide the fort will have to be removed. One crucial item that should have been tal en care of years ago is the installation of the backflow valve in the fort's drainage system to pre- vent water from high tides flowing into the fort proper. 74 FORT SOWER NATIONAL MONUMENT ITEM NO, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. d. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. ITEM Remove World War 1 Construction and Restore Site Remove World War 11 Construction and Restore Site ITEM COST Restore Civil War Emplacements, 1872-76 Gun Platforms and 1898 Batteries | Remove Other Modern Construction and Restore Site Remove Concrete Floor in 1809 Magazine and Restore Rrlr-V. Finn-,. Reconstruct Southeast Bastion Point Repair and Repoint Exterior Masonry Walls Repair and Restore Missing Stone Parapet Cap Repair, Repoint and Restore Interior Masonry Walls and Ceilings Waterproof Terrepleln Repair and Replace Misc. Ironwork, Metal Doors and Historic Hardware '* TOTAL COST 191,000 21 florin 3,nnn 3, win 4,000 157,000 3,000 6T000 24,000 35,000 1st YEAR 2nd YEAR i?.2fono 191,000 3rd YEAR 310. aaa 157,00('. 3.00C i fifPnn. ' 24,00C. 1' • ••• 4th YEAR 3,000, 3,000. 4,000. 35.000. 5th YEAR - Fort Moultrie Estimate and Suggested Protect Schedule •d X I TBI NO, 12. 13. I 14. TOTAI 1 1 1 1.. ITEM Unplug and Repair Drain Lines, I n s t a l l . F^afkflnw V a l y p . Painting : NET COST FORT MOULTRIE ITEM COST TOTAL COST 3,000 4.000 $781,000 1st YEAH 1 $313,00C 1 1 2nd YEAR 7 r000. $107,000 3rd YEAR $219,000 i 4th YEAR 3,000. 4,000. 5th YEAR ' | $52,000.1 ! Fort Moultrie (cont'd) <o Fort Moultrie Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule in Compliance with Revised Planning Report of April 2, 1673 ITEM NO. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. ITEM Partial Removal of Fill and Restoration of Parade Restore WWII Control Post Restore WWI and Associate Construction Remove Non-military Construction and Restore Site Remove Concrete Floor, 1809 Magazine, and Restor Brick Floor Restore Civil War Emplacements, 1872-78 Gun Platforms and 1898 Batteries Reconstruct South Bastion Point Repair and Repoint Masonry Repair and Restore'Stone Parapet Cap Repair, Restore, and Repoint Interior Masonry Walls and Ceilings Waterproof Terreplein ITEM COST » TOTAL COST 5,000. 45,000. 40,000. 3,000. 3,000. 219,000. 4,000. 157,000. 3,000. 6,000. 24,000. "Jt YEAR 5,000. 15,000. 40,000. 3,000. 219,000. • " 2nd YEAR 4,000. 157,000. 24,000. 3rd YEAR 3,000. 3,000. 6,000. 1 4th YEAS 5th YEAR ^ i I i ~" ' ! Fort Moultrie—Revised (cont'd) ITEM NO. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16. ITEM Repair and Replace Misc. Ironwork, Metal Doors, and Historic Hardware Unplug and Repair Drain Lines; Install Back- Flow Valve . .—- Painting Partial Reconstruction of First Fort Restore Historic Ditch TOTAL: NET'COST FORT MOULTRIE • 1 ITEM COST TOTAL COST 35.000. 7,000. 3,000. 250,000. 4,000. P $808,000. 1st YEAR $312,000. 2nd YEAR $185,000. 3rd YEAR 35.000. 7,000. 3,000. 125,000. 4,000. $188,000. 4th YEAR 125,000. $125,000. 5th YEAR A A . i ! i i ' I FORT SUMTER NATIONAL MONUMENT Battery Jasper Located near Fort Moultrie, Battery Jasper, which is of the Spanish- American War period, is a massive concrete structure that had emplacements for 4 guns. Today it is closed to visitation, primarily because it is unsafe. Much of the iron railings and iron walkways have either disappeared or have badly deteriorated. Most of the heavy metal doors are now gone, while the remainder have rusted badly. The rails and chain hoists that carried amunition from the powder magazines below to the guns above have rusted seriously, and sections of the overhead rails have been removed. The tar or asphalt that once served as a sealer on the top of the bat- tery has in places been removed, and in other places it has cracked to an extent that it is no longer effective. Here and there are large cracks that apparently penetrate deeply into the concrete hulk and admit water to the rooms on the first level. Many of the concrete steps have cracked in places or have been badly chipped. In order to restore this battery so that visitors may enter it, a number of repairs will have to be made. The cracks in the structure will have to be grouted, the top will have to be sealed with an asphalt- appearing substance, the walkways on the upper level will have to be rebuilt, and missing metal doors will have to be replaced; those now in place will have to be cleaned, treated, and put into useable condition. It is further recommended that one overhead rail system and its associated shell hoist be restored for interpretive purposes. Battery Jasper is a good example of a Spanish-American War battery, and as such it is an important segment of, and graphically illustrates, the evolution of coastal defenses from the early nineteenth century to the early twentieth century. 80 FORT SUMTER NATIONAL MONUMENT Battery Jasper Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule 1TLM NO. 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. 6. TOT i- ITEM Minor Stabilization of Concrete Structure Including Floors. Roof, Remove Existing Expansion Joint Seal- ant, Clean Joints and Cracks, Caulk ami Rese; Hestoratiou and Replacement of Metal Walkways Bridges, Stairs, Railings, Doors and Frames, Misc. Metalwork and Historic Hardware. Partial Replacement and Restoration of Ammunition Hoist_and Trolley. Repair and Unplug Internal Drainage System, Replace Gratings. Painting," AL: NET COST BATTERY JASPER • ITEM COST 1. , TOTAL COST :>4,nr,n 31. (WO. i?.ofooo. 12,"000. 4,000. 1,000. $198,000. 1st YEAR 24,000. 31.000. $55,000. 2nd YEAR ft-^nnn $63,000. 3rd YEAR st nnn $63,000. 4th YEAR 12,000. 4,000. 1,000. $17,000. 5th YEAR r 05 FORT SUMTER NATIONAL MONUMENT Fort Sumter Fort Sumter, the symbol of the Civil War, is a disappointing fort to visit. Had it been left in its condition after the war, it would be a meaningful rubble pile testifying to Southern will and resistance. If it could have survived as originally constructed, architecturally it would have been an interesting structure.- What is there now is one story of a former three-tiered fort, and placed across its parade, from one side to the other, is a massive concrete battery, vintage 1898. One end of this battery known as Battery Huger is tied into the wall of the fort at the historic sally port, or entrance. As a result the Army found it necessary to cut another entrance into the fort. The old entrance is now completely sealed by the end of the battery, but there are remains that mark clearly the roadway from the water's edge to the entrance. Battery Huger appears to be in very good condition, and it today houses the visitor center and museum. The interior of the battery has been exceptionally well adapted for this use. The casemates along the lower tier of the fort are generally in poor condition and need much repointing and structural stabilization; indeed, one casemate is heavily shored up to prevent its collapsing. Only about half of the casemates of the lower tier are open, since sand has been filled in between Battery Huger and the side of the fort opposite the present-day entrance. Most of the embrasures in the casemates have been bricked closed. The upper level of the fort is the exposed top of the first level case- mates. One section of the parade contains the foundations and some walls of barracks originally built at the fort. The fort was originally on an island in the harbor, but since 1865 the setting has changed. Fill from dredging Charleton Harbor has formed 83 almost a link between the island and the mainland so that the fort is virtually on a peninsula of land. In view of the fact that the historical integrity of the resource has been violated both by destruction of the setting and drastic alteration of the historic structure, one is hard put to come up with a decision for the future of the fort. It would seem to us that there are three alterna- tives: (1) Hold what is there now; keep Battery Huger, but stabilize the old fort's remains, including opening the embrasures. (2) Remove Battery Huger and its associated structures from the fort, take away the sand fill, restore the original sally port