An Archeological Overview Fort Mchenry National Monument and Historic Shrine Baltimore, Maryland

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

An Archeological Overview Fort Mchenry National Monument and Historic Shrine Baltimore, Maryland "On the shore dimly seen ... ": an Archeological Overview Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine Baltimore, Maryland by Charles D. Cheek, Ph.D. Joseph Balicki and John Pousson Prepared by John Milner Associates, Inc. 5250 Cherokee A venue, 4th Floor Alexandria, Virginia 22312 and Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine East Fort A venue Baltimore, Maryland 2123 0-5 3 93 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS page page page List of Figures . iv 3.3 Sally Port Complex ............................. 50 4.3 Fort Grounds .................................. 79 Preface .............................................. v 3.3.1 Gorge .................................. 50 4.3.1 Original Fort Grounds ..................... 79 Acknowledgments ..................................... v 3.3.2 Ramp .................................. 51 4.3.1.1 Upper and Lower Water Batteries ......... 81 3.3.3 Sally Port Passageway Floor ................ 51 4.3.1.2 Upper Water Battery ('Ravelin') Barracks .. 82 1. Introduction ....................................... 1 3.3.4 Traverse ................................ 51 4.3.1.3 Gun Shed and Store House .............. 83 1.1 Methods . 1 3.3.5 Bombproofs ............................. 52 4.3.1.4 Hospital (1813) ....................... 85 1.2 Organization . 2 3.3.6 Guardhouses/Prisons ...................... 53 4.3.1.5 Married Soldiers' Quarters .............. 87 1.3 Archeological Site Formation Processes .............. 2 3.4 Star Fort Interior Structures ....................... 53 4.3.1.6 BoundaryWallandEntranceGate(l817-37) 87 1.4 Glossary of Military Architectural Terms . 3 3.4.1 Powder Magazine ......................... 53 4.3.1.7 Seawall ............................. 88 3.4.2 Wells and Cistern ........................ 54 4.3.2 Addition to Fort Grounds (1836-37) .......... 89 2. Historic Context and Site Development ................. 7 3.4.3 Shot Furnaces ............................ 55 4.3.2.1 Tavern ............................. 91 2.1 Prehistoric and Early Historic Background ............ 7 3 .4.4 Residential Structures ..................... 55 4.3.2.2 Boundary Wall and Entrance Gate 2.2 Historic Context: the Defense of Baltimore ........... 8 3.4.4.1 Commanding Officer's Quarters .......... 55 (1837-Present) ........................ 91 2.3 Episodes of Development ........................ 15 3.4.4.2 Junior Officers' Quarters ................ 56 4.3.2.3 Civil War Magazine ................... 91 2.3.1 Fort Whetstone .......................... 15 3.4.4.3 Enlisted Men's Barracks No. 1 ........... 57 2.3.2 First American System .................... 16 3.4.4.4 Enlisted Men's Barracks No. 2 ........... 57 5. Previous and Future Research at Fort McHenry .......... 95 2.3.3 Second American System .................. 16 3.4.5 Privies and Water Closets .................. 57 5.1 A Chronology of Previous Research ............... 95 2.3.3.1 Pre-Bombardment ..................... 16 3.4.5.1 Commanding Officer's Privy ............. 58 5.1.1 Early Investigation: 1958-1966 ............... 95 2.3.3.2 Post-Bombardment .................... 16 3.4.5.2 Junior Officers' Privy .................. 58 5 .1.2 Research and Compliance: 197 4-1983 .......... 95 2.3.4 Mid-1800s .............................. 16 3.4.5.3 Water Closet Behind Barracks No. 2 ...... 59 5.1.3 Cultural Resource Management: 1984-1998 ..... 96 2.3.5 Civil War ............................... 18 3.4.7 Guardhouses ............................. 59 5.2 Potential Future Research ........................ 97 2.3.6 1866-1912 .............................. 19 3 .4. 8 Flagstaffs . 5 9 5.2.1 Architectural Features: Star Fort Components ... 98 2.3.7 World War I Hospital ..................... 22 3 .5 Moat, Counterscarp, and Glacis ................... 60 5.2.1.1 Fort Whetstone ....................... 98 2.3.8 War Department Restoration ................ 22 5.2.1.2 Star Fort ............................ 98 2.3.9 National Park Service ..................... 23 4. Archeological and Historical Research Results: 5.2.1.3 Sally Port ........................... 99 Outworks and Grounds ............................. 69 5.2.1.4 Star Fort Interior Structures ............. 99 3. Archeological and Historical Research Results: Star Fort .. 25 4.1 Ravelin ....................................... 69 5.2.1.5 Moat .............................. 100 3.1 Local Geology and Topography .................... 25 4.1.1 Scarp Walls ............................. 