Att._3_2015-0528_FINAL_Building_102_HFS.pdf

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fort Hancock-Building 102 Historic Features Study

Gateway National Recreation Area

Sandy Hook Unit

IMAGE AREA

Prepared by:

QUINN EVANS ARCHITECTS

May 2015

FINAL REPORT

Contract No. P09PC60876 Task Order No. CX2000091500

NPS PMIS No. 201069C

Image Credit: Building 102, ca. 1930s

(NPS/Gateway NRA Museum Collection, Catalog No. 648.12)

Publication Credits:

Information in this publication may be copied and used, with the condition that full credit is given to the authors, their companies, and the National Park Service. Appropriate citations and bibliographic credits should be made for each use.

Building 102, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway NRA Table of Contents

May 2015 Page ii.1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i. Cover

ii. Table of Contents

iii. Executive Summary Purpose and Scope ............................................................... ….iii.1 Statement of Significance ...................................................... ….iii.2 Research Conducted ............................................................. ….iii.2 Research Findings ................................................................. ….iii.4 Recommended Treatment ..................................................... ….iii.5 Additional Research ................................................................... iii.6

iv. Administrative Data Project Identification............................................................... ….iv.1 Location Data ........................................................................ …. iv.1 Cultural Resource Data ........................................................ …. iv.1 Project Team NPS ................................................................................ …. iv.2 Consultants .................................................................... …. iv.3

PART 1. DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

1.1 Historical Background and Context

Introduction ......................................................................... ….1.1.1 Sandy Hook ............................................................................. 1.1.2 Early Fortification (1776-1868) ................................................ 1.1.3 Sandy Hook Proving Ground ................................................... 1.1.4

Temporary Facility (1874-1900) ........................................ 1.1.4 Permanent Installation (1901-1919) .................................. 1.1.6

Fort Hancock ............................................................................ 1.1.9 The Early Years (1895-1919) ............................................ 1.1.9 World War I (1914-1918) ................................................... 1.1.9 Post World War I (1920-1938) .......................................... 1.1.9 World War II (1939-1945) ................................................ 1.1.10 Post World War II (1946-1974) ....................................... 1.1.11

Present Context ..................................................................... 1.1.12 National Park Service ...................................................... 1.1.12 National Historic Landmark District ................................. 1.1.12 The Proving Ground Today ............................................. 1.1.12

Building 102 ........................................................................... 1.1.14 New Ordnance Barracks (Original Construction) ............ 1.1.14 Brig. Gen. Tracy C. Dickson (1868-1936) ....................... 1.1.16 Contractor: Daniel J. Ryan (c. 1868 – 1942) ................... 1.1.17 Quartermaster Barracks .................................................. 1.1.18 Coast Artillery Corps Barracks ........................................ 1.1.18

May 2015 Page ii.2

Fort Hancock School ....................................................... 1.1.19 U.S. Navy ........................................................................ 1.1.21 U.S. Coast Guard ............................................................ 1.1.22 National Park Service ...................................................... 1.1.22

Figures ................................................................................... 1.1.23

1.2 Chronology of Development and Use ...................................... 1.2.1 Timeline .............................................................................. ….1.2.1 Pre-history ................................................................................ 1.2.1 Original Construction ............................................................... 1.2.2 U.S. Coast Artillery Corp .......................................................... 1.2.3

Quartermaster Barracks .................................................... 1.2.3 Fort Hancock School ......................................................... 1.2.4 World War II ...................................................................... 1.2.5 Korean War ....................................................................... 1.2.5 Vietnam War ...................................................................... 1.2.5 U.S. Navy .......................................................................... 1.2.6 U.S. Coast Gard ................................................................ 1.2.6 U.S. National Park Service ................................................ 1.2.7 Future Development .......................................................... 1.2.9

Floor Plans ............................................................................. 1.2.10 Ordnance Corps & Artillery Corps ................................... 1.2.10 U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters ..................................... 1.2.11 NPS YACC ...................................................................... 1.2.12 NPS ................................................................................. 1.2.14

Aerial Photos .......................................................................... 1.2.16 Quartermaster Corps ....................................................... 1.2.16 Coast Artillery Corps Barracks & Fort Hancock School .. 1.2.17 U.S. Coast Guard ............................................................ 1.2.18

1.3 Physical Description & Significance

Significance of the Property ..................................................... 1.3.1 Contextual Significance ..................................................... 1.3.1 Architectural Significance .................................................. 1.3.2 Period of Significance ........................................................ 1.3.2 Regulations ....................................................................... 1.3.2

Significant Site and Building Features ..................................... 1.3.5 Definition............................................................................ 1.3.5 Site Features ..................................................................... 1.3.5 Exterior Features ............................................................... 1.3.6 Interior Features .............................................................. 1.3.16

Obscured Features from the Period of Significance .............. 1.3.25 Spatial Character ............................................................. 1.3.25

Absent Features from the Period of Significance .................. 1.3.30 Non-significant Exterior Features ......................................... 1.3.35 Non-significant Interior Features ........................................... 1.3.39

May 2015 Page ii.3

PART 2. USE AND TREATMENT

2.1 Use and Treatment Approach

Preferred Use ........................................................................... 2.1.1 Sleeping and Sanitation Functions .................................... 2.1.1 Cooking and Eating Function ............................................ 2.1.1 Living Functions ................................................................ 2.1.1 Service Functions and Flood Resistant Construction ....... 2.1.2