and entranceway, and restore the present entrance to its historic appearance. (3) Remove Battery Huger and its associated structures, restore the original sally port and entranceway, remove the present entrance, and partially rebuild the fort. A rough overall cost figure for alternative 1 would be $1,300,000. and for 2 $1,700,000. while alternative 3 would be the most expensive at $1,842,000. After due consideration we recommend alternative 1. Not only is it the least expensive course, but the historic setting has been so changed thi t to restore the fort to any stage remotely ressembling its historic appearance would be at best only telling a half truth. No matter what is done to the fort it will always be only a memorial of the historic events associated with it. Since it can only occupy a symbolic position, it makes just as much sense to leave it in its present condition than to restore it to any of its past appearances. Although we do not recommend the removal of Battery Huger, an estimate for this work has been included in our list of estimates. The next best alternative, we feel, would be number 3. But the question remains: to what stage should it be restored? Should it be restored to its appearance one hour before the Confederates fired on it, or to its appearance when the Union forces surrendered it, or to its appearance when the Confederates evacuated the place in 1865? Any of these 84 stages would be expensive; would Congress be willing to come up with the money for such work when the story to be told could be done just as effec- tively with dioramas? The second alternative would be only a compromise between alterna- tives 1 and 3, and it would not be a very happy compromise. The attached estimate is for alternative 3 since that alternative includes the estimates of work needed to accomplish the restoration pre- pared in each of the three. 85 "or; SiiKicf i s ioca.f 1'! id Cfm r l t ' S t on h a r b o r or. a v e r y l i g h l i t t l e i.s 1 a t a l . Serious foundation failure has occurred at one angle of the fort due to sea action. Balterv linger now houses the visitor oenter and museum Ratterv linger now houses the visitor center and museum Hu FORT SUMTER NATIONAL MONUMENT Fort Sumter Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule 1 •"— ITEM NO. 1. 2, ' 3. 4.. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. ITEM « Repair and Stabilize Foundations Repair Flank Wall Repair and Stabilize Casemates (Piers, Columns, Arches and Vaulting) Remove Battery Huger and Restore Site Clean, Repair and Waterproof Exposed Deck Now Acting as Roof Repair, Repolnt and Stabilize Exterior Masonry teoair, Repoirrt and StnhiHzfi Interior Masonry Repair and Restore ;Wood Construction .Repair and Replace Misc. Ironwork and Historic Hardware Painting Reconstruct Portions of Structure- Destroyed During Bombardment Restore Sallyport and Entrance (Close Present Entrance TOTAL: NET COST FORT SUMTER ITEM COST • TOTAL COST 750,000. 17.000. 05,000 525,000. 47.000. 125,000. 70,000 8,000. 9,000. 2,000. 125,000. 75,000. $1,842,00 1st YEAR 525,000. 0. $525,000. 2nd YEAR 750.000. $750,000. 3rd YEAR 17,000. 95.000. 125,000, 75,000. $312,000. 4th YEAR 47,000. 125,000. $172,000 5th YEAR 70,000. 8,000. 9,000. | 2,000. $89,000. <o o GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE Fort Barrancas Battery San Antonio Redoubt Fort Pickens Miscellaneous Batteries Fort Massachusetts 01 GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE Fort Barrancas Built on top of the Spanish Fort San Carlos, Fort Barrancas was part of the defense system erected to protect the important naval base at Pensacola. Today Fort Barrancas is a four-sided, earth-filled structure. A dry moat runs on three sides of the fort. On the bay side of Barrancas is Battery San Antonio, apparently all that remains of Fort San Carlos, Bat- tery San Antonio is connected to Barrancas by a brick-lined tunnel that leads to the upper level of the fort. The tunnel is now bricked closed at both ends. Access to the fort is by way of a wooden bridge (non-historic) over the moat and through the entrance that leads to the upper level of the fort. The earth-filled upper level is covered with weeds and small bushes. During the Civil Way and later, guns were mounted around the terreplein, and today the pintles and stone and traverse circles on the gun mounts are in remarkably good condition. From the outside, the exterior, or curtain, of the fori appears to be in reasonably good condition, A few vertical cracks are visible, but they don't seem serious. However, when one gets inside the fort's walls, he forms a different opinion about the structural soundness of the fort. At the middle level of the fort there is a passageway that runs from one side of the entrance completely around the interior of the fort's walls to the other side of the entrance. The passageway appears to be a series of gun rooms since each compartment has a slit as if for a rifle. One side of the passageway is the curtain of the fort and the other is a retaining wall, about six feet high, that keeps the sand of this earth- filled fort from spilling into the passageway. At the corners of the fort are powder magazines. These magazines are wood lined. 92 The curtain of the fort is not structurally tied to the vaults and arches of the passageway. As a result the curtain is falling away from the passageway. The most serious separation is now not more than four or five inches, but unless something is done the separation will increase. Cracks in the vaults and arches of the passageway are much in evi- dence, and one corner of the fort is shored up on the interior with heavy timbers. Cracks in the interior of the curtain are also prominent. The powder magazines seem in good condition, although one or two will need to have their wooden linings rebuilt. A tunnel runs from the fort under the moat to the interior of the counterscarp. The long passageway in the counterscarp has loopholes and, at the corners, embrasures through which cannons could fire. Some of the embrasures have been closed with bricks. The brick lined passage- way has long longitudinal cracks in the ceiling. The interior of the wall has seen much water pass through it and this water has eroded mortar from between the bricks with the result that there are many bricks in the overhead staying in place primarily through habit. In the present condi- tion, it would be dangerous to taKe visitors into most of this passageway. Much grouting on the interior and exterior of the fort and counter- scarp will be necessary to restore some structural strength to the fort. There also should be considerable repointing. The corner of the fort that is shored up will have to be investigated closely and perhaps rebuilt. The powder magazines should be restored to their wood-lined condition, and the passage from Battery San Antonio to the fort should be opened at both ends. The bridge across the moat to the fort's entrance should be re- moved and a historically accurate one installed in its place. A sealer should be placed on the upper surface of the counterscarp. All embrasures should be opened. Basically we propose stabilization of thi fort, which should bring the fort into adequate condition to provide for visitor safety and to interpret it effectively. 93 I: ^ ' V ( - ! ' . ! ! p l . i r t - p »••,! i . : r a t : k r <•--• ' i'!K: '-in.-ip [ i.' • c \ •: 1 (. roup:1' * << ' ;,f i :• ' <•>- ;i»' ! .iff . GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE Fort Barrancas Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule ITEM NO. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11 i ITEM Foundation Repair and Stabilization Structural Repairs to Masonry Walls Repair, Repaint and Stabilize Exterior Masonry Walls Repair, Repoint and Stabilize Interior Masonry Walla and Ceilings Repair and Stabilize Floors Stabilize and Partially Restore Sally Port Repair and Waterproof Terreplein Restore Parade to Historic Grade Repair and Partially Restore Magazines Repair and Partially Replace Misc. ironwork and Historic Hardware Structural Repairs to Counterscarp and WaterPrflPf Cp^llng ITEM COST '- TOTAL COST 265,000. 612,000. 251,000. 173,000.- 53,000. 