Hartzler_OSFB_Final_Report04wood_(1).pdf

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 1

Figure 1.1: 1938 architectural illustration

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY

This report is a consolidation of the assessment, research and treatment of wooden features of the

Old Santa Fe Trail Building (OSTB) during fiscal years 2002-2004. This work was performed by, or supervised by, the Historic Architecture Program of the Intermountain Region’s Cultural

Resource Program in Santa Fe.

Known locally as the Old Santa Fe Trail Building (OSTB), after the name of the road on which it is located, the National Park Service Region III Headquarters Building – a National Historic

Landmark – was built in 1937-39 as the new regional headquarters. The NPS Regional III headquarters moved from Oklahoma City in 1937. Influenced by a blossoming New Mexico regional architectural style called Spanish-Pueblo Revival, NPS architect Cecil Doty designed a massive adobe and wood office building that appears to spring from the earth, and in a real way it does. Many of the adobes in the walls were made from the soil excavated from the basement.

Construction of the building was begun by the WPA (Works Progress Administration) during the

Depression, but the majority of the construction was accomplished by the CCC (Civilian

Conservation Corps), another New Deal program. At 24,000 square feet, this may the largest adobe office building in the United States. The building is an architectural treasure, even in Santa

Fe where flat roofs and brown stucco are ubiquitous.

The building has continuously been used as offices for the National Park Service, although the

Intermountain Region headquarters now is located in Denver. The building currently houses the

Santa Fe office of the National Trails System, and is administered by that program. Other Santa

Fe-based staff also have offices there. Character defining features include the thick, slightly irregular, stuccoed adobe walls, and the massive hand-tooled wooden vigas, posts and beams on the exterior and interior. Also crucial to the building’s external appearance are the wooden double-hung windows, and the weighty exterior doors, built especially for the building. Most of the offices in the building are built around a large enclosed patio, with a covered portal on all

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 2 sides. Nearly all of the first floor offices have windows that open onto both the exterior of the building and the patio, with a French door entrance from the patio. Executive offices are located on the second floor, built over the Great Room (originally designed as an open office space).

Nearly all of the offices and public spaces have wooden lap-joined board ceilings. Historic flagstone floors are exposed in the public entry.

Figure 1.1: Original Floor Plan, 1938

Despite the addition and subtraction of temporary and permanent partitions over the years, the building retains great integrity, and in general is in very good condition. Typical of all flat-roofed adobe buildings, the roof and the stucco covering need periodic repair and replacement, and the exposed wooden elements are subject to rain, snow, radical changes in temperature and the harsh sunlight at 7,000 feet elevation. A campaign in the late-1960s resulted in the repair of some windows and some vigas (and the elimination of some protruding viga ends, which were cut off and sealed behind the stucco). Another viga repair campaign in the late 1980s resulted in the replacement of many viga ends with new log sections screwed in place on threaded rods glued with epoxy into the prepared ends of the original vigas.

By 2002, there was concern about deterioration of many of the wooden windows. This concern led to the survey of the condition of the windows, and the research of their finishes, and the survey of the condition of the other important wooden elements of this important building.

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 3

In 2002 the National Trails System Office received $6,400 (the first installment of two-year

SEPAS allocation) and this money was used to study the finishes of the windows and doors of the

OSTB, and photograph the exterior of all of the doors and windows of the OSTB complex. In

2003, the remainder of the SEPAS allocation, $42,500, was used to complete interior photography, and to fund a conditions survey of the wooden doors and windows of the OSTB, and perform a pilot repair of five of the more severely deteriorated double-hung windows. The pilot program was initiated to determine the viability of window repair.

In addition, a pilot ceiling repair project was begun in 2003, using National Trails System base funds, to repair OSTB ceiling damage caused when florescent lighting fixtures were installed in the mid-1950s, and the late 1950s-early 1960s. When the ceilings were exposed during a rehabilitation project in 2002, during which new suspended lighting fixtures were installed, the earlier damage was revealed. The pilot project resulted in the repair of the ceilings in the Great

Room and the Maier Conference Room. In 2004, additional ceiling repairs were made on the second floor, also using base funds.

In 2004, the external vigas and corbels were surveyed for condition, as well as the posts and beams around the patio.

A section of this report is devoted to each of the major phases of the campaign to assess and treat the wooden elements of the Old Santa Fe Trail Building. The appendices contain much supporting documentation, and additional information, and the accompanying CDs contain digital images of all the door and windows as they appeared in 2002 and 2003, as well as digital copies of this report and all accompanying maps, plans and other documentation.

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 4

2.0 FINISHES RESEARCH

Exterior Finishes

Nearly all of the exterior-facing door and window surfaces at the OSTB are painted dark brown.

There is no documentation of previous painting campaigns, but Albert Duran, Facility Manager for the building, said that brown paint was first applied in the 1970s. Historic photographs of the building, and paint sampling evidence indicate that earlier treatments were lighter colored paints, and stains or pigmented varnishes.

Historic photographs of the OSTB, taken shortly after its construction, reveal window sash that is lighter in tone than the modern dark brown paint, and darker than the off-white paint found on the windows under the portal. (Most of the historic photos discovered are black and white, so little color information can be gained from their study.) Early, the tone of the patio window sash was dark (see figs. 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3) and the windows on the second floor and exterior were lighter.