Reference Standards and Guidelines ...................................... 2.1.4 Treatment Approaches ............................................................ 2.1.5

Preservation ...................................................................... 2.1.5 Rehabilitation ..................................................................... 2.1.6 Restoration ........................................................................ 2.1.7

Selecting an Appropriate Treatment for Building 102 .............. 2.1.8 Historic Value .................................................................... 2.1.8 Physical Condition ............................................................. 2.1.8 Proposed Use .................................................................... 2.1.8 Mandated Code Requirements ......................................... 2.1.8

Recommended Treatment Approach for Building 102 ............ 2.1.9 Guidelines for the Rehabilitation for Building 102 .................. 2.1.10

Treatment Approach Zones for Building 102 .................. 2.1.12 Building 102 Preservation Zones .................................... 2.1.12 Building 102 Rehabilitation Zones ................................... 2.1.12 Building 102 Restoration Zones ...................................... 2.1.12 Building 102 Free Zones ................................................. 2.1.12

Treatment Approach Zone Diagrams .................................... 2.1.13 Facades ........................................................................... 2.1.13 Roof ................................................................................. 2.1.13 Basement ........................................................................ 2.1.14 First Floor ........................................................................ 2.1.15 Second Floor ................................................................... 2.1.17

Conclusion ............................................................................. 2.1.19

APPENDICES

Appendix 3.1 Bibliography Appendix 3.2 Original Construction Drawings (1908) Appendix 3.3 Existing Conditions Documentation Appendix 3.4 Meeting Notes Appendix 3.5 The Sandy Hook Oral History Program Appendix 3.6 Historic Paint Analysis Appendix 3.7 Historic Brick

Building 102, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway NRA Executive Summary

May 2015 Page iii.1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose and Scope The National Park Service (NPS) is planning a major renovation of

Building 102 at Fort Hancock, New Jersey, after the damage caused to it by Hurricane Sandy in October 2012. In preparation, the NPS commissioned this Historic Features Study as a supplemental service to the Pre-Design and Schematic Design phase of the renovation project. Other studies have addressed the National Historic Landmark District as a whole. A few buildings have been the subject of full Historic Structures Reports (HSRs), but the historical information available on Building 102 is scattered and limited.

This Historic Features Study follows the methodology of a Historic Structures Report (HSR). The overall intent is to prepare an illustrated historical and technical report that achieves the following.

1) Documents the history and chronology of development for the building and site;

2) Identifies the remaining original fabric and significant character-defining features; and

3) Determines the level of historic integrity of those remaining features or elements that should be taken into account in order to preserve them to the maximum extent possible.

Unlike a Historic Structures Report, this study does not present a detailed assessment of existing physical conditions, nor does it present recommendations for specific work. The physical conditions of the existing building fabric are documented in concurrent reports by the same research team. This study develops preservation treatment approach recommendations based on the pre-determined preferred use as seasonal employee housing, but it also provides a guide for future work, regardless of future use(s), to ensure that the historic character and significant features of the Enlisted Men’s Barracks will be maintained and preserved.

Five periods of use and occupancy are identified:

1. 1909 (Original Construction) – 1919: Ordnance Corps Used as an enlisted men’s barracks and mess hall for the

Ordnance Proving Ground, U.S. Army, until the Proving Ground was decommissioned in 1919.

2. 1919 – 1940s: Artillery Corps, Fort Hancock School

Became part of Fort Hancock and was managed by the Quartermaster General, U.S. Army.

Used as a barracks and mess hall for the Quartermaster, then the Coast Artillery Corps, U.S. Army at Fort Hancock.

Between 1930 and 1935, the first floor (or a portion thereof) housed the Fort Hancock School, a grade school up to seventh grade for post children. The second floor

May 2015 Page iii.2 continued to be used as a barracks.

3. Late 1950s: U.S. Navy Leased for approximately five years to the U.S. Navy in the late 1950s.

Used as a training school, offices, non-commissioned officer quarters, and a barracks for underwater ordnance designed for the Cold War.

4. 1960s – early 1970s: U.S. Coast Guard

Used as U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters during the 1960s and early 1970s, until new HQ building.

5. 1974 – 2010: National Park Service

Used by the National Park Service as Young Adult Conservation Corps (YACC) dormitory and later as an Education Center and Offices.

The building has been vacant since 2010.

Statement of Significance

Period of Significance: Building 102 is a contributing building to the Fort Hancock and Sandy Hook Proving Ground National Historic Landmark District. The period of significance for the National Historic Landmark District is defined as 1874-1919 /1859-1974 / 1895-1949.

These dates are associated with specific resources, as follows.

1874-1919 Sandy Hook Proving Ground 1859-1974 Fort Hancock, including the Nike resources 1895-1949 Spermaceti Cove No. 2 Life-Saving Service

Station.

Building 102 was constructed to provide much-needed housing for the enlisted men stationed at the Sandy Hook Proving Ground. Its prominent location and red brick color visually demarked the area of the Proving Grounds from the yellow brick buildings of Fort Hancock.