116,000. 86,000. 7,000. 29,000. 17,000. 203,000. 1st YEAR 265,000. 7,000. 2nd YEAR 612,000. 3rd YEAR 251,000. 173,000. 86,000. I 4th YEAR 58,000. 119,000. 29,000. 17,000. 5th YEAR - 203,000. Fort Barrancas,(cont'd) I TBI NO. 12. 1*3. 14. TOT i „. ITEM Reopen and Stabilize Embrasures and Gun Ports Remove Vegetation and Treat to Prevent Regrowth Painting iL: NET COST FORT BARRANCAS ITEM COST '- TOTAL COST 6.000. 11.000. 1,000. $1,838,000. 1st YEAR 11.000. $283,000. 2nd YEAR $612,000. 3rd YEAR 6,000. $516,000. 4th YEAR $223,000. 5th YEAR - 1,000. $204,000. | 10 00 GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE Battery San Antonio (Fort San Carlos) In the eighteenth century, the Spanish built here Fort San Carlos. Apparently what survives is the fort's outer defenses which was called Battery San Antonio. The U. S. Army constructed Fort Barrancas over the site of Fort San Carlos. Battery San Antonio is a semi-circular structure with attendant moat. From the interior of the battery a wide brick stair- way leads up to the terreplein which forms the back side of the fortifica- tion. The only apparent access to the battery is a passageway that runs from the interior of San Antonio up into the interior of Fort Barrancas located above and behind it. At one time Battery San Antonio was obvi- ously restored, for the size and style of brick change. The lower half of the fort consists of wide and narrow bricks, similar to the ones found in El Morro at San Juan National Historic Site. The upper half is made up of bricks similar in size and design to those used in the later Fort Barrancas. How accurate the restoration was will not be known until a historic structure report is completed. The fortification, including the moat's counterscarp, is solid and shows few signs of deterioration. Some bricks have been chipped away from the terre,lein, as well as from the counterscarp, supporting walls, and other places about the battery. Sand has been poured into the center of the battery and this sand reduces the size of the entrances into two large vaulted rooms at the rear of the battery. A concrete, box-like structure was once on the interior of the battery. In recent years it collapsed, or was destroyed, leaving large chunks of concrete inside the fortification. Thorny vines and other vegetation grow thickly in the battery as well as in the moat. Sections of the fortification leak badly, particularly under the arch supporting the wide stairway leading to the upper terreplein. The entrance of the passageway from Battery San Antonio to the interior of Fort Barrancas is partially bricked up to impede access to the fort. Sand has been placed behind this brick wall. 99 Until a complete study of the fort through the media of a historic structure report is completed, only the following work should be done: (1) Remove vegetation from the interior of the battery and the moat. (2) Remove the brick partially shutting off the passageway entrance and clean out the passageway to give access between the battery and Fort Barrancas. (3) Remove sand and debris from interior of the battery and restore interior to original grade.. (4) Give high priority to a historic structure report. 100 GULF ISLANDS NATURAL SEASHORE B a t t e r y San Antonio Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule • 1 IT a; ITEM NO. | j Repair, Repoint and Stabilize the Walls of the 1 Buttery, Counterscarp and Small Structure i 1 Within the Batterv- Remove Fill and Concrete Debris trom Interior of 2, (Buttery and Restore to Historic Grade iRepair Terreplein. Repair and Waterproof Roof |of Small Structure. Repair and Repoint Brick J 3. I Stairs. ITEM COST [ 1 Stabilize and Repoint Interior Walls and Ceilinrrb i . 4 i j s, iof Small Structure j ! 1 I Restoi'e Boors and Frames Small Structure and ! "• • . • IWood.Construction 1 I | ( (Replace Misc. Metalwork and Historic Hardware 1 6' 1 i Open and Restore Entrance to Barrancas Passage- 7. way. Clean out Passage and Stabilize. "Remove Vegetation from Interior of Battery, u. . •Walls, Boat and Counterscarp t TtTAl ! ' TOTAL COST 1st YEAR OS. 000. 1 6,000. 12.000. 5,000." 6,000. 2nd YEAR 3rd YEAR 4th YEAR i i • «srooo > i i ! i 11,000. 1 I 7.000. i 3,000. t 5,000. ! 5th YEAR • -1 1 ) i I ' 1 | j • I 7.000. 1 I 1 i ' 1 3,000. j ' ' 1 ' 1 1 9,000. j j | 9,000. 5,000. j 1 h j .: DhT COST BATTERY SAH MT&OQ ' • j i " $115,000. 1 \ i 1 i ) . . . . . . i _ 1, „ 5,000. $23,000. $68,000. $24,000. 1 ' > i J i i * 1 | i 1 1 (-» o u GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE Redoubt Located north of Fort Barrancas and near the landing field for the Pensacola Naval Air Station, Redoubt is presently an enigma. Little is known of its history and in its present condition it is a difficult de- fense work to understand. Like its big sister fortification to the south, Redoubt is an earth- fillea fort. An extremely thick and heavy growth of vegetation covers the earth-fill today. The fort has a dry moat, and thick vegetation grows not only In the moat, but also on top of the counterscarp. Indeed, trees eight or more inches in diameter grow out of the brickwork of the fort and the coun- terscarp. The drawbridge has long since disappeared and access to the fort is difficult. Once inside Redoubt the deterioration is more evident. The brickwork around the entrance, or sally port, is badly damaged. Granite blocks are strewn about, and sand has poured into the passageway, or series of gun i jcms, that, runs around and through the interior of the wall of the fort. Near the sally port this sand fills the gun rooms. In other parts of the fort the sand covers the floor of the passageways, raising the floor level to varying heights; in some places to the point where it is necessary to stoop in order to pass through the arch openings connect- ing the gun rooms. In this interior passageway roots of trees growing on top of the earth-fill are much in evidence. Longitudinal cracks run overhead the length of the passageways. On one side of the fort the crack is so severe that the arches have slipped out.of line, and the loss of symmetry is perceptible to the naked eye. Moreover, cracks on the interior extend through the thick brick wall and appear on the exterior. Water seeping into the interior of the fort has eroded mortar from between the brick and has contributed materially to the loss of structural integrity as exhibited by the numerous cracks. 104 On two corners of this four-sided fort cracks indicate that probably the pressure of the weight of the sand is pushing the walls out at these points. A passageway under the moat connects the fort with the interior of the counterscarp. The inside of this section of the fort shows many cracks and damage from water seepage, and many of the openings to the moat have been bricked closed by the Navy to prohibit access to the interior of the fort. Much work will be required to get this redoubt into condition to receive even the most limited visitation. It will be necessary to remove the vegetation from the moat, the interior surface of the fort, and the counterscarp. The drawbridge of the sally port will have to be restored, as will much of the granite and bricks forming the opening. The sand that has fallen into the interior passageway will have to be grouted, as will those in the wall. In addition to this patching, it will also be necessary to do much structural stabilization, such as pushing the arches back into place. The cracks in the curtain of the fort will also have to be grouted. The window and door openings now closed by brick patches should be re- moved and replaced by historic-type doors or grates. In general the work proposed for this redo *.bt is that needed to slow deterioration of the structure and to bring it up to minimal standards of safety for visitation. And this work is necessary so that this style of fortification, which is different from the others of the park, can be interpreted. 105 GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE Redoubt Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule ITEM NO. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ITEM Foundation Repair Structural Repairs to Masonry Repair, Repoint and Stabilize Exterior Masonry Walls Repair, Repoint and Stabilize Interior Masonry Walls Repair, Reinforce and Repoint Interior Retaining Walls and Ceilings Repair and Partially Restore Gun Room and Passage Floors Stabilize and Partially Restore Sally Port Repair and Waterproof Terreplein Restore Parade to Historic Grade Repair and Partially Restore Powder Map-a7.1nes Partially Repair and Replace Misc. Ironwork 11. ' i and Historic Hardware ! ITEM COST TOTAL COST 288,000. 626,000. 244,000. 168.000. 107,000. 25,000. 109,000. 87,000. 54,000. 49.000. 19,000. 1st YEAR 288,000 326,000 2nd YEAR 300,000 244.000 107,000 •' | 3rd YEAR 168,000 109,000 37,000 I • -j ' 4th YEAR 5th YEAR _ i ! i 1 35,000. . 54,000. 49,000. I 1 19.000. 1 ' . , ! 1 -o CO Redoubt (cont'd) ITFU NO. 12. 13. 14. 15. TOT 1 j 1 1 • ITEM • S t r u c t u r a l Repairs to Counterscarp' Waterproof Counterscarp Celling; Reopen and P a r t i a l l y Restore llnbrasures and Gun P o r t s Remove Vegetation from T e r r e p l e i n , Parade, Fort Walls and H i s t o r i c S i t e and Treat to Prevent Regrowth vl: NET COST FORT REDOUBT ITS! COST TOTAL CCST 140,000, 59,000, 16,000 20,000 S2,021,0uG " i 1st YEAR 20,000 $634,000. 1 2nd YEAR 3rd YEAR 16,000, . $651,000/ $380,000, i . . | i ! 4th YEAR 140,000. 59,000. --—1 5th YEA"; j ! $234,000. $122,000. , o GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE Fort Pickens Completed in 1834, Fort Pickens is a brick fort roughly 550 feet by 350 feet and is located on Santa Rosa Island, about 12 miles from Pensa- cola. During the Civil War it was held by the Federals, never surrenduring to the Confederates, despite several attacks. In the 1880's the fort served as a prison for Geronimo and a number of his Apache comrades. The terreplein is earth over brick vaults. Of the five bastions, one was com- pletely destroyed in an explosion in 1899 and a second was badly damaged about the time of the Spanish-American War when the Army lowered it to get the walls out of the line of fire of the guns of Battery Pensacola. This latter massive concrete battery was inserted in the fort in the 1890*s and it stretches diagonally across one end of the fort's parade. Although it abuts one interior section of the casemates, the battery does not appear to be connected to any part of the original fort structure. Fort Pickens generally is badly deteriorated with large cracks in the ceiling of the casemate vaults and in the sally port. These cracks run through and across the.casemates. In many sections the interior face of the fort is pulling away from the casemates; in some cases the walls have fa"len away. Along one long side of the fort the earth that formed the terreplein has disappeared exposing the brick of the top of the casemate vaults. These tops are badly damaged and along this section the pulling away of the interior face of the fort from the vaults is most serious. When the State of Florida owned the fort it placed tension bars to hold the faces to the vaults, and to keep the vaults from collapsing due to the transverse cracks. These tension bars are most prominent, but they are doing an effective job of holding those sections of the fort together. The area between Battery Pensacola and the end of the fort has been filled with sand, as are the rooms or casemates that served as officers' quarters along that side of the fort. Thick vegetation grows over the fill and on many sections of the fort, sending roots into the brickwork. The Ranger staff of the park is presently clearing away this growth. 110 There is much leaking on the interior of the fort. Stalagmites and stalactites formed from the lime in the mortar are much in evidence through- out the casemates. There are many loose bricks in the overhead. Some brick in the over- head of the casemates and other rooms of the fort are gradually slipping out, and constitute, we feel, a hazard to the safety of visitors. The fort has a dry moat on three sides. One section of the moat has been breached by the main access road into the Park. The counterscarp forming the outer side of the moat is a solid brick wall with earth fill behind it. Forward of the counterscarp is a brick wall rising up four or five feet, and it formed an outer defense work, affording protection for cannon and riflemen. The curtain of the fort contains cracks, and at the corners of the .. .. bastions there are cracks on the exterior of the walls running from top to bottom. Probably this breaking is caused by the weight of sand on the terreplein and in the fort, especially since these cracks are most evi- dent in that area w.iere sand fill has been ir ^reduced into the fort. This fort is so badly deteriorated that to completely restore it would require an expenditure of huge proportions. To hold down the costs, we recommend that there be a general stabilization of the remains with a limited restoration of certain portions of the fort. A few courses of brick should be laid to form the configuration of battery which was des- troyed in the explosion. Battery Pensacola, its associated structures, and the attendant earth fill should be removed. The sally port should be partially restored and the brick and concrete block that have been used to seal off embrasures, windows, and entrances should be removed. The removal of vegetation should continue. Such repair and repointing as will stabilize the brick work and impede leaking should be undertaken. Tension rods should be used where necessary to hold the fort together. Reinforced concrete vaulting should be placed over the casemates to support the weight of the earth fill that forms the terreplein. Ill In addition to vegetation in the moat, there is also a brick house- like building that was associated with the operation of the guns of Battery Pensacola, This building will have to be removed from the moat, as will the nearby concrete stand that supported a latter day stairway that ran from the top of the fort to the moat. These structures are of the Spanish- American War period or later, and detract considerably from the historic scene that the park is trying to create. We recommend restoration of the fort to its suggested general appear- ance about the time of the Civil War. This is the period of its greatest historical significance, and the work we propose, with the exception of the removal of Battery Pensacola, is what is needed to stabilize or hold what now remains of the fort of the Civil War period 112 - ••.>;••' HI • i • .•„• .-.;.-• :>••• i lis ' ,: ; ; IMI I " : r« 'JI.J 1. i >. ",<•• if ! o lii.ikc I lit- art.',; GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE Fort Pickens Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule H1 ITEM NO. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. ITEM Remove Battery Pensacofa and 1898 Fire Control BldRS. and Restore Sites to Historic Grade and Appearance, Remove Fill From Officers' Quarters Structural Reinforcement an'd Repair of Casemates and Terreplein Waterproof Terreplein Repair, Repoint and Stabilize Interior Masonry Repair, Repoint and Stabilize Exterior Mason i~y Stabilization and Partial Restoration of Sally Port Restore Ramp to Terreplein Restore Parade to Historic Grade Restore Gerontmo's Cell Partial Repair and Restoration of Misc. Metal- work and Historic Hardware ITEM COST '• TOTAL COST 147,000 11,000 257.000 123,000. 93.000. 107,000. 34,000. 23,000. 7,000. 8,000. QjOno 1st YEAR 147,000. 11,000 7,000. 2nd YEAR 257,000 3rd YEAR 123,000. 93,000. , 3-1,, 000 , 4th YEAR 107 nnn 23,000, , 8,000. 0,000. 5th YEAR - Fort Pickens (cont'd) ITEM NO. 12. 13. 14, 15 16. TOT ITEM • Partial Repair and Stahl li,atfnn e t Finn,, Remove Present Road and Restore Dry Moat to .listorifi Grade Stabilization and Partial Repair and Repointing of Counterscarp. Reconstruct Portion Destroyed to Construct Present Road. Painting Remove Vegetation from Terreplein and Walls. Treat to Prevent Regrowth. Also Remove Vegetation from Historic Site. - U,: NET COST FORT PICKENS ITEM COST - TOTAL COST n nnn 1 a i\nr> 4a.jn.nn 2,000 10,000 $906,001 1st YEAR 16,000. 1. $181,000. 2nd YEAR $257,000. 3rd YEAR $250,000. 4th YEAR 3.000. $150,000. 