B08_Attachment_16_CLR___EA_November-2018.pdf

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial Put-in-Bay, Ohio

Cultural Resources Midwest Region

Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial

Cultural Landscape Treatment Plan and Environmental Assessment

November 2018

Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial

Put-In-Bay, Ohio

Cultural Landscape Treatment Plan and Environmental Assessment

Prepared by:

Commonwealth Heritage Group 300 West Main Street, Suite 201 Charlottesville, Virginia 22903

(434) 979-1617

Period Architecture 911 Barret Avenue Louisville, Kentucky 40204

(502) 216-7651

Prepared for:

National Park Service Midwest Regional Office 601 Riverfront Dr.

Omaha, Nebraska 68102

(402) 661-1601

November 2018

Cultural Resources Division Midwest Regional Office National Park Service 601 Riverfront Drive Omaha, Nebraska 68102

(402) 661-1601

About the front cover: View toward the Perry’s Victory Memorial obelisk from the intersection of Toledo Avenue and Delaware Avenue.

October 2016.

This manuscript has been authored by Commonwealth Heritage Group under Contract Number P14PC00448 with the National Park Service. The United States Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, world-wide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes.

National Park Service i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................ i

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................................... iii

Chapter 1: Introduction

Background ................................................................................................................................................................ 1-1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................. 1-1

Chapter 2: Integrity Assessment

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Previous Integrity Assessments ................................................................................................................................. 2-2

1994 Perry’s Victory Cultural Landscape Report ............................................................................................... 2-2 2014 National Register of Historic Places Additional Documentation ............................................................ 2-2

2017 Integrity Assessment ......................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Topography and Grading ................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Spatial Organization .......................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Circulation ........................................................................................................................................................... 2-5 Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................................... 2-7 Buildings and Structures .................................................................................................................................... 2-9 Views and Viewsheds ....................................................................................................................................... 2-12 Small-Scale Features ......................................................................................................................................... 2-13 Setting ............................................................................................................................................................... 2-14

Chapter 3: Treatment Plan

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Management Goals ................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Recommended Treatment Approach ....................................................................................................................... 3-2 Treatment Guidelines and Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 3-4

Site-Wide Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 3-4 Treatment Recommendations by Management Zone ............................................................................................. 3-7

Zone 1: Historic Core .......................................................................................................................................... 3-7 Zone 2: Visitor Access and Park Administration ............................................................................................. 3-14 Zone 3: Park Housing and Maintenance ......................................................................................................... 3-17

Design Concept Alternatives ................................................................................................................................... 3-20 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-20 Opportunities and Constraints ........................................................................................................................ 3-20 Concept Alternatives ........................................................................................................................................ 3-21

Chapter 4: Environmental Assessment

Introduction/Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................ 4-1 Purpose and Need .............................................................................................................................................. 4-1 Relationship to Park Planning Efforts ............................................................................................................... 4-2 Park Background ................................................................................................................................................ 4-3 Park Significance ................................................................................................................................................ 4-3 Public Process ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-5 Impact Topics ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-6

Development of Alternatives .................................................................................................................................... 4-8 The No Action Alternative ................................................................................................................................. 4-9

Table of Contents ii Cultural Landscape Report/Environmental Assessment: Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial

Actions Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 (Action Alternatives) .................................................................... 4-11 Alternative 2 Action Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 4-12 Alternative 3 Action Alternative (NPS Preferred Alternative) ........................................................................ 4-13 Selection of the NPS-Preferred Alternative ..................................................................................................... 4-15 Mitigation ......................................................................................................................................................... 4-16

Affected Environment ............................................................................................................................................. 4-16 Natural Resources ............................................................................................................................................. 4-16 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................................... 4-21 Visitor Use and Experience ............................................................................................................................... 4-24 Human Health and Safety ................................................................................................................................ 4-26

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................................................. 4-26 General Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts ........................................................................... 4-26 Climate Change ................................................................................................................................................ 4-28 Impacts to Cultural Resources and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act........................... 4-28 Cumulative Impacts Analysis Method .............................................................................................................. 4-29 Actions and Projects Inside Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial ............................................ 4-30 Actions and Projects Outside Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial ......................................... 4-30 Natural Resources ............................................................................................................................................. 4-30 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 4-38 Visitor Use and Experience ............................................................................................................................... 4-46 Human Health and Safety ................................................................................................................................ 4-48

Consultation and Coordination .............................................................................................................................. 4-50 Scoping Process and Public Involvement ......................................................................................................... 4-50 Consultation ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-51

Preparers, Consultants and References .................................................................................................................. 4-52 Preparers and Consultants ............................................................................................................................... 4-52 References ......................................................................................................................................................... 4-52

Appendix A

Table of Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................................. A-1

Appendix B

Consultation Letters ................................................................................................................................................. B-1

Appendix C

Comparative Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. C-1

List of Figures

The photographs within this document, unless otherwise noted, were provided by Commonwealth Heritage Group, WJE, and Period Architecture and taken during fieldwork at Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial in October 2016 and May 2017.