The building was incorporated into Fort Hancock after the Ordnance Proving Ground moved to Aberdeen, Maryland. The building’s central location; flexible, T-plan configuration, open space layout and simple finishes; plus its design that located most functional spaces above flood elevations facilitated its continued use as barracks, mess hall, school, and offices, by three different military services: Army, Navy, and Coast Guard. Its proposed rehabilitation will insure its continued contribution to the landmark district.

Research Conducted In accordance with the limited scope of this effort, this Historic Features Study was guided by three individual specialists at the Gateway National Recreation Area:

Marilou Ehrler – Chief Cultural Resources Manager, Gateway National Recreation Area;

Felice Ciccione – Chief Curator, Cultural Resources Management, Gateway National Recreation Area; and

Thomas Hoffman – Park Ranger Historian, Gateway National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit.

May 2015 Page iii.3

These individuals, together with the NPS DSC Project Manager, Britton Evans, provided the bulk of the documentary resources referenced by this study.

Resources at the Sandy Hook Unit or on display in the Sandy Hook Museum were not fully available for research due to the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. The offices of the Park Ranger Historian and his colleagues were located in a basement and were flooded;

materials were still in the process of being sorted and recovered. The Sandy Hook Museum was closed due to damage. Collections had been moved to Fort Wadsworth, but were not specifically researched.

Nonetheless, the Unit Park Ranger Historian and multiple representatives of the Facilities Maintenance Group (Sandy Hook Unit and Gateway NRA) were able to provide invaluable digital copies of historical documents to the research team. In addition, transcripts from The Sandy Hook Oral History Program, available via the NPS website, shed light on how Building 102 was used during different time periods and administrations.

Physical investigations of the building itself were limited to visual observation undertaken in July and October 2014. Typical historic finishes and construction assemblies were observed behind more recent finishes via access hatches or where exposed after post- Hurricane Sandy emergency clean-up and stabilization efforts.

Key primary sources included the following.

The building itself and elements exposed by its current state of disrepair;

Two original 1908 construction drawings;

The circa 1941 Post Record Book that includes a list of “repairs, alterations, installations and replacements” undertaken between 1928 and 1942 as well as a drawing of the second floor plan;

A 1971 drawing from the U.S. Coast Guard occupancy and just prior to the transfer of Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground from the U.S. Army to the National Park Service;

Drawings, project manuals, and completion reports from multiple renovation projects undertaken by the National Park Service;

Historic photographs of the building, as well as aerial photographs; and

Oral histories, primarily those from the Sandy Hook Oral History Program.

Key secondary sources included previous studies and reports on the history of Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground as indicated in the bibliography. Especially helpful were the Historic Resource Studies (HRS) prepared by Edwin C. Bearss in the 1980s (three volumes); the Architectural Data for Building 102 from the fourth volume of the HRS, prepared by Sulam and Marsh in the late

May 2015 Page iii.4

1980s; the Historic Structures Reports (HSRs) prepared by the NPS Historic Architecture Program, Northeast Region, in Lowell, MA, for Building 32 Quartermaster’s Storehouse (1993); the Fort Hancock Gatehouse (2004); and Building 114 Officers Club (2006); also the HSR prepared by the NPS Building Conservation Branch, Northeast Region, in Lowell, MA, for Building 25 Enlisted Men’s Barracks, Fort Hancock (2004).

Research Findings Overall Condition of the Building: The current condition of Building 102 is fair, meaning that there are signs of wear, failure or deterioration, though the building is generally sound. The north wing first floor joists and decking have been removed due to dry-rot caused by steam piping and poor crawl space ventilation. Corner restraint and thermal/ moisture movement cracks typical for load-bearing brick masonry walls constructed during this era do exist, but do not significantly affect the structural load carrying capacity of the walls. Hazardous materials are present in the building and are identified in two studies:

Condition Assessment for Rehabilitation and Demolition, Sandy Hook, Highlands NJ, prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc., dated February 2014.

Final Report of Limited Asbestos, Lead-Based Paint & Universal Waste Inspection Services, prepared by Louis Berger and dated October 2014.

A detailed assessment of the existing physical conditions of Building 102 is presented in two reports:

Condition Assessment for Rehabilitation and Demolition, Sandy Hook, Highlands NJ, prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc., dated February 2014.

The Pre-Design Report for the Rehabilitation of Building 102 for Seasonal Employee Housing, prepared by Louis Berger Group and Quinn Evans Architects, dated September 12, 2014.

The first report covered multiple buildings at Sandy Hook and was prepared approximately six to nine months prior to the second. The second report was prepared by the current research team concurrently with the Historic Features Study. The second report expands upon the findings of the earlier one, adds photographs, and considers the potential alterations that may be required by the preferred use. Appendix A of the Pre-Design Report is included as an Appendix to the current study.

Overall Historic Integrity of the Building: Building 102 retains a substantial degree of integrity from the time of its original construction in 1908-1909 through the 1950s, though many of the character-defining features from the period of significance have been obscured by later modifications. This study provides sound documentation to support the history of the resource and to record the changes over time.