5th YEAR -10 nCQ 2,000. $68,000 M M CO GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE MISCELLANEOUS BATTERIES Batteries Cullum, Selves. Van Swearingen. and Scott These batteries were built in the 1890's and are so physically close together that they could be considered as one fortification. These are thick structures of concrete and are basically quite sound. Deterioration is confined mostly to the iron work on these gun emplacements. Iron rail- ings and iron stairways have rusted to the point of being dangerous. This rusted material, as well as metal doors, will have to be replaced before visitors can be allowed to these structures. There is some leakage in the powder and shell rooms below the gun em- placements. At one time the Army had tar on top of these structures; indeed, patches of it remain today. It is, therefore, recommended that the top surface of the fortifications be covered with tar to halt leaking. Battery Langdon This World War II battery is a typical massive concrete coastal defense of the period, having two placements for gun. Buried in the structure, which is covered with sand and vegetation, are several rooms where the ammunition was stored. The battery is structurally sound and needs no repair work. Both gun emplacements are open to the public now and can be left that way without danger to the buildings, or to the visitors. We, therefore, recommend that nothing be done to this battery now. 120 Battery Worth Built in 1893, this battery has two emplacements for 12-inch mortars, The structure is approximately three stories tall, being topped by a square observation room, and is a massive concrete structure. The lower level contains a maze of rooms. The building is structurally sound and needs no repair work. Hand- rails about the structure are in good condition, but they are modern and should be replaced by ones that are similar to those used during the active years of the battery. The battery is presently open to the public and it poses no danger to the safety of the visitor. Battery Cooper This battery is smaller than Battery Worth, but it has two emplace- ments for guns. It is basically a one-story building, similar in design to others of the Spanish-American War period. There are ammunition rooms ot. the ground level. The structure is sound and needs no repair work except to replace handrails and metal stairs that have rusted. It is presently not open to the public, but before it is the aforementioned work will have to be done. There are several concrete gun pad circles located among the dunes in the vicinity of this battery. They appear to require no stabilization or rehabilitation work. Battery Brown (Battery 234) This battery is quite overgrown with brush. We did not go inside the building, but this massive concrete building is probably sound. It 121 is not now open to the public, but should it be at some future time, the battery should be examined thoroughly then. Miscellaneous Structures Scattered about the park are a number of small concrete buildings and open, pad-like gun emplacements, dating from the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II. Although we did not examine all of them, the ones we did see indicate that nothing needs to be done to them to preserve these structures. They should be left for visitors to come across, speculate about, and maybe ask questions. 122 GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE Misc. Batteries Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule (Batteries Worth, Coopur, Brown, Langdon, Cullum, Seivers, Van Swearinger, Scott and an Undetermined Number of Small Emplacements over the Island) ITEM NO. 1. a.. 3. 4. 5. TOTj i ITEM * Minimum Stabilization of Concrete Construction Roof Repair to Stop Leaking Remove, Repair and Replace Metal Walkways, Stairs, Halls and Misc. Metal Construction as Required for Safety Repair, Replace and Stabilize Metal Doors, Frarr.es, Ammunition Hoists and Tracks Vegetation Removal and Treatment to Prevent Hegrnwth - L: NET CGST MISC. BATTERIES ITEM COST \ . TOTAL COST 17,000. 25,000, 85,000. 41,000. 12,000. $180,000. 1st YEAR 85,000 12,000. $97,000 2nd YEAR 17.000. 25,000. 41,000. $83,000. 3rd YEAR 4th YEAR 5th YEAR - to en GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE Fort Massachusetts i Completed during the Civil War, this rather small, semicirucular, two tiered fort, is today in remarkably good condition. Certainly it is in the best state of preservation of all the forts of Gulf Islands National Seashore. At the same time it is the most threatened of the forts. The exterior of the fort is made of two colors of brick, a tan brick composes the lower half and front face while a red brick was used in the upper portion of the fort. Granite capstones top the fort's walls, A grass-like vegetation covers the terreplein and is also growing through the cracks in the concrete capping between the gun emplacements and the outer curtain. In the courtyard there is a unique free-standing circular stairway that is architecturally interesting. This fort was used for some years by a veteran's organization as a recreational facility featuring dancing and gambling. Although this use introduced modern features and intrusions, it probably also accounts for the reasonably good shape the fort is in today. At one time Fort Massachusetts was situa- ad solidly on an island, but in the intervening" years since its construction the fort has been the vic- tim of hurricanes and erosion. As a result only one small segment of the fort rests on dry land, with the bulk of the fort's foundation exposed to the action of the water. The most apparent effect of this exposure to the water is a collapsed floor of one of the casemates. Also, numerous cracks in the curtain of the fort testify to foundation failure. In recent years efforts have been taken to mitigate the effect of sea erosion on the fort. A low sea wall of stones and concrete slabs has been placed around the fort. This wall, however, will only slow the deterioration of the foundation, and it has practically no effect on hur- ricanes and lesser storms which produce seas that top the sea wall. 127 In order to halt the erosion of the foundation it will be necessary to rebuild the Island, and, accordingly, we recommend that sand fill, pos- sibly from the Corps of Engineers harbor dredging activities, be obtained and placed between the fort and the sea wall. This is an immediate problem that should be attended to at once. We also recommend that another riprap sea wall be built about 100 feet from the present one and the intervening space filled with sand to give additional needed protection to the fort. Because of the exposed position of Fort Massachusetts, the exterior bricks show more wearing than at other forts as a result of storm-engen- dered wind and water. The damage can be found on the brickwork in the courtyard, but it, of course, is more extensive on the curtain of the fort. It will be necessary to replace much of this brick and to repoint virtually all of these areas to restore reasonable structural integrity to the fort. The hot shot furnace in the courtyard has suffered this damage and needs restoration work. Several capstones of the fort's outer curtain wall have fallen away, and most are laying on the ground below in useable condition. These stones should be restored to their former positions atop the fort. Not only has 'there been leaking of water through the earth-filled section of the terreplein, but also through the cracked concrete capping of the upper tier of the fort. As in other forts this water has, and is, eroding the interior of the fort's walls. The most obvious evidence of this action is the leaching of the lime from the mortar holding the bricks In place in the casemates. In one place in the casemates the wall has become so weakened that it has been necessary to shore up one archway with heavy timbers. It will be necessary to repair the cracks in the concrete capping, or paved area, and apply a water proofing to this concrete as well as to the earth filled section of the terreplein. The gun embrasures are framed with metal and have metal shutters that could be closed or opened. All of this metal has rusted extnesively over 128 the years, so badly that it will have to be replaced. Fortunately, no part of this metal framing was buried in the brickwork; consequently, the exfo- liating metal is not seriously damaging the surrounding brickwork as is the situation at Ft. Jefferson on the Florida Keys. In essence, we propose full stabilization of the fort to hold what is now there (removing, of course, modern intrusions introduced by the vet- eran's group), primarily because the fort is in such a good condition that it will not be too expensive to do this work, and when finished the National Park Service will have a good coastal fort of unusual design. 