Sometime, perhaps in the 1960s, the tone combination was reversed, with light-toned (off-white) finish on the patio windows and dark-toned (dark brown) finish on the second story windows and all windows and nearly all doors facing the exterior. Figure 2.4 is a 1939 photograph showing the front of the building and medium-toned window sash and framing.

A reasonable speculation is that the wooden windows and doors facing the exterior on the first and second stories, were coated with a clear or medium-toned varnish, and the windows under the portal were coated with a darker-toned varnish, to contrast with the white stucco under the portal.

But transparent coatings are not very long-lasting, particularly in the high altitude, high UV environment of Santa Fe, and the wooden elements of the windows probably began to degrade rapidly. Opaque, pigmented paints offer much greater protection from both UV light and water, so the decision to paint the windows was probably an early one.

An architectural rendering, figure 2.5, gives us a clue how Cecil Doty imagined the building should look. The colored drawing shows light to medium-toned brown doors and windows.

Figure 2.1:

This late 1930s photograph show the patio shortly the building was constructed. after the showing light window sash on the second story and a dark finish on the first story windows of the plaza interior.

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 5

Figure 2.2:

This 1939 photograph also shows the darker window finishes on the first story and lighter window finishes on the second story. (Note that these early photographs show the top sash lowered to provide ventilation.)

Figure 2.3:

This 1949 photograph, taken 10 years after the building was completed, shows the windows with darker finish on the first story of the plaza interior.

Figure 2.4:

This 1939 photograph of the north side of the Old Santa Fe Trail Building shows medium-toned sash on the front of the building, and on the second story.

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 6

Figure 2.5:

Compare the black and white photograph, Figure 2.4, with this colored architectural rendering of the building. Here the visible wooden features, the front doors and the windows and vigas, are a medium-toned brown.

Besides the study of historic photographs, samples of painted finishes from the windows and doors were collected. Rebecca Carr, an architectural conservator at Mesa Verde NP, assisted with research of the painted finishes of the windows of the OSTB. She collected and processed a set of samples in August, 2002, and gathered historic photos for study. Additional samples from strategic locations were collected in December. A total of 39 samples of window finishes were taken (22 exterior and 17 interior), and historic photographs of the building were studied for clues. Five samples were taken of doors or door lintels, including one sample of an interior door finish.

Before any of this work could begin, a system had to be developed to identify each window and door. An identification system was developed that provides information about location of a door or window in relation to direction, building story and sequential number on each elevation. For example, window N.1.W.2 is on the North side of the building, 1 st story, a Window (as opposed to a Door), the 2 nd window from the left when facing the north side of the building. A complete explanation of the numbering system in included in Appendix C, along with the building plans, labeled with door and window numbers

Appendix A contains information about each paint finish sample examined for this research. The information about the samples is arranged by the “compass” beginning with north, followed clockwise by east, south and west. The sample number is the window (or door) number, followed by another digit. For example sample N.1.W.2-3 is the 3 rd sample from window number N.1.W.2.

In the Architectural Conservation Laboratory in Santa Fe, the samples were mounted in clear epoxy, and polished so that they could be view in cross-section by visible light microscopy. This technique allows the layers of painted finishes to be determined, and matched for color against a standard system, such as the Munsell system.

It is clear from observations that window painting and repairs occur continuously, as evidenced by replacement glass and putty, fresh paint, replaced sills, etc. There was a major window repair campaign in 1967 and specifications for the project called for one of the following repairs on all sash and frames:

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 7

1. Replace existing sash, paint, or

Sash: 2. Remove existing sash, reglaze, burn off old paint, repaint, or

3. Sand and repaint.

A. Replace existing frame and sill, paint, or

Frames: B. Burn off old paint, seal, membrane sill, repaint, or

C. Sand and repaint.

The specifications called out a treatment in the form of “1/A”, the most extreme treatment

(complete replacement of sash and frames), to “3/C”, the least invasive (sanding and painting sash and frame). However a study of the window finishes reveals that the procedures called out in the 1967 project drawings were not always followed; some windows that were to be stripped

(“burn off old paint) were not stripped, and that historic paint evidence still remains. (An example is sample N.1.W.12-1, from a window on the north side. Plans called for this window sash and frame to be stripped and repainted, but historic paint layers remain.)

At some time, after the windows had begun to weather, they were painted. The first paint color found is a pinkish tan, next to the wood substrate, followed by an off-white/light tan. Both these layers contain lead. Then the patio windows were painted white, and layers of brown appear on the outside perimeter and second story windows. None of these late finishes contain lead. There are some exceptions to these sequences, primarily because of repairs or replacements, but they are generally consistent around the building.

Typical Finish Sequence – Window Exteriors

Color (from top to wood substrate) Munsell Color Lead Detected Notes brown 7.5YR 3.2 no current color of exterior windows and doors white

(not matched) no current color of windows facing patio (not present on exterior windows) off-white / light tan 2.5Y 9/2 yes light reddish brown 5YR 6/3 yes first painted color wood-toned finish (?)

possible transparent, pigmented, original finish

Interior Finishes

The finishes study showed that the interior finishes are primarily of two varieties: a thin gray finish found primarily in the offices surrounding the patio, and a varnish/stain found in other areas, and on the second floor. The windows finished with gray paint appear to have only a single thin layer of paint, possible with a clear finish underneath. Gray is also the color of many interior tongue and groove doors, as well as historic furnishings. Most other windows have a transparent, usually pigmented, finish layer. Interior historic photographs are rare; those found show clear finishes on the windows.