May 2015 Page iii.5

Recommended Treatment

Overall Treatment Philosophy: Consistent with the preferred treatment for the National Landmark Historic District, the preferred treatment approach for Building 102 is rehabilitation. Future proposed repairs and preservation treatments should conform to The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which includes the Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The Secretary’s Standards define rehabilitation as:

the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.1

The treatment approach of “Rehabilitation” acknowledges the need to repair and replace deteriorated features at Building 102; to alter or add to the building in planning for continuing or changing uses; all while preserving the building’s historic character and its steady and relatively unchanging presence in the surrounding landscape.

The NPS has determined that the Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic District should emphasize the continuum of history throughout the period of significance, which is defined by the National Historic Landmarks nomination (in “Statement of Significance”) as 1859 to 1974. The rehabilitation of Building 102 should include retention of the alterations to the building throughout its association with the U.S. military presence at Sandy Hook, such as the partial enclosure of the front porch between 1943 and the 1960s.

This report provides two primary tools to inform future planning, design, and construction work at Building 102. The first tool is the identification of character-defining features in Chapter 1.3;

preservation of the building’s character-defining features is recommended to support the contribution of Building 102 to the goal of Gateway NRA to interpret and present a continuum of history throughout the period of significance for the landmark district. The second tool is the definition of treatment approach zones or spaces that, within the overall framework of rehabilitation, merit preservation or restoration – or are high priority rehabilitation spaces in contrast to low priority rehabilitation spaces or free spaces. Treatment approach zones are described and illustrated by floor in Chapter 2.1.

Any work on the building, including alterations, demolition, and additions, requires the approval of the National Park Service and must be reviewed for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In addition, the existing structure, as well as all future work, should be documented by written, photographic, and graphic means, according to NPS standards.

1 Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic

Properties, p. 112.

May 2015 Page iii.6

Additional Research The findings and recommendations of this report are based on the research conducted. As previously noted, the limits of this study did not extend to research at repositories outside the National Park Service, expect as could be easily accessed via the internet. Many of the referenced secondary resources cited repositories where additional materials pertaining to the subject could be located; these include the following collections, archives, and other repositories.

National Archives and Records Administration:

Archives I, Washington, D.C. This repository includes the “Records of the Office of the Chief of Ordnance” in Record Group 156.

Archives II, College Park, MD. This repository includes the “Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers” in Record Group 77. It also includes cartographic materials.

Northeast Region, New York, NY This repository also includes the “Records of the Office of the Chief of Ordnance” in Record Group 156. The extent of duplication with records at Archives I is unknown.

U.S. Army Ordnance Corps historical records, formerly located at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, MD. With the 2005 BRAC realignment, the Ordnance Corps was relocated to Fort Lee, VA.

Preliminary inquiries to the U.S. Army Ordnance Training and Heritage Center (formerly the U.S. Army Ordnance Museum) did not clarify the location of these records.

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) repositories:

USCG Historian’s Office, Washington, DC.

USCG Civil Engineering Unit, CEU-Providence, Warwick, RI.

USCG Station, Sandy Hook, Highlands, NJ.

U.S. Navy Archives, Washington, DC.

New Jersey State Archives, Trenton, NJ.

Monmouth County Historical Association, Freehold, NJ.

Additional research within the repositories of the National Park Service could yield additional information, as follows.

Gateway NRA Museum Collection, Gateway National Recreation Area, Fort Hancock, NJ. During the preparation of this study, the research team became aware of additional resources within the museum collection of Gateway NRA.

These include scrapbooks of former occupants of Building 102;

aerial photographs taken from the U.S. Air Service Balloon in 1919; and video once located in the National Archives. In addition to informing this document, the original source images

Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area, Fort

Hancock, NJ. Additional nuggets could also be uncovered at

May 2015 Page iii.7 the Sandy Hook Unit – at Facilities Management, the Park Ranger Historian’s files, and the Sandy Hook Museum files, as these resources are re-cataloged after the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy.

Historic Architecture Program Library, Northeast Region, NPS, Lowell, MA.

Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, Northeast Region, NPS, Brookline, MA. These records may be particularly useful should the time come to implement a planting plan on or around Building 102.

The planned rehabilitation of Building 102 may also yield new information, such as the material properties of the historic brick;

mortar analysis; alterations to the existing building structure in the east wing that are now concealed by finishes; and interior finishes. It is suggested that this study be supplemented by new findings from that effort.

Should future research uncover previously unknown facts, then these findings and recommendations should be accordingly reconsidered.

May 2015 Page iii.8

[This page left blank intentionally.]

Building 102, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway NRA Administrative Data

May 2015 Page iv.1

ADMINISTRATIVE DATA

Project Identification Name: Building 102 Historic Features Study

PMIS Number: 201069C

Supplemental Service to inform the project “Rehabilitate Building 102 as Seasonal Employee Housing” Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreational Area U.S. National Park Service

Location Data Name: Building 102

Historic Names: Building 67 (US Army enlisted men’s barracks for the

Ordnance Proving Ground at Fort Hancock, or New Ordnance Barracks) (1908-19)

Quartermaster Barracks (circa 1923-27)

Fort Hancock School (1930-35)

U.S. Navy Barracks (circa 1956-1960)

Old US Coast Guard Headquarters (1960s)

Young Adult Conservation Corps (YACC) Dormitory (1979-81)

NPS Education Center (Late 1990s-Mid 2000s)

Park: Gateway National Recreational Area (GATE)

Sandy Hook Unit

Address: Highlands, NJ

Middletown Township, NJ

Cultural Resource Data Building 102 is a contributing building to the Fort Hancock and Sandy Hook Proving Ground National Historic Landmark District.