129 GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHOHE 1 1 1 1 if n.: ! NO. i . . j I T S : ! ITDI COST ' j i - • • j j 1, , Foundation Repair and S t a b i l i z a t i o n I ! J , S t r u c t u r a l Repair and S t a b i l i z a t i o n of t r a i l s , • 2. ! P i e r s and Columns j Repair, Repolntinpr and S t a b i l i z a t i o n of Exterior 1 " i Masonry i j 4. j I I | Repair, Repointinp, and S t a b i l i z a t i o n of I n t e r i o r Masonry i 5. j Repair and Waterproof T e r r e p l e i n ' ' 6. 7. 8. Restore Sally Port | Restore Embrasure S h a t t e r s Repair and Replace Stone Cap and Misc. Stonework TOTAL COST 1st YEAR 55,000.j i i 75,000.1 1 60,000.1 15,000; 40,000. 48,000. 2nd YEAR 55,000. 75,000. 3rd YEAR 4th YEAil | •• 1 90,000. j J 15,000. i 57,000.1 " t i 5,000.1. ' i l l | Repair, S t a b i l i z e and Restore Misc. Ironwork, | "• I h i s t o r i c R a i l i n u s and hardware ' I 15,000. | 10. .11. Repair, S t a b i l i z e and Restore Wood Construction , j 4,000.| iRepair and Restore Casemate Floors I i ' 9,000. 40,000. 1 5 t h YEAS'. J 1 1 . 1 I • i i I • j 43,000 1 1 i 1 | I I '• I 57,000 1 ! 5,000 9,000. 1 1 ' •• ••--•-"-• 15,000. 4,000. 1 us -ft. Fort Massachusetts Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule i ITLM NO. 1 2 . 1 3 . ITD.i R e s t o r e 3 o t S h o t F u r n a c e P a i n t i n g I TBI COST ' 1 < i : '• 1 1 Remove V e g e t a t i o n and T r e a t t o P r e v e n t 1 , 1 4 , * R e c r o w t h • ( I E r o s i o n R e p a i r and C o n t r o l : I n s t a l l R i p r a p 1 l 1 5 . i and F i l l . • i I i 1 1 ' ! TOTAL: N-'T COST F'.'RT MASSAC'V.ISFTTS l j TOTAL COST 5 , 0 0 0 . 2 , 0 0 0 . 3 , 0 0 0 . 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . ' i { 5 1 , 4 2 3 , 0 0 0 . ! ' . | ! ! • 1 . 1 i i 1 • I s 1" I I • 1 ' ! 1 1 s t YEAR 2nd' YEAR I 3 r d YEAR i 1 • 1 4 t h YEAR 3 , 0 0 0 . 1 ! | 1 i 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . t ; ! ! j 1 I 5 1 , 0 0 3 , 0 0 0 . | . ' | $ 1 7 0 , 0 0 0 . $ 1 1 4 , 0 0 0 . i 1 5 t h YEAR. J t : I 5 , 0 1 0 . ' -1 2,000. j j i ; 1 i •1 ! i i ! . . ! $ 1 1 0 , 0 0 0 . $ 2 6 , 0 0 0 . j j j 1 ' r ; i ! i 1 ,. .1 1 i I Fort Massachusetts (cont'd) u Ol FORT WASHINGTON NATIONAL MONUMENT F o r t Washington 136 FORT WASHINGTON NATIONAL MONUMENT Fort Washington Begun in 1814 on the site of another fort, Fort Washington was de- signed to protect the nation's Capital. It served for a number of years and as changing military technology evolved, the defenses changed. Near the end of the nineteenth century, the army began building massive concrete batteries about the grounds. These batteries, eventually totalling eight, were designed to contain mortars and large breech loading cannons. Today the brick Fort Washington stands, along with the abandoned, vine covered concrete batteries and their associated structures. Dotted about the ground are other buildings (quarters, houses, administration buildings, etc.) that are apparently associated with the early Fort Washington. Work is now progressing on the restoration of:iFort Washington. The redan is being repointed and repaired so that audiovisual equipment may be soon installed. The redan terreplein has had the earth stripped back so that a sealer could be laid on the masonry to inhibit leakage into the room below. Th' sealer has been installed and the workmen are now in the process of restoring the terreplein to historic grade with a brick wearing surface. This same process should be followed for all of the terreplein. Also, on the terreplein the gun platforms are in poor condition because of missing brickwork, and the stone and metal gun tracks (traverses) are in disarray and will have to be restored. All the walls of the fort, including the curtain, show considerable signs of mortar erosion, caused primarily by water seeping into the walls and then freezing. In many places the stone and brickwork are falling away from the outer wall of the fort, and on several corners of the fort the outer layer of bricks are pulling away from the wall. Presently the restoration crew is looking for the historic drains and as they find these drains the men are cleaning them out. After the drain- age problem has been solved, it will be necessary to repoint the walls. 137 Much of the capstone of the curtain has disappeared or become in a sad state of repair. It will have to be replaced and repaired. The bricks in the casemates are separating; the cause is not yet known. Probably it is due to water seepage. But nevertheless these areas will have to be repaired. Morover, water runs down through the brickwork and leaches lime from the mortar, for the ceilings have stalacmites and huge patches of lime. There is strong evidence that there is a large void, caused by a water line break, in the northwest corner of the rooms adjacent to the fort's main entrance. The floor in that area is settling. This area should be Investigated, and if indeed there is a hole, fill should be poured into it. Also the water line at the entrance should be relocated, for it is an intrusion upon the historic scene. During the restoration of 1957058, the Park Service patched the fort with modern brick, which ruins the appearance of the fort. The brick of this patchwork will have to be removed and historically correct brick inserted in its place. As mentioned previously, there are a number of historic structures of the second (1814-1870) Fort Washington period. There is no reason these buildings could not be restored on the exterior and adapted on the inter- ior for present-day uses, such as park headquarters, museum, living quar- ters for park personnel, etc. These are charming old structures and should be saved and utilized. Several of the massive concrete Spanish-American War period batteries could be used for maintenance and storage purposes. The other batteries should have their rusted iron railings and stairways replaced and visi- tors should be allowed to climb over and explore and wonder about these structures. All of these massive concrete batteries are basically sound and would require little expenditure. However, roots of trees and bushes 138 growing near them apparently have some effect on the structures; conse- quently, the area about the batteries should be cleared of this growth. Below the southwest corner of the fort the earth is eroding and could have a disastrous effect upon the fort's foundation. To halt the erosion a log retaining wall is being put up. Unfortunately, this work has been halted; it should be resumed immediately so that the erosion will be stopped. There is also an erosion problem along the east wall of the fort. The land is eroding down the slope and has already taken part of the road that runs at the base of the fort. Unless this erosion is halted soon, it will be eating at the foundation of this section of the fort. The Park Service is already on the road toward restoring Fort Washington, this time following correct preservation guidelines and techniques. When this work is completed, the fort and its associated batteries will be an excellent historical display of a broad and diverse range of nineteenth century fortifications, fortifications built to protect the nation's Capital. 139 No!*- missing brick in oast wall of southeast l lank hast ion , i 1.. Sial o'."•' i fes ri'i main c r i i oil ptiaru room.. FORT WASHINGTON NATIONAL MONUMENT Fort Washington Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule ITEM NO. 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 . 1 0 . 