The current outermost layer of surface finish on the interior of windows is one of four treatments:

1. A varnish layer, presumably pigmented (Munsell 7.5YR 5/4), with a glossy finish that is transparent enough to reveal the underlying natural wood graining. The best example of this is window E.2P.W.7.

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 8

2. The varnish layer as described above, with a darker brown varnish (Munsell 7.5YR 3/2) applied on top. This treatment may not be the original treatment since it was not applied to entire windows, but sporadically applied to window elements that were not as weathered as other elements. This may have been an attempt to blend the color of less weathered window elements to those that had darkened due to weathering processes.

Examples of this may be seen on windows S.1.W.17 and W.2C.W.4.

3. A thin wash of bluish gray paint/stain (Munsell 10BG 8/1) with no other surface treatments. The best example of this finish is window E.1.W.8, a small double-hung window in a closet off the Maier Conference Room. This window may never have been refinished. (A similar finish is documented as an original CCC wood finish used on the original furnishings for this building.)

4. A glossy resinous finish of bluish gray (Munsell 5PB 7/1) that is the predominant treatment for first story windows and is not represented on the second story.

Ultraviolet Microscopy Examination

Clear or pigmented varnishes are often difficult to see under regular microscopic observation, because the films that are formed are often very thin, and in the case of the OSTB, it might be that opaque paints were applied over varnishes that were weathered and degraded, making them even more difficult to detect. Four samples, two exterior and two interior, were sent to Susan Buck, a

Delaware finishes conservator with the ability to observe the samples by ultraviolet (UV) light microscopy. In this technique, the samples are stained with chemicals that fluoresce under UV light if certain conditions are present. For example, this technique can help identify of paint binders, or types of varnish. Also, some finish layers are visible in UV light that are undetectable in visible light. Traces of plant resin varnishes were found next to the substrate on both the OSTB exterior samples. A copy of this finishes conservation report in included in Appendix B.

Stucco Color Investigation and Color Panel Test

In 1997 an investigation of the stucco layers on the OSTB was performed. (A copy of the investigation report is included as Appendix C.) Two complete layers of stucco were found at most sampling locations, the original three-coat stucco on twisted wire lath, and a later thee-coat system, the current exterior layer. The original stucco color was a light brown, compared to the current color, which is more reddish brown. On top of the first cement color coat are two coats of paint.

Typical Finish Sequence – Exterior Stucco

Color (from top to adobe substrate Munsell Color Notes reddish brown 5YR 5/5 cement color coat light brown 7.5YR 6/4 paint pinkish white (light tan) 7.5YR 8/2 paint light brown 7.5YR 6/4 cement color coat adobe substrate

To model the approximate historic initial paint color and stucco color, a panel was painted on the stucco in the courtyard east of the Great Room. Figure 2.6 show the painted panel, which extends approximately 1½ feet from each side of the window.

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 9

Figure 2.6:

The painted panel surrounding window W.1C.W.4 in the courtyard east of the Great Room. (Arrows show the edges of the panel.)

Lead-Based Paint Inspection

As part of the finishes investigation, a contractor was hired to investigate the presence of lead in paint on the painted surfaces of the OSTB. Spot chemical tests and microscopy had revealed lead in some of the paint layers in the finish samples. The testing method used XRF (X-ray

Fluorescence) to detect both the presence and amount of lead in the painted surfaces. It is a non-destructive test that uses an instrument to “shoot” gamma radiation into the surface to be sampled, and then detects X-ray radiation that is emitted by elements excited by the gamma radiation. Lead emits a characteristic frequency of radiation, and the instrument analyzes that frequency and reports on the amount of lead in mg/cm . According to the report, HUD and the EPA define lead-based paint as paint containing lead in concentrations 1.0 mg/cm

Nearly all of the exterior painted surfaces of window sash and framing were above the lead threshold. However, the lintels did not have reportable lead, nor did any samples from the doors, samples from patio post and beam, or clear interior window finishes. This confirms the spot chemical tests revealing lead in the earlier layers of paint, applied before the current brown.

Following is a table containing the results, with a “yes” or “no” in the column Lead. “Yes” means that the sample contained more than 1 mg/cm of lead. A copy of the full report in included in

Appendix D.

The instrument does not report, or know, what layer or layers of paint contain lead. Lead is hazardous when lead dust is breathed or ingested. This can occur at wear surfaces, when a window is opened or closed, for example, or when paint is removed by sanding, scraping or burning.