Date listed on the National Register of Historic Places:

24 April 1980.

National Register listing #80002505.

Date listed as a National Historic Landmark:

December 17, 1982.

National Register listing #80002505.

Period of Significance: 1874-1919/1859-1974/1895-1949

May 2015 Page iv.2

Context of Significance:

The Fort Hancock and Sandy Hook Proving Ground National Historic Landmark District reflects the history of a vital defense installation guarding New York City and its harbor from 1895 to 1974. This Landmark played a key role in the development of advanced weaponry and radar and is also significant as the site of the Spermaceti Cove No. 2 Life-Saving Station, one of the earliest Federally-sponsored efforts to save life and property from coastal shipwrecks.

As the weapon testing area of the Army (1874-1919), the Proving Ground is the most significant section of the Historic District. Four buildings and structures—the 1901-19 Proof Battery, the Brick House, the Powder Magazine and the Chemistry Lab are of first order of significance. All other extant structures of the Proving Ground are of less importance, but nevertheless relate to the main functions of the weapon testing area.1 Building 102 is among the “other extant structures of the Proving Ground”.

Project Team

National Park Service National Park Service – Denver Service Center Project Manager: Britton Evans Project Specialist: Rexford Canady Branch Chief, Design & Construction: Todd Alexander

Gateway National Recreation Area Sandy Hook Unit, Unit Coordinator: Pete McCarthy Sandy Hook Unit, Acting Facilities Manager: William Bickerstaff Chief Cultural Resources Manager: Marilou Ehrler Administrative Officer: Douglas McLeod

Hurricane Sandy Recovery Team NPS – NERO: Tim Hudson NPS – NERO: Rich Dvorak NPS – NERO: Michael Crooks NPS – NPMN: Al Mayton, Facilities/Sandy Recovery

New York Harbor Parks Facilities Operations Manager: Jeff Kangas

National Park Service – Northeast Region NERO Asset Manager: Mark Alexander

1 National Historic Landmark Nomination, National Register of Historic Places, Fort Hancock and the Sandy

Hook Proving Ground Historic District (Washington DC: National Register #80002505, 1982), Section 7, p. 3.

May 2015 Page iv.3

Consultants Architectural research, architectural history, historic architecture, and building technology consulting:

Quinn Evans Architects 2121 Ward Place NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20037

Tina Roach, AIA, LEED AP, Associate, Project Manager Maureen Vosmek, Historical Architect

Prime A/E Contractor:

The Louis Berger Group 1250 23rd Street, NW, Washington, DC

Larry Smith, PE, LEED AP, Project Manager

May 2015 Page iv.4

[This page left blank intentionally.]

Building 102, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway NRA Part 1: Developmental History Historic Features Study 1.1 History and Context

May 2015 Page 1.1.1

1.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT1

Introduction Sandy Hook is a 6-½ mile barrier beach peninsula between the

Atlantic Ocean and Sandy Hook Bay located in Middletown Township, New Jersey. Sandy Hook is the site of Sandy Hook Proving Ground – or Ordnance Proving Ground, – a former weapons testing area of the U.S. Army and Sandy Hook Defenses (Fort Hancock)2, a former U.S. military base. Building 102 is located in the Sandy Hook Ordnance Proving Ground.

Sandy Hook Proving Ground, initially established as a temporary weapons testing facility in 1874, became a permanent installation in 1906. The Sandy Hook Proving Ground continued operations through the end of World War I when it transferred its personnel and equipment to a new Proving Ground at Aberdeen, Maryland.

The Sandy Hook Proving Ground, from its establishment in 1874 until it was phased out in 1918-19, had a key role in the development of the weapons employed by the U.S. Coast Artillery and U.S. Field Artillery during the vital years that the Nation emerged as a world power. These years also coincided with a time when practical application of technological advances in the design and manufacture of artillery produced a revolution in weaponry.3

Fort Hancock was established on Sandy Hook in 1895. This important coastal artillery base defended the Atlantic coast from attack by sea and guarded the entrance to New York Harbor from 1895 through the 1950s and ‘60s Cold War Era until 1974. It was during these years that the United States defeated Spain and emerged as a world power; tipped the scales against the Central Powers in World War I; retreated into the isolation of the 1920s and ‘30s; and emerged from World War II as a super power.4

Between 1895 and 1918, these two different branches of the U.S.

Army—the Ordnance Corps and the Artillery Corps—used Sandy Hook for different missions. The Proving Ground developed and tested weapons and ordnance for the Army’s use, while the Artillery Corps garrisoned Fort Hancock’s gun batteries to protect New York Harbor.

1 Given the limited nature of this study, this chapter borrows heavily from previous reports and publications.

Every effort has been made to credit the authors of borrowed materials. Original source materials cited in the referenced reports have been selectively cross-checked, based on availability of the source materials and the limits of this study. Where reasonable, this chapter cites secondary sources, as well as primary materials referenced therein, to facilitate the use of this document by future readers. Where applicable, footnotes and figures referenced in the original text are also reprinted herein.