1 1 . ITEM D e m o l i t i o n S t a b i l i z e E a r t h w o r k s Masonry B r i c k and S t o n e M a s o n r y , R e l a y Walks and P a v e d A r e a s D r a i n a g e S y s t e m , F o r t Complex B u i l d i n g C a r p e n t r y Work Roof and G u t t e r s P a i n t i n g P a r a d e G r o u n d s . L o w e r i n e of G r a d e W a t e r p r o o f i n g P l u m b i n g » ITEM COST TOTAL COST 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 8 2 5 , 0 0 0 8 7 , 0 0 0 5 4 , 0 0 0 2 0 5 , 0 0 0 6 5 , 0 0 0 1 8 , 0 0 0 8 , 0 0 0 6 , 0 0 0 8 5 , 0 0 0 1 s t YEAR 5 0 , 0 0 0 4 2 , 0 0 0 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 4 1 , 0 0 0 8 , 0 0 0 3 , 0 0 0 2nd YEAR 5 0 , 0 0 0 2 8 , 0 0 0 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 5 2 , 0 0 0 1 3 , 0 0 0 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 6 5 , 0 0 0 3 , 0 0 0 5 0 , 0 0 0 3rd YEAR 5 0 , 0 0 0 1 2 , 0 0 0 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 2 5 , 0 0 0 8 5 , 0 0 0 1 8 , 0 0 0 3 5 , 0 0 0 4 t h YEAR 5 0 , 0 0 0 8 , 0 0 0 1 7 5 , 0 0 0 1 0 , 0 0 0 5 t h YEAH t>4 I T S ' . ITB1 NO. 1 2 . 12. 14. E l e c t r i c a l Work M i s c e l l a n e o u s L a b o r and C a r t a g e R e s t o r e C o m m a n d a n t ' s and 1 s t S e r g e a n t ' s Q u a r t e r s ( o u t s i d e F o r t Complex) TOTAL: NET COST FORT WASHINGTON 1 ITEM COST TOTAL COST 1 2 5 , 0 0 0 6 5 , 0 0 0 2 5 5 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 1 8 8 , 0 0 0 1 s t YEAR 2 0 , 0 0 0 $ 4 1 4 , 0 0 0 2nd YEAR 7 5 , 0 0 0 2 5 , 0 0 0 $ 7 3 1 , 0 0 0 3 r d YEAR 5 0 , 0 0 0 1 5 , 0 0 0 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 7 4 0 , 0 0 0 4 t h YEAR 5,000 5 5 , 0 0 0 $ 3 0 3 , 0 0 0 1 | 5 t h YEAR i i 1 Fort Washington (cont'd) FORT McHENRY NATIONAL MONUMENT AND HISTORIC SHRINE F o r t McHenry 145 FORT MCHENRY NATIONAL MONUMENT AND HISTORIC SHRINE Fort McHenry This brick star fort was blooded in the War of 1812 when the British attempted to subdue it, but the stubborn resistance of its garrison in- spired Francis Scott Key to produce the "Star Spangled Banner". In the years subsequent to this the fort continued to be in use and was modified as changing military technology and tactics required. During the Civil War batteries containing Rodman guns were installed just outside the fort, as were associated powder magazines. The guns, on their carriages and gun mounts, are still in place, and today form the best and most complete display of this type of battery any place in the National Park System. The ravelin of the fort is made of brick and covered with earth. Today seepage of water into the rooms of the ravelin indicates serious internal erosion. Lime from the mortar shows on the brick interior, and patches of the walls have been darkened by the water. Exposed pipes carrying electrical wires detract from the historical appearance of the ravelin. The powder magazines, like the ravelin, are made of brick covered with earth, and also like the ravelin, they leak badly, badly enough to require sump pumps to keep the water level down. One of the powder mag- azines has a wall bulging out, and without attention it will in time collapse. Another powder magazine has a wall leaning out and it, too, in time will have a similar fate. The inside walls of the Civil War battery are pushing out, due pro- bably to water seepage and freezing. These walls will in time be pushed down. The star fort shows some vertical cracks on its curtain. Undoubtedly, there is internal erosion of the walls. Much of the problem could be solved by locating the historic drains and making them functional again. 146 The sea wall going around the peninsula of land on which the fort rests is eroding, eroding to the extent that even now stones must be replaced and repointing done. There is no question on the course of action the Park Service should take with regard to the star fort. It is of prime historical signifi- cance and everything possible should be done to preserve it. The ravelin should have a sealer placed on top to stop leakage, and the interior brickwork should be cleaned and repointed. The historic drains of the fort itself should be located and cleaned out, and, if necessary, some should be rerouted. The curtain of the fort should be repaired, even to the extent of rebuilding portions of the wall. All exposed electri- cal wiring should be buried in the walls. The sea wall should be re- paired as required to put it into first class condition. A basic decision is going to have to be made as to the fate of the Civil War battery; should it be removed becuase it was not part of the War of 1812 scene, or should it be left in place as a very fine display of a Civil War battery? It is true the battery intrudes on the 1812 scene, but it is also true that it would be disgraceful.to do away with the best battery exhibit in the Park Service today. One could argue that the battery could be moved to a Civil War fort. But which one? Where was there such a battery? If the decision to remove the battery is made, it will undoubtedly be broken up and a gun and carriage given to this fort and another gun and carriage given to that fort. The value of the battery is its whole- ness; it loses a considerable amount of its value in small pieces. Con- sequently, we recommend that the battery be left in place. If the battery remains in place, it will be necessary to stabilize the inside wall of the parapet, and stabilize the walls of the powder magazines. Also, a sealer should be placed over the powder magazines to stop the seepage of water. 147 Because of its association with the writing of the National anthem, there is no question of the historical significance of the star fort, and the work we propose is directed toward preserving this structure in a first class condition. 148 Tlic worst erosion in the masonry walls has occurred at the grade line. The wood portions of the buildings are in very bad condition. Such areas must be promptly repaired or replaced. 15b FORT MCHENRY NATIONAL MONUMENT AND HISTORIC SHRINE Fort McHenrv Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule ITEM XO. 1 . 2 3 . 4 . 5 . 0. 7, 8. j 10. 1- 1 1 ITEM Demoli . i o n S t a b i l i z e E a r t h w o r k s M a s o n r y , S t o n e a n d B r i c k P o i n t i n g M a s o n r y , S e a W a l l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n M a s o n r y , New B r i c k w o r k I r o n w o r k , Main G a t e and F e n c i n g R o o f i n c , G u t t e r s R e s t o r a t i o n D r a i n s w i t h i n F o r t M a s o n r y , Walks and P a v e d A r e a ( F o r t ) Casement R e h a b i l i t a t i o n C a s e m a t e s R e h a b i l i t a t i o n ITEM COST TOTAL COST 6 5 , 0 0 0 4 5 , 0 0 0 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 8 5 , 0 0 0 2 5 , 0 0 0 1 2 , 0 0 0 1 5 , 0 0 0 1 2 , 0 0 0 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 2 5 , 0 0 0 2 0 , 0 0 0 1 s t YEAR 6 5 , 0 0 0 3 0 , 0 0 0 6 0 , 0 0 0 8 5 , 0 0 0 1 5 , 0 0 0 1 5 , 0 0 0 1 2 , 0 0 0 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 2 5 , 0 0 0 1 0 , 0 0 0 2nd YEAS 15,00C 6O,0OC 3rd YEAR io,ood i2,ooq t 100,ooc 10,000 | 1 1 1 -< - 4 t h YEAR 1 5 t h YE/61 t i 1 i I 1 I Hi I T S ! • NO. 1 2 . 1 3 . 1 4 . 1 5 . 