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 10

Lead-based paint removal and disposal is a complex issue. Paint must be stripped from the window sash before the sash can be repaired and refinished, and this paint residue from the sash and frames must be treated as hazardous waste. Workers and building occupants have to be protected from lead exposure during removal. And even if the sash or the frames, were discarded and replaced, they would have to be treated as hazardous waste because they contain lead-based paint. Any project to repair the windows at the OSTB will have to address this issue, and budget accordingly. But it is a task that can be performed safely, and the sash could be removed and stripped at a remote repair facility, minimizing the risks of employee exposure. It might also be possible to strip and refinish only the wear surfaces of the frames, and encapsulate the remaining lead based paint.

Old Santa Fe Trail Building XRF Lead Survey Results

NPS Sample No.

iS e Sample

No. Feature

Lead

1.0mg/cm Sample Location

1 20509 Win W.1C.W.2 no interior, bottom sash

2 20510 Win W.1C.W.2 no interior, stool

3 20511 Win E.1P.W.5 no interior, stool

4 20512 Door I.108B.1 no door face

5 20513 Door I.108B.1 no west jamb

6 20415 Win W.1C.W.3 yes exterior, head

7 20416 Win W.1C.W.3 yes exterior, south blind stop

8 20417 Win W.1C.W.3 yes exterior, bottom sash, bottom rail

9 20517 hall by Maier Conf. Rm. no 6’ above floor, 4’ E of conf. room

10 20518 hall by Maier Conf. Rm. no baseboard below sample #9

11 20519 Door E.1.D.2 no interior, hinge stile

12 20520 Door E.1.D.2 no exterior, lower door panel

13 20521 Door E.1.D.2 no exterior, south jamb

14 20522 Door N.1.D.3 East no exterior, center rail

15 20523 Door N.1.D.3 East no exterior, east jamb

16 20524 Win N.1.W.3 yes exterior, bottom sash, bottom rail

17 20525 Win N.1.W.3 yes exterior, west blind stop

18 20526 Win N.1.W.3 no exterior, lintel

19 20527 Win N.1.W.3 yes exterior, sill

20 20528 Win N.1.W.12 yes exterior, top sash, bottom rail

21 20529 Win N.1.W.12 yes exterior, west blind stop

22 20530 Win W.1.W.11 yes exterior, bottom sash, bottom rail

23 20531 Win W.1.W.11 yes exterior, south blind stop

24 20532 Win W.1.W.11 no exterior, lintel

25 20533 Win S.1.W.4 yes exterior, top sash, bottom rail

26 20534 Win S.1.W.4 yes exterior, east blind stop

27 20535 Win S.1.W.4 no interior, stool

28 20536 Win S.1.W.4 no exterior, lintel

29 20537 Win E.1P.W.5 yes exterior, bottom sash, bottom rail

30 20538 Win E.1P.W.5 yes exterior, south blind stop

31 20539 Win E.1P.W.5 yes exterior, sill

32 20540 patio Post N.1 no

33 20541 patio beam, east of Post N.1 no

34 20542 north upper wall, patio no between windows N.1P.W.4 & 5

35 20543 north wall dado, patio no between windows N.1P.W.4 & 5

36 20544 Win E.2P.W.3 no exterior, bottom sash, bottom rail

37 20546 Win E.2P.W.3 no exterior, bottom sash, bottom rail

38 20548 Win E.2P.W.3 yes exterior, blind stop

39 25048 Win E.2P.W.3 yes exterior, sill

40 20549 Win E.2P.W.3 yes exterior, bottom sash, north stile

41 50550 Win E.2P.W.3 yes exterior, head

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 11

3.0 DOOR AND WINDOW SURVEY

All of the wooden windows of the main Old Santa Fe Trail Building, and all of the first and second story doors, were surveyed for condition in 2003. Two matrices showing the condition of these door and windows are included in Appendix E.

Windows

The OSTB has 106 wooden double-hung windows, usually 6-over-6, or 8-over-8, of various sizes, windows that significantly contribute to the historic appearance and integrity of the structure. There are also three fixed wooden framed windows, the largest being the window on the east wall of the Maier Conference Room. There are nine metal windows in the basement, six original eight-light pivoted steel frame windows, and three aluminum sliding windows that were installed in the place of three original pivoted steel frame windows which were removed. (Only the wooden windows on the first and second floor of the OSTB were completely surveyed. There are an additional six windows of the annex which were partially surveyed. The are very similar to the main OSTB windows, except that they feature tape balances instead of tube balances.)

There are no comprehensive maintenance records for the OSTB, but it appears that most of the double-hung windows are original to the building, although some sash was replaced during a

1967 repair campaign, and other localized repairs have been made since the original installation.

According to the 1985 Historic Structures Report (HSR), the CCC workers not only built the adobe walls, and fashioned the wooden beams, posts and vigas, but they also built many of the doors (but not the French doors) and the frames for the windows, although lists of materials show that the sash was obtained from commercial sources. By the time of the construction of the

OSTB, wooden sash of the type found in the building had been readily available for decades.

Overall, the windows are in good or fair condition. The condition of the windows is related to their exposure to sun and water. The windows under the patio portal are in the best condition; and the windows on the second story, and on the east and south exposure are in the poorest condition, although there are repair elements on windows in every exposure orientation at the OSTB.