2 Referred to throughout this study as “Fort Hancock.”

3 National Historic Landmark Nomination, Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic District, Section 8.

4 National Historic Landmark Nomination, Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic District, Section 8.

May 2015 Page 1.1.2

When the Proving Ground was decommissioned in 1919, the associated structures became part of Fort Hancock. Fort Hancock was decommissioned in 1974. Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground are now part of the Sandy Hook Unit of the Gateway National Recreation Area under the National Park System.

Sandy Hook5

Sandy Hook is a peninsula of land extending from the confluence of the Shrewsbury River and Sandy Hook Bay, approximately 6-½ miles northwards to Lower New York Harbor. [See Figure 1.1-1].

This spit of land is very close to the natural deep-water channel to the outer harbor of New York City, and its importance was recognized early on by maritime explorers and merchants. Ships attempting to sail into New York Harbor had to rely on the channel passing the tip of Sandy Hook. Henry Hudson was reported to have anchored off the shores of Sandy Hook during his initial explorations of the Hudson River in 1609. In 1680, the English Governor of New York, Richard Nichols, recommended the installation of a beacon and fortifications at Sandy Hook.6 The dangers of the passage into Sandy Hook Bay led to numerous shipwrecks in the early eighteenth century. The losses irritated many New York merchants, who in 1761 petitioned the Colonial Assembly of New York to erect a lighthouse on Sandy Hook. The lighthouse at Sandy Hook was first lit in June 1764, and it remains the oldest functioning lighthouse in the United States.7 [See Figure 1.1- 2.]

The ownership of eastern New Jersey during the colonial period was embroiled in land disputes. “Sandy Point” (later known as Sandy Hook) was included in the Monmouth Patent issued by Governor Richard Nicols in April 1665. He was apparently unaware that proprietorship of New Jersey had been granted to Sir George Carteret and Lord John Berkeley. The patent was contested when the appointee as Governor of East New Jersey, Sir Phillip Carteret, arrived in July 1665.8 One of the first owners of record for a large tract of land on Sandy Hook was Richard Hartshorne. Hartshorne’s heirs deeded the land on Sandy Hook to the United States in the early 19th century.9

During the 19th century Sandy Hook was home to activities of the U.S. Army, the U.S. Lighthouse Service, the U.S. Life-Saving Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Army Ordnance Department, and the U.S. Army Corps of Artillery, as well as an

5 This section is reprinted from James J. Lee III, Historic Structure Report: Officers Club, Building No. 114, (Lowell, MA: U.S. DOI, NPS, Historic Architecture Program, 2006), pp. 15-16. Where applicable, figures and footnotes referenced in the original text are also reprinted herein.

6 Ibid., p. 15, footnote 1: Also spelled Nicolls. Naomi D. Kroll and Sharon K. Ofenstein, Historic Structure Report, Building 25, Enlisted Men’s Barracks, Fort Hancock, New Jersey, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area (Lowell, MA: U.S. DOI, NPS, NER Building Conservation Branch, February 2002), p. 17.

7 Ibid., p. 15, footnote 2: Thomas J. Hoffman, Sandy Hook Lighthouse (Gateway NRA).

8 Ibid., p. 15, footnote 3: Edwin Salter and George C. Beekman, Old Times in Old Monmouth County, NJ

(Freehold, NJ: James S. Yard, 1890).

9 Ibid., p. 15, footnote 4: “History of Sandy Hook Proving Ground, July 22, 1909”; Vol. 1, p. 1; General Records;

SHPG, N.J.,1889- 1919; Entry 1537; RG 156; NARA – Northeast Region (NY).

May 2015 Page 1.1.3 office of the Western Union Telegraph Service.10 The 20th century saw continued use by the U.S. Army at Fort Hancock, as well as the arrival of the U.S. Army Signal Corps, the Women’s Auxiliary Army Corps (later the Women’s Army Corps) during World War II, the U.S.

Coast Guard, [the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Naval Reserves], and the U.S. Army Air Defense Command during the Cold War. Currently the peninsula is occupied by the National Park Service (U.S.

Department of the Interior) and the U.S. Coast Guard.

Early Fortification11 (1776-1868)

The description of the Sandy Hook from Historical and Bibliographical Atlas of the New Jersey Coast adds to the lore of the peninsula. In it the authors note that:

[T]he proximity of Sandy Hook to New York City, and its wild uninhabited state, with its easy accessibility and good and convenient harbor, made it a favorite rendezvous for refugees, outlaws and pirates during the Revolutionary War.12

In 1776 British troops recognized the military advantage of Sandy Hook, and used it as a rendezvous point during the successful invasion and capture of New York City. The British built a stockade around the Sandy Hook lighthouse and fortified the area throughout most of the Revolution. The fortifications were purported to include a camp for Tory refugees that was known as Refugees Town.13

During the War of 1812, a wooden stockade fort called Fort Gates was built by American troops to protect New York City against another invasion by the British. The fort served its function and was abandoned at the end of the war. Following this successful defense of New York’s outer harbor, the U.S. government could no longer ignore the significance of the peninsula, and in 1817 it purchased the remainder of the land from the Hartshorne family.14

The history of military occupation continued at Sandy Hook with the construction of a large granite fort. Again spurred by the need to defend New York’s outer harbor, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began planning the granite fort in 1857, and in that same year built a wharf on the western shore of the hook to facilitate construction efforts.15 [See Figure 1.1-3.] The Corps of Engineers also erected housing for personnel and other structures at Sandy Hook to support the construction of the “Fort at Sandy Hook,” thus establishing a Corps of Engineers presence in the area that would last into the 20th century.