Chapter 2

2-1 2014 Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial historic site National Register Places boundary.

2-2 Existing Conditions Map

2-3 Contributing Features Map

2-4 Area of erosion of the earthen berm under the Austrian pines.

2-5 View of the Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial in the late 1920s, showing the flat, open lawn of the site, framed by large trees to the east and west.

2-6 View of the Memorial column from the south seawall, showing the barberry hedge ca. 1945.

2-7 View west from the observation deck, annotated to show location of original west boundary.

2-8 View east from the observation deck, annotated to show location of original east boundary.

2-9 View along the old trace of Chapman Avenue. The dip that marks the location of its roadside ditch is marked by the red dashed line.

2-10 Freedlander’s 1924 plan, “Reservation Showing Parking of Grounds,” showing the two proposed parallel walkways flanking the Memorial building.

2-11 Diagonal walkway that connects the visitor center to the side stair of the Memorial’s lower plaza.

2-12 Detail from photograph of the Memorial from the late 1920s after the Austrian pines were planted, showing their conical forms.

2-13 Photograph of the Austrian pines in 2016, showing their current form.

2-14 Photograph taken of the ticket booth ca. 1929 to 1934, showing the barberry plantings in the Memorials upper plaza planters.

2-15 Planters on the upper plaza are maintained in turf. Also visible is one of the granite benches and a low path light.

2-16 Granite pavers installed by the NPS in 1983-84. To the left is the scored concrete band installed to replace the brick in 2012.

2-17 View of the western side of the battle area in Put-in-Bay, showing the intrusion of modern docks into the viewshed

2-18 Utility boxes surrounded by clipped shrubs, roses, and annual flowers.

2-19 Trash and recycling receptacles located at the northwest corner of the Memorial’s lower plaza.

Chapter 3

3-1 Benches would be compatible within all areas of the park.

3-2 Trash receptacles would not be visually intrusive and would be compatible throughout the park.

iv Cultural Landscape Report/Environmental Assessment: Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial

3-3 Management Zone 1

3-4 Tree massing has diminished over time along the eastern edge of the historic core.

3-5 Tree massing would be augmented along the western edge of the historic core.

3-6 Diagonal sidewalks flanking the Memorial would remain within a rectilinear circulation pattern.

3-7 Sidewalk adjacent to the south seawall would remain.

3-8 A sidewalk would be added to the north seawall.

3-9 Management of the large expanses of turf would continue within the current turf management and maintenance program

3-10 Additional trees would be provided along the western edge of the historic core to reinforce historic spatial organization.

3-11 Planting beds on the upper plaza would be retained in turf.

3-12 Superintendent’s residence would be managed as a cultural resource.

3-13 Four granite urns on the corners of the upper plaza would be managed and maintained as cultural resources and part of the Memorial structure.

3-14 Granite benches on the upper plaza would be managed and maintained as cultural resources.

3-15 Flagpoles would remain in their existing location.

3-16 Management Zones 2 and 3

3-17 The open grass lot between Hartford and Toledo Avenues would be the location of the Peace Garden.

3-18 The location of the Peace Garden would provide a visual and physical connection to the visitor center from Hartford Avenue.

3-19 River birch trees would be removed to open the viewshed to the visitor center entrance.

3-20 Evergreen shrubs adjacent to the visitor center would not be sheared into geometric shapes.

3-21 West façade entrance to the visitor center is not compliant with ABAAS standards.

3-22 Small-scale features in the vicinity of the visitor center would be reduced in number and organized to prevent visual clutter.

3-23 Bollard lights associated with the visitor center would be replaced with low path lights spaced 10-15 feet apart.

3-24 The Grand Lodge of Ohio monument would be displayed in the visitor center.

3-25 A plateau and changes in elevation are apparent I the landscape of this zone.

3-26 Large trees in this zone would be preserved.

3-27 Concept Alternative A

3-28 Concept Alternative B

Chapter 4

4-1 Project Area Map: Project Boundary for Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial within the context of Lake Erie and northern Ohio.