Two types of sash, characterized by muntin dimensions and sash thickness. were found in the

OSTB. The thicker sash was xx” thick, and the muntins were xx” wide. The thinner sash was xx” thick, and the muntins were xx” wide. Figures xx and xx illustrate the two types. Generally, all of the large, 8-over-8 windows (office windows under the portal, and in the Great Room) are of the thicker muntin type. But two (one?) windows in the Great Room are of the thinner muntin type, and the jamb has a spacer on the blind stop to accommodate the thinner window. Perhaps not enough of the thicker windows were available, or perhaps some thinner stock was shipped by mistake, and the stops were altered to accommodate the thinner windows. A plan of the building with the locations of the thick and thin sash is included in Appendix E. (I need to find my notes on this survey to complete this section.)

Sash Conditions

The most common deterioration or malfunction conditions of the sash of the double hung windows were:

inoperable top sash, 91 instances. (This sash is usually painted in place. For proper ventilation, this top sash should be operable.)

muntins with minor damage, 76 instances. (Usually a single muntin broken by the lock on the lower sash, when the sash was raised.)

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 12 broken or sticky tube balances, the springs that counterbalance the sash and keep the windows open. (It is recommended that these tube balances be replaced on all OSTB windows.)

damaged sash rails or stiles, 60 instances.

failing finishes, interior and exterior (paints or pigmented varnishes).

More infrequently, the following deterioration conditions were found:

broken muntins, 21 instances.

broken glass, 16 instances.

damaged or missing locks or handles, 35 instances.

Frame Conditions

The most common deterioration condition of the window framing and fixed window elements were:

weathering/cracking of the interior stool (interior sill), 40 instances.

rot on the bottom ends of the exterior side of the jamb, 25 instances.

sill rot, 31 instances.

deteriorated exterior and interior finishes.

Conditions not as common, but also found were:

rot at the exterior head, and lintel.

damage to the blind stop, parting bead, and/or interior stop.

Five windows were removed for repair in a 2003 pilot repair project, and after the windows were stripped of their finishes and disassembled, some additional areas of repair – primarily warped stiles and rails – were discovered. It should be expected to find this condition on other windows as well. The window repair is documented in Section 4.0.

But despite the laundry list of deficiencies, the windows are not experiencing unusual deterioration, especially after approximately 66 years of exposure. And some of the survey conditions are not indications of “broken” windows. Many of the upper sash units are inoperable because they are painted shut on the exterior. And the broken tube balances make it difficult to operate many of the windows in otherwise operable condition.

Doors

There are 127 doors in the OSTB: 38 are exterior doors (including the sheltered French office doors under the patio) and 82 are interior doors, primarily V-cut tongue and groove doors.

Additionally there are seven doors in the basement and another 10 in the annex. All of the first and second floor doors were surveyed as part of this project. Compared to the windows, most of the doors at the OSTB are in relatively good condition, due their more protected locations within the building, or under the portal of the patio.

Many of the doors were made on site, including the huge front doors which were distressed with saw blades to give them a more rustic appearance, the other exterior doors many of which feature hand-carved wooden spindles in front of the glazing, and the V-cut tongue and groove interior doors. However, the 15-light French doors on the patio were purchased ready-made.

Common Door Problems Noted loose knobs, missing or inoperative lock/latch hardware, 23 instances incomplete ball bearing hinges, 17 instances

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 13 worn or missing weatherstripping, 38 instances worn finishes, approximately 2/3 of doors and framing door binding in the jamb, or otherwise poor fit, 13 instances

Other Problems broken door structural members replace frames surrounding glazing repair or replace loose spindle at door glazing

Estimated Repair Costs

The following tables provide estimates of repair costs for the OSTB wooden windows, exterior doors and interior doors. The window repair project is the most expensive because there are so many exposed to the elements, and their relative fragility compared to doors. The window project assumes that all of the sash would be removed from the structure, and stripped of paint. The framing would remain in the wall and be stripped in place. (Lead paint removal/disposal is the most expensive component of the project.) The sash would be repaired off-site, painted, and reinstalled in the repaired, repainted frames. The actual repair of the sash could be performed efficiently by a competent contractor with a wood shop set up for these repairs. Once the tools were prepared to reproduce the two molding profiles of the OSTB windows, dozens of feet of pre-milled stock could be on hand for dutchman repairs or replacement of damaged stiles, rails and muntins.

The exterior doors are in relatively good condition, only a couple need major repair. The doors would be removed for refinishing and repair. The doors do not contain lead paint, and aggressive paint removal could damage the CCC surface finishing. It is recommended that the brown-finished doors be repaired and refinished with a color more closely approximately natural wood.

The French doors already have transparent finishes, but many need to be cleaned and refinished.

Some door hardware – hinges, knobs and locks – needs to be replaced, but in most cases this is an esthetic issue not a functionality issue. Almost all of the exterior doors need weatherstripping repair, replacement or installation.

The interior doors are also in relatively good condition, but many need minor repairs and cleaning/refinishing. Rather than wholesale replacement of interior finishes, these doors, particularly the original doors, should be carefully refinished, perhaps only touching up the soiled or damaged finishes. Some doors also need replacement hardware.