10 Ibid., p. 15, footnote 5: Edwin C. Bearss, Historic Resource Study, Fort Hancock, 1895- 1948, Gateway

National Recreation Area, New Jersey (Denver: U.S. DOI, NPS, May 1981), p. 14. Hereinafter HRS, 1895-1948.

11 This section is reprinted from James J. Lee III, Historic Structure Report: Officers Club, Building No. 114

(Lowell, MA: U.S. DOI, NPS, Historic Architecture Program, 2006), p. 16. Where applicable, figures and footnotes referenced in the original text are also reprinted herein.

12 Ibid., p. 16, footnote 6: Theodore F. Rose, H.C. Woolman, and T.T. Price, Historical and Bibliographical Atlas of the New Jersey Coast (Philadelphia, PA: Woolman & Rose, 1878), p. 18.

13 Ibid., p. 16, footnote 7: “History of Sandy Hook Proving Ground.”

14 Ibid., p. 16, footnote 8: Kroll and Ofenstein, p. 17.

15 Ibid., p. 16, footnote 9: Greenwood, item 7, p.1.

May 2015 Page 1.1.4

Ground was broken for the fort in 1859, and with the onset of the Civil War, troops were garrisoned there in 1863 to man the armaments and guard public property. Construction of the fort was terminated in 1868, however, due to new advances in rifled artillery that could obliterate a granite masonry fortress.16

Sandy Hook Proving Ground17

After the Civil War, in an effort to keep abreast of the new technology and remain competitive with European powers, the Army’s Ordnance Department took on the task of designing and testing rifled guns of increased size and power.

On June 6, 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant signed into law an act making available $270,000 “for experiments and tests of heavy rifled ordnance”; provided “this appropriation shall be applied to at least three models of heavy ordnance to be designated by a board of officers.”18

In the following years the Ordnance Department proceeded with the conversion of conventional cannons to rifled artillery, as well as the development of new artillery.

The development of new ordnance highlighted the need for an adequate proving ground. A specially convened Board of Ordnance Officers, known as the Laidley Board, reported in 1874 that the proving ground should be installed in a level area with easy access

… not traversed by “highways or extensive watercourses, uninhabited and sufficiently removed from any settlements to avoid any possible accident, and embrace an extension of land of seven to eight miles in length and from one- half to one mile in width.”19

Temporary Facility (1874-1900)

The Army’s existing ground at Fort Monroe, VA, on the Chesapeake Bay, was not sufficient for the requirements of the newly developed ordnance. In its search for a better site the board identified Squan Beach, New Jersey, as the recommended site, and Sandy Hook was suggested as an interim site prior to the acquisition of Squan Beach.20

Colonel Silas Crispin, Commander of the New York Ordnance Agency, provided estimates for the construction of the Sandy Hook Proving Ground to Brigadier General Stephen V. Benét, Chief of Ordnance. Brigadier General Benét submitted the estimates to Secretary of War William W. Belknap in August 1874, in a letter that

16 Ibid., p. 16, footnote 10: Kroll and Ofenstein, p. 17.

17 This section is reprinted from James J. Lee III, Historic Structure Report: Officers Club, Building No. 114

(Lowell, MA: U.S. DOI, NPS, Historic Architecture Program, 2006), pp. 17-19. Where applicable, figures and footnotes referenced in the original text are also reprinted herein.

18 Ibid., p. 17, footnote 11: HRS 1874-1919, p.6.

19 Ibid., p. 17, footnote 12: HRS 1874-1919, p.11.

20 Ibid., p. 17, footnote 13: HRS 1874-1919, pp.9-12.

May 2015 Page 1.1.5 stated:

Col. S. Crispin estimates of funds for erection of suitable temporary appointments for an experimental and trial ground for heavy ordnance at Sandy Hook, NJ. $4000. and recommends that, if there is no objection by the Chief of Engineers, authority be given the Ord. Dept. to erect the same on that portion of the reservation, marked “C” on the enclosed drawing.21

The U.S. Army Ordnance Department established a temporary proving ground at Sandy Hook in 1874. Sandy Hook was already owned by the Federal Government and provided flat and open land near a large industrial city with good water and rail transportation routes. It was also isolated enough from towns to avoid the possibility of injury and damage from ordnance testing.22

…The establishment of the proving ground and the increased activity there throughout the 1870s made housing for necessary personnel an important matter. Since housing for the Ordnance personnel is not indicated in any records or maps that were reviewed from that period, it is presumed that they occupied some of the existing structures belonging to the Corps of Engineers. It is documented that in 1876 the Ordnance Department requested the use of Engineers barracks for temporary quarters, which led to the eventual construction of the “Officers’ Quarters” in 1878- 1879.23

All of the support buildings at the facility were made of wood with the exception of the Officer’s Quarters (later known as the Officer’s Club), a large red brick, Second Empire Style Victorian building that overlooked the Proof Battery and Atlantic Ocean.24 (See Figure 1.1- 4.)