4-2 Panoramic views are available from the observation deck of the Memorial column. This view is critical to understanding the Battle of Lake Erie.

National Park Service v

4-3 Orientation maps are provided on the observation deck of the column to help interpret the views and the significance of the battle

4-4 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

4-5 Small staircase is the only pedestrian access to the lower plaza and the grand ceremonial steps are the only access to the upper plaza. There is no ABAAS accessibility for the plazas or the Memorial column.

4-6 View from the north seawall clearly shows the barriers to ABAAS access to the Memorial and plazas.

4-7 Definition of enclosed space is diminished east of the Memorial at the edge of the historic core and the park housing/administration management zones.

4-8 Definition of enclosed space is diminished west of the Memorial at the edge of the historic core and the visitor access/park administration management zones.

4-9 Village beach provides the only picnic table amenities around the park and a beach associated with Lake Erie.

4-10 From within the park there is no clear direction or node along the pedestrian circulation system to define a clear access from the park to the beach boardwalk.

4-11 Alternative 2 Action Alternative

4-12 Alternative 3 Action Alternative

4-13 Stormwater management throughout the park will be addressed with mitigation measures during implementation of the preferred alternative.

4-14 Drainage and separation of utility pipes will be addressed with mitigation measures during implementation of the preferred alternative.

4-15 Put-in Bay and the expanse of Lake Erie as seen from the Memorial observation platform.

4-16 Lake Erie south of the park as seen from the ferry as it departs from South Bass Island. The Memorial column can be seen in the distance.

4-17 Colorful perennials and annuals are located in the visitor center/park administration management zone. Scattered deciduous trees are also prevalent in the landscape.

4-18 The historic core is characterized by a horizontal ground plane with an expanse of turf grass.

There are deciduous trees west of the Memorial and the Austrian pines are visible around the Memorial plazas.

4-19 The upper plaza of the Memorial forms its base. Granite urns are in each corner of the upper plaza.

4-20 Memorial column is seen in the distance. The south seawall forms the south boundary of the historic core.

4-21 View to the cultural landscape west of the Memorial column and plazas. Large expanse of lawn covers the horizontal ground plane that is part of the original design intent for the Memorial and its landscape setting.

4-22 View to the cultural landscape east of the Memorial column and plazas. Lawn continues to the east, and trees form a sense of enclosure that helps define the historic core.

4-23 Historic photograph (1950) from the park archives shows a grand view from Bayview Avenue toward the Memorial column.

4-24 Approximately the same view in 2017, with powerlines cluttering the grand view to the Memorial column from Bayview Avenue.

vi Cultural Landscape Report/Environmental Assessment: Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial

4-25 View toward the top of the column as seen from the plaza. A large doorway marks the entrance to the column.

4-26 View from the observation platform at the top of the Memorial column. Interpretive maps are provided on the platform.

4-27 Public meeting in May 2017 gave stakeholders a chance to give input based on presentation of conceptual alternatives.

4-28 Conceptual ideas were presented to the public and issues discussed with individual team members.

National Park Service 1-1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Background

This cultural landscape treatment plan is an update to the treatment guidelines provided in the cultural landscape report (CLR) for Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial (PEVI), completed by the National Park Service (NPS) in

1994.1 An update was needed because: 1) the 1994

CLR is over twenty years old and its treatment guidelines are no longer consistent with the park’s goals and objectives; 2) the CLR was completed prior to approval of the current standards for the treatment of cultural landscapes; 3) the park has accrued features from both planned and extemporaneous decisions during the twentieth century, and guidance is needed regarding for intentional preservation or rehabilitation of the designed landscape.2

This update addresses the entirety of the park, including the 14.5 acres of the National Register of Historic Places-listed (NRHP) historic site of Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial, referred to in this report as the “historic core,” as well as the surrounding lands acquired by the NPS for the park, for a total of 25 acres.

1 Sherda K. Williams and Susan Calafate Boyle, Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial Put-in-Bay, Ohio: Cultural Landscape Report (Omaha NE: National Park Service, 1994).

2 Current standards for the treatment of cultural landscapes are published in Charles A. Birnbaum and Christine Capella Peters’ The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (Washington DC: National Park Service, 1996).

Methodology

Work on the update began with documentary research on the evolution of the park since 1994, gathered from the 1994 CLR, the 2014 NRHP Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial Additional Documentation (2014 NRHP Additional Documentation), and other resources, including maps and photographs gathered from the park and other collections.3

Research was followed by fieldwork, conducted in 2016-17 to confirm and/or update conditions recorded in the 1994 CLR and the 2014 NRHP Additional Documentation.