1 6 . I TBI T a i n t i n g B u i l d i n g C a r p e n t r y w o r k P l u m b i n g E l e c t r i c a l Work M i s c e l l a n e o u s L a b o r and C a r t a g e TOTAL; NET COST FORT McTEHRY ITEM COST TOTAL COST 5 , 0 0 0 8 , 0 0 0 1 5 , 0 0 0 5 0 , 0 0 0 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 7 2 2 , 5 0 0 j . s t YEAR 2 , 5 0 0 5 , 0 0 0 1 5 , 0 0 0 3 0 , 0 0 0 5 , 0 0 0 $ 4 8 4 , 5 0 0 2nd YEAR 2 , 5 0 0 3 , 0 0 0 2 0 , 0 0 0 5 , 0 0 0 $ 2 3 8 , 0 0 0 3rd YEAR , 4 t h YEAR 5 t h YEAR 1 1 1 Ul M SO Fort Mchenry (cont'd) FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE Fort Point 153 FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE Fort Point Erection of Fort Point began in 1853, and within the next few years the Army constructed a three tiered fort, irregularly polygonal in shape, with two bastions. The fort's purpose was to guard San Francisco Bay. It is basically a brick structure with a stone foundation. The first tier is also of stone. Casemates are on all sides of the fort and on all tiers except the gorge. On this latter side is the sally- port and various rooms—quarters, jail, hospital, offices, etc. One reaches the various levels or tiers by stone circular stair- ways located at three places inside the fort. A metal lighthouse sits atop the circular stairway at the northwest bastion. One reaches the various tiers on the side of the fort where the rooms are by an iron stairway at the east corner of the fort. Iron railings form galleries on the parade side of the rooms of the second and third tiers. General- ly, the masonry work of the fort appears to be in remarkably good con- dition, but there are some needed repairs, as well as necessary replacement of boL,h brick and stone masonry and repainting here and there. Repairs .re required on the concrete passageways and stairways and the stone courtyard. The ironwork of the galleries, both railings and columns, need, for the most part, to be replaced, not only for appearance but also for the safety of the visitor. The interior rooms need considerable carpentry and plastering work. Much of the hardware will have to be replaced. Windows require extensive glazing. Practically all the painting will have to be renewed. Quite a few repairs are needed to the gun mounts on the barbette tier. Work has begun on Fort Point to make it safe for visitors. Tempo- rary repairs have been made to the iron gallery railings, and barriers have been installed on the courtyard side of the casemates of the upper tiers and the barbette. The rusted metal lighthouse, which formerly had iron plates dangling dangerously in the breeze, has been restored beautifully. 154 Of all the forts visited, we were most encouraged by the progress that has been made on the restoration of Fort Point. Proper program- ming has put this work on the right course, and work is progressing as funds become available. 155 EQB.T _P.QI.NT _NATIONAL _H_I_STOR\C_S_1_TE Fort Point Estimate and Suggested Project Schedule IT '• ~M ' r.'O. ! !*_• 2 . ! 3, 4 . I 5 . i t_ . 7 . . i i 8 - L..-9-t. i 1 10. ; 1 1 . IT 11.1 • . f>e;iu>nUon ; _. - . . . _ , . . . . . , C o n c r e t e Work Masonry, S t o n e w o r k and P o i n t i n g I r o n w o r k and S t r u c t u r a l S t e e l C a r p e n t ry H o o t i n g and W a t e r p r o o f i n g T.athlno- and P l a s t e r i n - r 1 | P a i n t i n g i • A n t I'lifMit Moun '. s J C o u r t y a r d P a v i n g ( s t o n e ) i R o h a n - i l l t a t i o n of M a g a z i n e s and T u n n e l i i T O : C O S T • . . ' . 1 : | TOTAL COST j j 2.IS, 00(1. i 1 5 5 , 0 0 0 . j : i 4 3 4 , 0 0 0 . 2 7 1 , 0 0 0 . 7 7 , 0 0 0 . ; 7 7 , 0 0 0 . i 1 3 0 , 0 0 0 . i i j 1 201,00(1. 93,00(1. j 124,000}. i ' 1 i i | 1 s t Tl'AA I ! 233,onci. 1 j i . ...413,0(1(1. 1 i i i i 1 i j i i i i i i i i i i i i 2nd YEA; [ i 1 i t 155,000]. t 1 1 434,OOo!. ! i 1 t 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 i 1 3 r d YE,ul | 1 1 j i 1 L j j i 2 7 1 , 0 0 0 l 7 7 , 0 0 0 i. • i t 1 i 1 i 124,000.] 1 1 | 1 1 1 r — 1 1 1 i i i i 1 1 i 7 7 , 0 0 0 . 1 1 2 0 1 , 0 0 0 ; . ! 1 j 5 t h YI;AH j 1 1 1 1 "i 1 i i j i 139,00(1. j 1 63,O00|. I a. to Fort Point (cont'd) • ITEM NO. 1 2 . 1 3 . . i TOTAL: 1 1 t ' in—. .— — ITEM • K r i d j e M i s c . L a b o r and C a r t a g e NET COST FORT POINT - ITEM COST TOTAL COST 4 6 , 0 0 0 1 1 6 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 3 3 5 , 0 0 0 . 1 s t YEAR 2 4 , 0 0 0 . $ 6 7 6 , 0 0 0 . i j i • f 1 . ! 1 t ! ! i 2nd YEAR 2 4 , 0 0 0 . $ 6 1 3 , 0 0 0 . 3 r d YEAR 2 4 , 0 0 0 . $4915,000. 4 t h YEAR 5 t h YEAR 4 6 . 0 0 0 1 2 3 , 0 0 0 $ 3 4 7 , 0 0 0 2i,oooL i 1 1 $ 2 5 3 , 0 0 0 ! I i i i 1 . ! ! ..! I 1 1 i ! cri O CASTLE CLINTON NATIONAL MONUMENT C a s t l e C l i n t o n 161 CASTLE CLINTON NATIONAL MONUMENT Castle Clinton Castle Clinton was erected in 1811 and was one of a chain of forts built in upper New York harbor to protect the city against pos- sible attack from the British. The fort, then known as West Battery, was never under attack and the War of 1812 passed without incident. After the war, West Battery was renamed Castle Clinton in honor of DeWitt Clinton. In 1821, after the Army no longer had a use for it, the fort was converted into a concert hall, and the structure became known as Castle Garden. The remodelled fort was the site of many his- toric performances, including the American debut of Jenny Lind. From the mid-nineteenth century until after 1890, Castle Garden was an immigrant depot and was abandoned after the erection of the Ellis Island facility. In 1896 the structure was again altered and reopened as the New York Aquarium, a function which it served for forty-five years. The fort is circular in design and is constructed of red sandstone or a log and stone foundation. It was set in what was at that time the harbor and was approached by a causeway, "he eight-foot thick walls were designed to carry additional tiers of casemates, which were never built. Castle Clinton has been a landmark in New York's Battery Park and will be restored to the fort period with exhibits illustrating its subsequent uses. The first portion of the restoration was accomplished in 1968 and 1969 when the circular covering over the casemates was erected. Also at that time, the two massive stone segments housing the powder maga- zines and privies, and the exterior of the sallyport were restored. The cost of this contract was $515,000. The proposed restoration project will accomplish the completion of Castle Clinton and place it in a maintenance status. A contract to accomplish this work was to be let this year, but an unsuccessful bid- der challenged the low bid and since that time the work has been in limbo with no sure knowledge of when it will be resolved. 162 REPORTS EXAMINED 163 Reports Examined Alexander, William M„, Civil Engineer. "Physical Status Report (Part I) Historic Structure, Fort Jefferson National Monument." National Park Service, May, 1970. Bearss, Edwin C. "Historic Structure Report, Fort Point, California," National Park Service; Historic Preservation, Denver Service Center, 1973. Corps of Engineers, U. S, Army, Office of the District Engineer, Jackson- ville, Florida, "Condition Reconnaisance and Study of Required Protection Work for the National Historic Site San Juan, Puerto Rico," May 13, 1971. Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, Office of the District Engineer, Jackson- ville, Florida. "Survey Report on Fortification Walls, Fort Brooke, San Juan, Puerto Rico," April 12, 1956. "Draft of Administrative Data Section of Historic Structure Report for Fort Moultrie, Architectural Date." National Park Service: Historic Preservation, Denver Service Center. Manucy, Albert, "Historic Structure Report (Part I) for Fort Jefferson National Monument." National Park Service, August 10, 1965. "Statement of Management and Planning (Management Objectives) Fort Jefferson National Monument," National Park Service, June 28, 1971. Miscellaneous Drawings, Files, and Master Plans at all areas visited. 164 APPENDIX 165 United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE DENVER SERVICE CENTER 7200 W. Alameda Denver, Colorado 80226 IN REPLY REFER TO: H2215-CD-THP Memorandum To: Director, Southeast Region From: Historian F. Ross Holland, Jr., Denver Service Center Subject: Memorandum of Understanding, Southeast Forts Study On October 31, Historical Architect Russ Jones and I met in your office, along with Denver Service Center Director Glenn Hendrix and members of your staff, to discuss the scope of the subject study. It was agreed that the study would be essentially as outlined in Associate Director, Professional Services, Connally's memorandum of October 19. That is, the final report would be "a detailed analysis indicating at each fort what work has to be done, how much it will cost, and a justification of why it is needed." In addition, Mr. Hendrix pointed out that Director Hartzog wanted the report to contain a time schedule for the accomplishment of the work proposed. You stated that you would like to have a copy of the report at the time a copy is sent to WASO. It was agreed that a copy will be sent you at that time. It is anticipated that a final draft of the report will be finished by January 15, 1973. F. Ross Holland, Jr. National Parks Centennial 1872-1972