Indeed, the Ordnance Department did utilize some of the Engineer Corps buildings as barracks until a new barracks [Building 102] was built in 1909, and the old wooden structures were removed.25 [See Figure 1.1-5Figure 1.1-6.] These old barracks were located west of the new barracks (Building 102), along the western shoreline of Sandy Hook.26

The “Proof Battery,” where new and converted guns would be fired, was built near the north end of the Hook along the ocean side. The

21 Ibid., p. 17, footnote 13: Brigadier General Stephen V. Benét, Chief of Ordnance, to William W. Belknap, Secretary of War,Aug. 5, 1874, with response from Belknap to Benét, Aug. 7, 1874; Record 3605; Letters Received 1812-1894; General Records; Entry 21; RG 156; NAB.

22 Tom Hoffman. “The Proving Ground Expands.” Sandy Hook Proving Ground: Site Bulletin (United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gateway National Recreation Area)

23 Lee, HSR: Officers Club, Building No. 114, p. 18.

24 Hoffman, Sandy Hook Proving Ground: Site Bulletin.

25 Lee, HSR: Officers Club, Building No. 114, p. 18., footnote 17: Annual Report, 1909; Binder 6, 1909; Annual

Reports, 1904- 1907 and 1909; General Records; SHPG, 1889- 1919; Entry 1527; RG 156; NARA – Northeast Region (NY). Report includes photographs.

26 Lee, HSR: Officers Club, Building No. 114, p. 18.

May 2015 Page 1.1.6 firing range extended 3,000 yards south along the beach.27 In 1900, after the establishment of Fort Hancock at Sandy Hook, the Proof Battery was moved 300 yards down the beach to the south out of the line of fire of some of the fort’s gun batteries.28

…The earliest batteries at Sandy Hook were manned after their completion by a combination of Ordnance and Engineer Corps personnel. However, responsibility for them passed to the U.S. Army Corps of Artillery in 1895 when Fort Hancock was established at Sandy Hook adjacent to the proving ground. Fort Hancock was operated by the Artillery Corps as a coastal-defense site defending New York Harbor through 1974.29

Permanent Installation (1901-1919)

On December 11, 1901, after more than a quarter of a century of active duty, the Sandy Hook Proving Ground was finally recognized as a permanent installation by the Ordnance Department. The Chief of Ordnance, General William Crozier, notified Captain Edwin B.

Babbitt, Commander of the Proving Ground, of the change and noted that all new construction and building improvements would be designed accordingly.30 Captain Babbitt subsequently developed a master plan for Sandy Hook, which included the creation of “definite spheres of jurisdiction” among the various military departments represented in the area.31 [See Figure 1.1-8] His plan called for the division of the northern section of Sandy Hook into two sectors, and the further division of the Ordnance sector into two areas. His plan was approved by the Ordnance Board, but a specially formed Demarkation Board recommended against the creation of the proving ground as an independent post, citing that an interdependent relationship needed to exist between the proving ground and Fort Hancock. Captain Babbitt and his superiors argued against the Demarkation Board’s findings, and they finally prevailed after a long conflict. The Ordnance Department recommended boundaries dividing the jurisdiction of the northern end of Sandy Hook. The Secretary of War approved the establishment of the boundaries, and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground received permanent status in March 1903. Unfortunately Captain Babbitt himself was not present to witness the fruition of his plans: he had been succeeded as post commander by Major Charles S. Smith in November 1902.32

The 1902 Fortifications Act provided funding for the design and construction of new permanent structures, including a new chemical laboratory and barracks. However, bids came in too high.

Construction for the laboratory proceeded with some alterations to reduce construction costs. The barracks building went into redesign to develop a solution achievable within the available funding.

27 Hoffman. “The Army’s First Proving Ground”. Sandy Hook Proving Ground: Site Bulletin.

28 Hoffman. “A New Proof Battery is Built”. Sandy Hook Proving Ground: Site Bulletin.

29 Lee, HSR: Officers Club, Building No. 114, p. 19, footnote 21: HRS, 1874- 1919, pp. 188- 189.

30 Lee, HSR: Officers Club, Building No. 114, p. 19, footnote 22: HRS, 1874- 1919, p. 189.

31 Lee, HSR: Officers Club, Building No. 114, p. 19, footnote 23: HRS, 1874- 1919, pp. 194- 203.

32 Lee, HSR: Officers Club, Building No. 114, p. 19, footnote 24: HRS, 1874- 1919, p. 1.

May 2015 Page 1.1.7

The urgency for new and more durable facilities became more acute after fire destroyed the machine, carpenter, paint, and plumbing shops, together with the power plant, in a single day: November 28,

1905.33 This was the second major fire in sixteen years. On August 14, 1889, a lightning bolt struck the Instrument House. Within 30 minutes the building had collapsed and virtually everything within the building was destroyed.34

Temporary shops were set up in vacant buildings utilizing tools and machinery that could be salvaged after the fire. Temporary power was provided by generators, steam engines, and the electrical laboratory.35

Before the end of Fiscal Year 1906 the task of preparing plans and specifications for erection of machine, smith, carpenter, plumbing, and paint shops, including a power plant, authorized by the Sundry Civil Act of June 30, 1906, was underway.36

Construction began on permanent,…