Next, the project team compared the integrity evaluations from the 1994 CLR and the 2014 NRHP Additional Documentation, noted which evaluations still accurately reflected current conditions, and updated incorrect or outdated information. The team also evaluated changes to the park outside the historic core since the end of the period of significance (1911-1963), noted how those changes affected its historical integrity, and identified features outside the historic core that may merit special attention in the treatment plan.

This comparative analysis, presented in Chapter 2, 3 Deborah E. Harvey, National Register of Historic Places Additional Documentation for Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial, (2014). “Additional documentation” is the NRHP name for a revision to the first NRHP nomination for a historic property. Additional documentation can range from the addition of a single resource to a historic district to what is essentially a complete replacement of the earlier nomination.

Introduction

1-2 Cultural Landscape Report/Environmental Assessment: Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial is organized by landscape feature so that it can be used in conjunction with the treatment plan.

The treatment plan, presented in Chapter 3, was based on the comparative analysis, and input from the park and the public, and offers guidance and support for the long-term management and interpretation of the park and its resources, organized by management zone, and based on the guidelines for the rehabilitation of cultural landscapes as outlined by the Secretary of the Interior.4 The plan is illustrated by two alternative design concepts for treatment, including the addition of new circulation features, open event pavilions, plantings, and interpretive and contemplative waysides and nodes.

The final chapter, Chapter 4, presents an environmental assessment that evaluates the two alternatives proposed in the treatment plan, along with a “no-action” alternative. The chapter also identifies the “preferred alternative,” and assesses the potential impacts and effects of that proposed action in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and concurrently with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

4 Birnbaum and Peters, 1996.

National Park Service 2-1

Chapter 2: Integrity Assessment

Introduction

This chapter presents an evaluation of the contributing and noncontributing features of the historic core of Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial (PEVI). The historic core is that part of PEVI that comprises the original 14.5-acres site set aside for the construction of the Memorial in 1911 (Figure 2-1). The historic core is the same as the historic site identified in the 2014 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Additional Documentation, an update to the 1976 NRHP nomination, which had previously listed the site as

12.1 acres.1 The 2014 NRHP Additional documentation also extended the period of significance from 1913-1931 to 1911-1963, and updated the integrity assessment provided by the earlier nomination, and the 1994 PEVI cultural landscape report (CLR).2

1 Harvey, “Perry's Victory and International Peace Memorial Additional Documentation;” Busch, “Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial.”

This integrity assessment updates those provided in the 1994 CLR and the 2014 NRHP Additional Documentation regarding the historic core.

Although the 2014 NRHP Additional Documentation is more recent, the 1994 CLR provides a more detailed assessment of cultural landscape features. Details of the Memorial building were further described in more detail in the 2014 NRHP Additional Documentation, but for the purposes of this report, only the assessment of the paving conditions of the upper and lower plazas will be discussed.

Starting with a general overview and update of the two previous integrity assessments, this chapter then presents an updated assessment, identifying changes to integrity noted during fieldwork conducted at the site by Commonwealth in 2016- 2017. The updated integrity assessment is organized by landscape characteristic per NPS guidelines.3 Although most of the discussion addresses features within the historic core, the final section addresses features outside the boundary, but within the park, that may affect the integrity of the historic core.

The locations of the discussed features are indicated on Figure 2-2, which illustrates the existing conditions at Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial, and Figure 2-3, which illustrates the contributing features of the historic core.

2 Williams, Cultural Landscape Report.

3 Page, Gilbert, and Dolan, A Guide to Cultural Landscape

Reports, 53.

Figure 2-1: 2014 Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial historic site National Register of Historic Places boundary.

Integrity Assessment

2-2 Cultural Landscape Report/Environmental Assessment: Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial

Previous Integrity Assessments

This section presents a review of the conclusions made regarding the historical integrity and contributing/noncontributing features of Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial as put forth in the 1994 CLR and the 2014 NRHP Additional Documentation.

1994 Perry’s Victory Cultural Landscape Report

In its integrity assessment, the 1994 CLR discussed landscape features within the historic core, the overall park, and within adjacent properties as the setting of this landscape. The CLR concluded that the landscape characteristics of topography and drainage, circulation systems, structures and buildings, and small-scale features all exhibited a high level of integrity to the period of significance.