116 Wood Windows (OSTB and Annex)

Repair Description Hours/Window Rate Labor

Cost/Window Materials Total remove and reinstall sash 8 45 $360 $41,760 strip lead paint from sash (incl.

matls.) $1,550 $179,800 strip lead paint from framing (incl.

matls.) $1,300 $150,800 repair sash 16 45 $720 $20 $85,840 repair sill, frame, head, lintel 4 45 $180 $20 $23,200 glaze 5 45 $225 $20 $28,420 repaint sash (incl. matls.) 5 45 $225 $26,100 repaint framing (incl. matls.) 4 45 $180 $20,880 hardware $43 $4,988

Total $561,788*

*Does not include overhead or contractual costs

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 14

42 Exterior Doors (OSTB and Annex, Hinged Passage Doors)

Repair Description Hours/Door Rate

Cost/Window Materials Total remove and reinstall door 8 45 $360 $15,120 repair door elements 4 45 $180 $20 $8,400 repair sill, frame, head, lintel 2 45 $90 $20 $4,620 refinish door (incl. matls.) 5 45 $225 $9,450 refinish framing (incl. matls.) 4 45 $180 $7,560 install weatherstripping 2 45 $90 $3,780 hardware (incl. locks, latches, weatherstripping) $100 $4,200

Total $53,130*

83 Interior Doors (OSTB and Annex)

Repair Description Hours/Door Rate

Cost/Window Materials Total remove and reinstall door 8 45 $360 $41,760 repair door elements 2 45 $90 $20 $12,760 repair sill, frame, head, lintel 2 45 $90 $20 $12,760 refinish door (incl. matls.) 5 45 $225 $26,100 refinish framing (incl. matls.) 4 45 $180 $20,880 hardware (incl. locks, latches, weatherstripping) $50 $5,800

Total $120,060*

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 15

4.0 PILOT WINDOW REPAIR

Five windows were selected for the pilot repair project in 2003. The number and window selection was based on:

windows with typical and/or severe deterioration conditions, windows located where their removal would not disturb the occupants, the number of windows that could be completed in the time allotted, and windows that were not immediately visible to visitors from the exterior, because they were to be painted a different color than the brown paint on all other windows and doors.

The five windows selected were:

W.1C.W.1, W.1C.W.3, and W.1C.W.4, all on the east side of the Great Room, opening onto the small interior courtyard, and all examples of 8-over-8 double-hung window, S.1.W.16, a 6-over-6 window on the south side of the building, just inside the door adjacent to the Annex, and

W.2C.W.6, a 6-over-6 window on the west side of the second story, also accessible from the roof.

Some surprises were found when the windows were stripped and disassembled, including rotted tenons and warped stiles and rails. These problems were not discovered during the survey of the windows in place. In a couple of locations it was also found that the window framing was no longer square, and the window sash had to be trimmed before it was reinstalled to work in the frame. It must be assumed that other windows also have these flaws, and an estimate of hidden damage must be built in to any repair plan estimate.

The tube balances were replaced in every window repaired, and it is recommended that all of the tube balances be replaced, since many were broken or inoperative, and in several cases actually jamming the window rather than facilitating movement.

The windows were removed from the interior, by removing the interior stops and the parting bead

(which did not always come out without breaking.) It was helpful to have access to the exterior of the building because the top sash was often held in place by overpainting, and it was necessary to break that bond by carefully using a utility knife and a rubber mallet. Storm windows were fitted to the openings to block weather while the windows were being repaired.

The glass was removed from the sash, cleaned and labeled. The paint was removed from the sash by a commercial furniture refinisher in Santa Fe. The window openings were covered with plastic on the interior, and the paint was removed by a commercial painter using a wet stripper, so no sanding or heat was used, minimizing the chance that lead dust or fumes would enter the work areas, or endanger employees.

After the windows were stripped, they were disassembled by removing the metal pins in the corner joints. All traces of old finishes were removed, and old glazing compound was removed from the glass rabbets. The window pieces were labeled with masking tape, and inspected for damage. Most of the repairs were either dutchman repairs – replacing damaged sections with new wood – or, if the damage was severe, a new piece was fabricated for the window. Small losses were filled with a special wood repair epoxy. Broken glazing was replaced. A table in this section lists the repairs made to each window. Photographs at the end of this section show some of the common damage and repair techniques.

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 16

The window repair work was performed by NPS Exhibit Specialist/Conservator Robert Hartzler, assisted by Dennis Dorman, a member of the preservation crew of the Division of Facilities

Management, Historic Preservation Projects Program. Della Gomez, a National Trails System maintenance employee, assisted with glazing the windows.

Some repairs to the window framing were also required. A new sill was fabricated for window

W.2C.W.6, because the existing sill was rotted. Epoxy repairs were made to the bottoms of several jambs where they were rotted. The head was replaced on window W.1C.W.3 where it was rotten. New parting bead was fabricated for some windows, and interior stopping was repaired or replaced in two cases. The stools were refinished, and in one case the stool and sill were trimmed to make room for a new, straight, bottom rail.

Four of the five windows repaired were painted on the exterior, and finished with a urethane varnish on the interior. The fifth was painted on both the interior and exterior. The windows were primed with a white oil based primer on the surfaces to be repainted. The were painted with latex paint on the exterior, approximately reproducing the historic first painted color. The window on the south exterior was painted gray on the interior, to match the existing framing. The interiors of the other four windows were stained first with Minwax Wood Finish

Maple Stain, and then

Early American Stain. Both layers were applied with a rag and immediately wiped. The stains were applied consecutively and then left to dry. The interiors were finished with two coats of

Minwax Spar Urethane finish, a clear coating resistant to UV radiation and moisture. The exterior framing was primed with white oil-based primer and finished with the same color latex paint that the window sash was painted; the pieces of interior framing were finished with stains and a transparent finish.

Lessons of Pilot Repair

The special repair of five windows – representing three different window sizes, two molding profiles and two different finish schemes – presented almost all of the potential repair situations of OSTB windows. But wooden window problems are predictable, and the pilot program demonstrated that a competent craftsperson, facing the repair of more than 100 windows – many in good condition – could set up a shop to efficiently repair the window deterioration, utilizing economies of scale not available to the pilot project. The window and door condition survey also provides a guide to the extent of the window and door deterioration problems.

Record of Window Repair

FY 2003 Old Santa Fe Trail Building Window Repairs

Window Number Top Sash Repairs Bottom Sash Repairs Frame Repairs

W.1C.W.1

1 new horizontal muntin dutchman repair of lower south end (14.5”) of the check rail

1 new horizontal muntin dutchman repair of the north end (8.5”) of the bottom rail, incl. new tenon.

sanded/stained/sealed stool epoxy repair of the bottom of the south jamb

2 new parting beads

W.1C.W.3 dutchman repair of the bottom end (5”) south stile dutchman repair of horizontal muntin new right stile dutchman repair of horizontal muntin replaced head replaced trim on the north jamb sanded/stained/sealed stool epoxy repair of the bottom of the south jamb cont.

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 17

Window Number Top Sash Repairs Bottom Sash Repairs Frame Repairs

W.1C.W.4 new check rail new bottom tenons on vertical muntins 2 new horizontal muntins old bottom face removed from damaged check rail, and glued onto new check rail dutchman repair of loss behind handle location new tenons, bottom rail new north stile dutchman repair on the exterior bottom (12”) of south stile dutchman repair of tenons, both sides, check rail new sash handle trimmed stool face so repaired sash would clear sanded/stained/sealed stool

1 new interior stop

S.1.W.16 new check rail dutchman repair of lower half of east stile repair of horizontal muntin new sash lock

2 new stiles new bottom rail 1 new horizontal muntin new sash handle new sash lock trimmed stool and sill to accommodate new straight bottom rail

1 new parting bead epoxy repairs to bottom of both jambs

W.2C.W.6 dutchman repair of horizontal muntin new bottom rail 1 new horizontal muntin new sash handle new sill sanded/stained/sealed stool 2 new parting beads dutchman repair of bottom of south blind stop epoxy repair to bottom of south jamb

Photographs of Window Deterioration, and Repair Techniques

Figure 4.1:

This rotted sill was taken from window W.2C.W.6, on the east side of second floor. A new sill was fabricated and installed.

(See Figure 4.9)

Figure 4.2:

This is an example of a warped and checked window rail. If the warping was slight, the checks were filled with an epoxy filler, and the rail sanded and painted.

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 18

Figure 4.3:

Some tenons and mortises were rotten and/or broken.

Replacement pieces were cut to fit, and glued to the ends of the original stiles and rails.

Figure 4.4:

This photograph shows a rotted tenon end of a window rail (top) and a dutchman repair of a stile (bottom).

Figure 4.5:

These two window rails have two different dutchman repairs: the top rail needed only a new tenon, while the bottom rail had more severe damage, requiring a larger infill.

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 19

Figure 4.6:

A dutchman repair of a window muntin is contained in the circle. If the damage is slight, a dutchman repair can salvage the original muntin. If the damage is severe, it is more efficient to replace the entire muntin.

Figure 4.7:

This window rail suffered from decay under the handle. Dutchman repairs were fitted into the decayed areas, and then stained and finished.

Figure 4.8:

After all of the repairs were completed, the windows pieces were dry-fit, then squared, pinned, primed, glazed, and painted.

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 20

Figure 4.9:

The left photograph shows the new sill of window W.2C.W.6 in place, along with an epoxy repair of the bottom of the jamb. The right photograph shows the bottom sash of window W.2C.W.6, complete with new bottom rail, and the stool has also been refinished.

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 21

5.0 CEILING REPAIR

The original light fixtures in the OSTB were incandescent bulbs in white glass globes, “schoolhouse” fixtures, either ceiling-mounted or hanging from an extension rod. (Some special tin fixtures were custom-made for the entry hall and the conference room. These fixtures are still in place.) But according to Sam Romero, NPS architect, and Albert Duran, OSFT Facility

Manager, fluorescent lights were installed at the ceiling level ca. 1954-55, replacing the original fixtures, with additional installations in the late-1950s or early 1960s. These ceiling-mounted lights came out of the building in 2002, when the electrical system was completely upgraded, and new florescent fixtures, which hang from slender rods and cables were installed. But when the old ceiling-mounted lights came out, the openings cut into the lap-joined Douglas fir ceiling boards to accommodate wiring, junction boxes and hangers were exposed.