However, because of the loss of most ornamental vegetation planted before 1931, vegetative features exhibited only a medium level of integrity. The loss of large shade trees and barberry hedges along the east and west sides of the historic core also weakened its boundary definition and led to patterns of spatial organization meriting only a medium level of integrity. Properties adjacent to the historic site were considered important as its setting, but the loss of the modestly scaled wood houses in the adjacent neighborhood to the west led to the low integrity rating of the character of adjoining properties and affected the overall historical integrity of the site.4

Update: This assessment was completed before the removal of Chapman Avenue and the construction of the PEVI visitor center in 2002, and other, more minor, changes implemented since 1994. As described in more detail below, the removal of the historic street and its street trees around 2002 contributed to

4 Williams, Cultural Landscape Report, 74-100, 139-140.

the loss of boundary definition along the west edge of the historic core.

2014 National Register of Historic Places Additional Documentation

The Additional Documentation states that the most significant changes to the historic site after 1963 were associated with rehabilitation campaigns in the late 1970s and early 1980s, including the reconstruction of the seawalls, the construction of additional retaining walls and sidewalks, and the replacement of the original sandstone pavement on the Memorial plazas with granite. It also mentions the changes to the setting of the historic site with additions to park acreage in the mid-1900s, the construction of the maintenance facility and staff housing to the east in 1992, and the construction of the new visitor center in 2002. The nomination concludes that “[a]lthough this construction has negatively impacted the appearance of the perimeter of the site, in general the original portion of the site [the nominated 14.5 acres] retains its historic integrity.”

The 2014 Additional Documentation goes on to say that the historic site is nationally significant under Criterion A in the areas of Social History, Politics, and Government; under Criterion C in the areas of Architecture and Engineering; and under Criterion Consideration F: Commemorative Properties for its age, design, and symbolic value.5

Update: Unfortunately, the Additional Documentation reported that “[t]he historic portion of the site has changed little between 1936 and the present,” overlooking the addition in 1951 of the residence and garage for the Superintendent’s House (now the Men’s Dormitory). Further, its conclusion also erroneously omits the site’s significance under Criterion C in the area of landscape

5 Harvey, “Perry's Victory and International Peace Memorial Additional Documentation,” 8-96 and 8-97.

Cultural Landscape Treatment Plan and

Environmental Assessment for

Perry’s Victory and International Peace

Memorial November 2018

Data Sources: Base map based on GIS shapefiles provided to the authors by NPS and supplemented through with aerial photography and other NPS maps

Legend

Memorial Park Boundary

Vehicular circulation

Concrete sidewalk

2’ Contours

Existing buildings

Existing structures

Existing trees

Management Zones

Historic Core

Visitor Access/Park Administration

Park Housing/Maintenance

Figure 4-4

Alternative 1 No Action Alternative

North seawall

Utility box screened by shrubs

Park headquarters

Visitor center and park administration parking

Park Entrance sign

Turn-around at visitor center

Maintenance and Collections

Staff housing

Small stone monument

Rangers’ Operations Center

Men’s Dormitory Building (former Superintendent’s

Residence)

P U T- I N - B AY

L A K E E R I E

Bayview Ave

Delaware Ave

To led o A ve

Har tfo rd A ve

South seawall

Floodlights

Utility boxes

Staff housing

Black powder magazine

Dumpster

Camper pad

Upper plaza

Memorial column

Lower plaza Staff housing

Visitor Center

Park Entrance sign

Storage

Utility box surrounded by shrubs

Flagpoles (3)

Village Beach and Picnic Area

Figure 2-2

Existing Conditions This drawing was prepared to illustrate the Environmental Assessment for Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial in 2018. This drawing is provided to illustrate potential treatment alternatives, and is not intended to serve as a design or construction document.

Cultural Landscape Treatment Plan and

Environmental Assessment for

Perry’s Victory and International Peace

Memorial November 2018

Data Sources: Base map based on GIS shapefiles provided to the authors by NPS and supplemented through with aerial photography and other NPS maps

Figure 2-3

Contributing Features

Legend

Memorial Park Boundary

National Register Boundary

2’ Contours

Contributing buildings

Contributing structures

Non-contributing buildings

Existing trees

Management Zones

Historic Site

Visitor Access/Park Administration

Park Housing/Maintenance

Viewshed from observation platform to site of Battle of 1813

General location of north seawall

Viewshed to Memorial

Viewshed to Memorial

Viewshed to the Memorial from Gibraltar Island

Sloping berms

General location of floodlights

Austrian pines

Stairs between the plazas

Stairs to lower plaza

Stairs to lower plaza

Diagonal sidewalk

Men’s Dormitory (former Superintendent’s

Residence)

Trace of Chapman Avenue

Large trees framing Memorial

General location of south seawall with adjacent walkway

Locations of Norway maples

Horizontal topography with mown turf

P U T- I N - B AY

L A K E E R I E

Bayview Ave

Delaware Ave

To led o A ve

Har tfo rd A ve

General location of south seawall with adjacent walkway

Horizontal topography with mown turf

Large trees framing Memorial

Upper plaza

Planters on upper plaza

Lower plaza Stairs to lower plaza

Restroom sidewalk Memorial column Restroom plaza

Granite urns (4) at corners of upper plaza

Granite benches (9) on upper plaza

Sloping berms

Diagonal sidewalk

General location of north seawall

General location of flagpoles

Symmetrical layout of Beaux-Arts design

Eq. Eq.

Viewshed to the Memorial from the north over Put-in-Bay

Viewshed to Memorial

ZONE 2

ZONE 3

ZONE 1

National Park Service 2-3 architecture, although this is described earlier in Section 8 of the document.6

2017 Integrity Assessment

This assessment is organized by landscape characteristic: topography and grading, spatial organization, circulation, vegetation, buildings and structures, views and vistas, and small-scale features. An additional category, setting, is provided at the end to describe the character of adjacent lands and their effect on the historical integrity of the historic core.

Where an adequate assessment of the integrity of a landscape characteristic was provided in the 2014 NRHP Additional Documentation, the update addresses that document only; if not, the update addresses the assessment provided in the 1994 CLR. The update for each characteristic is followed by a summary of contributing, noncontributing, and missing features from the period of significance, 1911-1963. Figure numbers have been added in brackets.

Topography and Grading

The 1994 CLR provides an excellent and comprehensive description of the topography and grading of the park. It concludes that the integrity of the level topography of the Memorial’s grounds as “the first of three horizonal planes that accentuate and balance the verticality of the column (the plazas being the other two planes)” is unchanged from the period of significance. It also concludes that the earthen berms that fall from the upper and lower plazas to this level plane maintain their integrity and contribute to the historic character of park. Finally, although part of the eastern side of the earthen berm below the upper plaza was removed for the construction of the restrooms in the 1950s, the CLR concludes that the 1984-85 addition of granite retaining walls to stabilize its slopes met a functional need, and the

6 Harvey, “Perry's Victory and International Peace Memorial Additional Documentation,” 8-81.

area remains visually compatible with the historic character of the park.7

Update: As of 2016, these conditions have changed little, although it should be noted that the earthen berm is eroding where bare earth is exposed underneath the pines (Figure 2-4). Overall, however, the topography and grading within the historic core continue to contribute to its integrity.

Contributing: Level topography, earthen berm around Memorial plazas.

Noncontributing: Granite retaining walls added in 1984-85.

Missing: Earthen berm on the eastern side of the Memorial.

Spatial Organization

As described in the 1994 CLR, the historic core has an open character created by the horizonal plane of open lawn to each side of the column and the flat planes of the Memorial’s plazas, which together emphasize the column’s verticality

7 Williams, Cultural Landscape Report, 81-82. Note: the 2014 Additional Documentation overlooks the importance of the berms in contributing to the overall historic character of the site.

Figure 2-4: Area of erosion of the earthen berm under the Austrian pines. CHG

2-4 Cultural Landscape Report/Environmental Assessment: Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial

(Figure 2-5).8 During the monument’s construction, utility lines that once crossed the property were buried underground, further contributing to the open character of the historic core.9

Groups of trees at the eastern and western edges of the historic core were preserved and supplemented by Freedlander to enclose the edges of the Memorial grounds and further enhance the verticality of the column. The 1994 CLR comments that the loss of large trees at the east and west boundary of the historic core (more on the east), which once served to frame the composition and provide a visual boundary, has weakened the integrity of spatial organization.10

The boundaries of the historic core to the east, west, and south were originally further delineated with a double row of barberry hedges, which defined a balanced spread of lawn to each side of

8 Williams, Cultural Landscape Report, 81. This is typical of the Beaux-Arts approach that became influential in American design starting in the 1870s. The Beaux-Arts is a neo-classical design style that re-interpreted ideas from French classical monumental architecture, landscape architecture, and urban planning. Versailles is an example of a French classical composition of architecture and landscape design that influenced American designers like L’Enfant, who designed the first plan for Washington, DC. Characteristics of the Beaux- Arts style in landscape design included balanced, usually symmetrical, arrangements of components, axial avenues, grand vistas, and monuments that created a dramatic visual experience.

the Memorial building, a spatial balance typical of the Beaux-Arts style (Figures 2-6 through 2-8).