At the request of Albert Duran, Jake Barrow, Senior Exhibit Specialist in the Historic

Architecture Program, examined the ceiling damage and suggested techniques for repair. Barrow and Bob Hartzler, Exhibit Specialist/Conservator began work in 2003 on the ceiling in the Great

Room, and then also completed the Maier Conference Room when the Great Room work was finished.

The losses in the ceiling boards are of two general types: approximately round holes (these appear to have been cut with large spade bits, sometimes at an angle, but often ragged, and sometimes lapping over on to the adjacent board), and larger, approximately rectangular holes, cut with a jigsaw. The round holes (if they were “clean” enough) with filled with temporary plugs glued in place with an expanding polyurethane glue, and then drilled out with a 1” or 1½” hole-cutting bit to achieve an clean edged hole. Then, using a 1” or 1½” non-tapered plug cutter, a plug was cut from a piece of Douglas fir, and glued in place. A challenging part of this project was selecting a plug to match the color and grain of the ceiling boards. Color proved to be the most critical criteria, and various colored stains, and linseed oil, were used to approximate the varied colors and patterns on the 60-year-old ceilings. Some plugs were overpainted with watercolors to simulate knots (the ceilings are richly adorned with knots) and the repairs are virtually invisible from the floor. The overpainted repairs were sealed with a weak linseed oil/mineral spirits mixture. The other repairs are visible to a careful observer, but otherwise unnoticeable.

For larger or irregular losses, a more complex technique was used. Rectangular templates were cut out of Masonite to even sizes (e.g. 2” x 2” or 4” x 5”) on a table saw, and then fastened to the ceiling with self-tapping screws so the template opening enclosed the loss. A router fitted with a ½” straight bit, with a bearing at the bottom, near the router base, was inserted in the hole and, with the bearing riding on the edge of the template, a rectangular hole was cut from the ceiling board. A patch was made by cutting a new piece of Douglas fir to the same dimensions as the new hole, rounding off the corners with a ¼” round-over bit, and gluing it in place. Again, care was taken to match as closely as possible the color and grain pattern of the original board.

In 2004, the project continued on the second floor, and ceilings of offices 201, 202 and 203 were completed. Work began on the ceiling of office 204 and the hallway, room 200, but was not completed before funds ran out. Appendix G contains photographs of the repairs to the Great

Room and the Maier Conference Room.

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 22

Project Photographs

Figure 5.1:

Shown are the work scenes in the Great Room, left, and the Maier Conference Room during the ceiling repair project.

These important rooms were chosen for the pilot project because they were normally unoccupied, but often used for public and NPS meetings and special events.

Figure 5.2:

Losses that were roughly round were first plugged with rough pine plugs glued in place, and then drilled out to form a clean 1” or 1½“ hole, as shown in the photograph on the left. The new holes were then filled with Douglas fir plugs. In the photograph on the right, the plugs are being checked for fit. The 1½“ plug on the right was stained to match the ceiling board, and the one on the left was overpainted to blend with the ceiling board knot.

Figure 5.3:

To cut the rectangular holes to repair larger losses a hardboard template was screwed to the ceiling, left, and a router was used to cut out the ceiling board from within the template

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 23

Figure 5.4:

The top left photograph shows a 2” x 2” hole in the Great Room ceiling, cut using a router and a template. The top right photo show the new plug dry-fit into the hole, and the bottom left photograph shows the dutchman repair glued in place.

Figure 5.5:

In two instances in the Great Room, an entire ceiling board between two beams was removed and replaced, because the damage was so extensive.

The photograph on the left shows the damage. The photograph on the right shows the new ceiling board, center, and a dutchman repair to the board left of the replacement.

Old Santa Fe Trail Building – Wooden Features Survey, Assessment, Recommendations Page 24

Figure 5.6:

This photograph shows a WPA mill stamp, “Mill 62”, on the back of a damaged Douglas fir ceiling board removed from the Great Room ceiling.

Building Ceiling Survey

The ceilings in the rest of the OSTB were surveyed for damage, and the following table lists the results of that survey. Complicating the repair of office ceilings are the factors of occupancy. The ceiling repair process is quite messy and noisy, requiring tarps to be placed over all of the horizontal surfaces. Additionally, some light fixtures and ceiling fans have to be removed, and some locations are blocked by filing cabinets and other immobile furnishings. The process is also relatively time consuming because while many of the repairs are essentially similar, they have critical differences – different grain patterns and color, some ceiling boards are bowed, etc. While most of the work can be accomplished by one person, it requires two to take down and reinstall the light fixtures.

Estimated Repair Costs/Alternatives There are 555 holes in the OSTB ceilings, not counting the Great Room and conference room, or offices 201, 202, or 203. Additionally, there are 9 holes in the second floor hall routed but not patched, and 12 holes prepared for repair in room 204. The pilot project resulted in approximately one repair every two hours. At $30/hour, repair of the holes would be approximately $33,300, not including overhead or contracting costs, and assuming reasonable access to the ceilings. Two options might be considered; hiring a crew that would work nights when the building was unoccupied, and hiring a temporary maintenance worker who could work on the project when the offices were unoccupied because of vacations, business travel, or vacancies. The first option has access and security issues to be considered, and the second might present funding difficulties, since special project funds usually have restrictions on hiring and funding duration.

O…