The 1994 CLR states that, even with the loss of the hedges, this symmetry remains intact as a contributing feature of the historic core.11

Update: The park has begun to replace the large trees that were gradually lost over time. Although the trees are replacements, the restoration of this pattern of vegetation strengthens the historic character of the historic core. There are no plans to replace the barberry hedges.

9 Williams, Cultural Landscape Report, 95.

10 Williams, Cultural Landscape Report, 97.

11 Williams, Cultural Landscape Report, 97.

Figure 2-5. View of the Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial in the late 1920s, showing the flat, open lawn of the site, framed by large trees to the east and west. NPS

Figure 2-6: View of the Memorial column from the south seawall, showing the barberry hedge ca. 1945.

NPS

National Park Service 2-5

Contributing: Open lawn, flat planes of Memorial plazas, lack of utility lines, pattern of large trees framing the Memorial composition.

Noncontributing: New trees.

Missing: Several original large trees and barberry hedges that marked the boundaries of the original Memorial site.

Circulation

The circulation system within the historic core comprises roads, a parking lot, and sidewalks. The roads include Bayview Avenue (State Highway 357), which passes through the park on its northern edge, and Delaware Avenue on the

12 Harvey, “Perry's Victory and International Peace Memorial Additional Documentation,” 7-14.

southwest, both of which were in place before the construction of the Memorial. The parking lot on the north side of the lower plaza was constructed in 1915 and remains in its historic location.

Although the roads and the parking lot have been repaved since they were constructed, the 2014 NRHP Additional Documentation considers them to be contributing features of the historic core.

Chapman Avenue, which once marked the western boundary of the historic core of the park, was removed for the construction of the visitor center in 2002. The visitor center parking lot entrance drive was constructed in 2002 on top of the southern end Chapman Avenue and the old street’s trace can still be perceived in the slight dip in the landscape, a remnant of its streetside drainage ditch (Figure 2-9). Although traces remain, the loss of Chapman Avenue, as stated in the 2014 NRHP Additional Documentation, “impairs understanding of the western boundary of the original site.”12

For pedestrian circulation, Freedlander’s original 1924 design proposed two parallel sidewalks flanking the Memorial from the parking area to the south seawall (Figure 2-10).13 However, it was the Memorial Commission’s Building Committee that proposed the two diagonal sidewalks from the Memorial’s lower plaza to the sea wall that were constructed in 1925, at the same time as the

13 Freedlander, “Reservation Showing Parking of Grounds.”

Figure 2-7: View west from the observation deck, annotated to show location of original west boundary. CHG

Figure 2-8: View east from the observation deck, annotated to show location of original east boundary. CHG

Figure 2-9: View along the old trace of Chapman Avenue. The dip that marks the location of its roadside ditch is marked by the red dashed line. CHG

2-6 Cultural Landscape Report/Environmental Assessment: Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial sidewalk along Bayview Avenue, the south seawall sidewalk, the short sidewalk that leads to the side stairs of the lower plaza, the side stairs, and the stairs that lead to the lower plaza at the front side.14 The two sets of stairs, originally wood, were reconstructed in concrete later during the period of significance. All these sidewalks were reconstructed in the 1970s “in kind,” that is, of concrete in the same dimensions as the originals.

In addition, although the south sidewalk was rebuilt when the south seawall was reconstructed and extended in 1977–1978, the general idea of a sidewalk along the south seawall dates to the period of significance.

The sidewalk and stairs that provide access to the Memorial restrooms from the lower plaza, along

14 Harvey, “Perry's Victory and International Peace Memorial Additional Documentation,” 8-84 and 8-85.

The diagonal walk extending from a central point, called a “patte d’oie” (goose foot) in French, was a regular feature of the French classical garden and the idea was imported into the neoclassical Beaux-Arts site plan. It may have been the intent of the Building Committee to create a similar effect with these diagonal walks.

with the plaza outside the restrooms, were installed in the 1950s and are considered contributing features since the period of significance was expanded to 1963 through the 2014 NRHP Additional Documentation. The parallel sidewalk that is used for park utility vehicles was installed in the 1970s. The short, diagonal concrete sidewalk that connects the west diagonal walk to the south seawall sidewalk was built during the 1977-78 seawall reconstruction project to replace a wood boardwalk there that dated to the early 1970s. The wood boardwalk had been constructed to traverse the marsh that had re-established itself in that area.15

Update: The diagonal sidewalk that was built in 2002 to connect the visitor center to the Memorial is not mentioned in the 2014 NRHP Additional Documentation. Although placed on axis between the centerline of the visitor center and the Memorial column, the walkway does not define two balanced or symmetrical spaces per the Beaux-Arts ideal, and leads to only a side stair to the lower plaza (Figure 2-11).

Contributing: Bayview Avenue, Delaware Avenue, trace of Chapman Avenue, two main diagonal sidewalks, restroom access sidewalk and stairs, and sidewalk to the lower plaza stairs, as well as both sets of stairs to the lower plaza.

Noncontributing: Short, diagonal sidewalk that replaced the wood boardwalk in the 1970s, park utility sidewalk, and sidewalk between the visitor center and the memorial.

Missing: Wood stairs that preceded the concrete stairs to the lower plaza and original south seawall sidewalk.

15 Harvey, “Perry's Victory and International Peace Memorial Additional Documentation,” 8-94.

Figure 2-10: Freedlander’s 1924 plan, Reservation Showing Parking of Grounds,” showing the two proposed parallel walkways flanking the Memorial building. NPS

National Park Service 2-7

Vegetation

Lawn

Vegetation has been used as an essential element of the design of the memorial since its inception.

When construction on the Memorial began in 1912, most existing vegetation was cleared to make way for the filling and grading required to create the flat, horizontal base from which the plaza and column would rise. The most important vegetation feature, therefore, is the maintained lawn into which the Memorial was set. It provides, as stated in the 2014 NRHP Additional Documentation, “a visual counter to the verticality of the Memorial column [that is] integral to the original design concept [and] exists today essentially as designed,” and contributes to the historical integrity of design, scale, feeling, and association of the historic site.16

16 Harvey, “Perry's Victory and International Peace Memorial Additional Documentation,” 7-11.

17 Harvey, “Perry's Victory and International Peace Memorial Additional Documentation,” 7-12.

Update: The park continues to maintain the lawn as a manicured lawn.

Contributing: Manicured lawn.

Noncontributing: n/a

Missing: n/a

Large Trees

During the 1912 site preparation phase, several large trees were preserved on the east and west boundaries of the property (see Figure 2-5).

Freedlander intended to leave these trees standing and supplement them with additional trees to help frame the Memorial column and provide a transition from the formal symmetry of the Memorial grounds to its more informal setting. A few of the larger trees that stand along the eastern and western boundaries of the historic core today may be mature enough to predate 1912, especially the large maple standing in the northeast corner of the historic core. At least two of the large street trees that once stood along Chapman Avenue, as recorded in the 1994 CLR, were removed in 2002 when the street was demolished and the new visitor center constructed. The loss of these trees has a negative effect on the integrity of the historic core because they contributed to the delineation of its western boundary.17

During the 1924–1926 construction period, four Norway maples were planted at each end of the two diagonal sidewalks. These have since been replaced in kind with new Norway maples.

Another Norway maple was also planted in the 1920s at the intersection of the sidewalk to the lower plaza west steps and the western diagonal sidewalk. That tree blew over in a storm in the 1970s and has not been replaced.18

Update: The park continues to plant new trees to replace those lost along the east and west sides of the historic core and this pattern of vegetation

18 Harvey, “Perry's Victory and International Peace Memorial Additional Documentation,” 7-12.

Figure 2-11: Diagonal walkway that connects the visitor center to the side stair of the Memorial’s lower plaza. CHG

2-8 Cultural Landscape Report/Environmental Assessment: Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial continues to contribute to the historical integrity of the historic core. The four replacement Norway maples continue as a pattern of vegetation to contribute to the integrity of the historic core.

Contributing: Patterns of large tree massing on the east and west boundaries of the historic core, and four Norway maples.

Noncontributing: n/a

Missing: Trees protected and planted during the 1924-26 planting campaign, including trees along Chapman Avenue, and Norway maple at the intersection of the west diagonal sidewalk and the sidewalk leading to the west lower plaza stairs.

Austrian Pines

The most eye-catching trees growing within the historic core today are the fifteen Austrian pines (Pinus nigra) that stand on the earthen berms around the upper and lower plazas. These survive from the original group of “40 Large Clipped Austrian Pines” that were planted in 1925, presumably at Freedlander’s and/or the Commission’s direction (Figure 2-12).19 Only nine…