69 5.2.2 Architectural Features: Outworks and Grounds . 100 3.1.1 Geology ................................ 25 4.1.2 Parapet and Breast-height Wall .............. 70 5.2.2.1 Ravelin ............................ 100 3.1.2 Original Site Topography .................. 25 4.1.3 Terreplein, Banquettes, and Gun Emplacements . 70 5.2.2.2 Water (Outer) Battery ................ 100 3.1.3 Modifications of Site Topography ........... 27 4.1.4 Entrance Passageway ...................... 71 5.2.2.3 Upper and Lower Water Batteries ....... 101 3.2 Star Fort Components ........................... 31 4.1.5 Drainage ................................ 71 5.2.2.4 Additional Structures on Original Grounds 102 3.2.1 Scarp Wall .............................. 31 4.1.6 Magazine ............................... 71 5.2.2.5 Structures within the 1836-3 7Addition ... 102 3.2.2 Parapet .............................. 33 4.1. 7 Ravelin Privy ............................ 72 5.2.2.6 Comparative Research ................ 103 3.2.3 Breast-height Wall ........................ 36 4.2 Water (Outer) Battery ............................ 72 5.2.3 Anthropological Research Topics ........... 103 3.2.4 Terreplein and Banquettes .................. 36 4.2.1 Parapet ................................. 74 3.2.5 Gun Emplacements ....................... 40 4.2.2 Revetment (Breast-height) Wall ............. 75 6. References Cited 105 3.2.6 Parade Wall ............................. 43 4.2.3 Terreplein. Banquettes, and Gun Emplacements . 76 3.2.7 Parade Ground ........................... 44 4.2.4 Shot Furnaces ............................ 76 Appendixes: 3.2.8 Star Fort Drainage and Postern .............. 46 4.2.5 Magazines. Bombproofs. and Traverses ....... 77 A. Annotated Bibliography of Archeological Research 3.2.8.1 Rampart Drainage ..................... 47 4.2.5.1 Magazines ........................... 77 B. Annotated Bibliography of Selected Historical Maps and 3.2.8.2 Parade Ground - Surface Drainage ........ 47 4.2.5.2 Bombproofs .......................... 77 Plans of Fort McHenry 3.2.8.3 Parade Ground - Subsurface Drainage ..... 48 C. Tabular Chronology of Previous Archeological 3.2.8.4 Postern ............................. 48 Investigations - lll - LIST OF FIGURES page page page 1. Detail of USGS Baltimore East 7.5 minute 19. Detail of Delafield' s plan of the proposed 36. Structures in the powder magazine vicinity ............. 53 quadrangle, showing the vicinity of Fort McHenry ....... outer battery at Fort McHenry, 1836 .................. 30 3 7. Structures in the enlisted men's barracks vicinity ........ 54 2. Simplified composite plan of Fort McHenry ............. 3 20. DeVille drawing, 1629, showing counterforts, and the configuration of Fort McHenry's counterforts ........ 32 38. Detail of Lee's Fort McHenry, 1834, showing elevation 3. Schematic cross section of a fort ..................... 4 and cross-section of typical quarters within fort .......... 56 21. Comparative historical and schematic archeological 4. Berthier's Port et Rade de Baltimore, 1782 ............. 7 profiles of Fort McHenry' s parapet and terreplein ....... 34 39. Grade changes at the southeast front of Fort McHenry, 1803-1840. ........................ 61 5. Detail of Folie's Plan of the Town of Baltimore 22. Detail of Delafield's plan of proposed outer battery, and Its Environs, 1792 .............................. 8 1836, showing profile ............................. 35 40. The ravelin at Fort McHenry, showing its counterfort system and the former entrance passageway............. 69 6. Fort McHenry, 1803 .............................. 10 23. Detail of Smith's Fort McHenry, 1840, showing the profile d-d' ....................... 37 41. Stages of development, water battery vicinity, 7. Detail of Poussin's Plan and Profiles ca. 1800 - present ................................ 73 ofFort McHenry, 1819, showing plan of the fort ........ 11 24. JMA's plan of excavations in bastion 4 ................ 39 42. Detail of Craighill's Plan of Water Battery at 8. Detail of Lee's Fort McHenry, 1834, showing 25. Detail of Fort McHenry, Md., ca. 1833, Fort A1cHenry, 1866 .............................. 74 the general plan of the fort . 12 showing armament ................................ 41 43. Profiles of archeological excavations 9. Butler's Fort McHenry, ca. 1840 ..................... 13 26. Detail of Thompson's Fort McHenry, Md., 1837 ........ 42 at the water battery's revetment wall .................. 75 10. Brick's Plan and Sections o,f Drill Ground at 27. Detail of Smith's Fort McHenry, Baltimore, 1840 ....... 43 44. Craighill' s Plans and Sections ofService Magazines. 1866 78 Fort McHenry, 1858 .............................. 14 28. Detail of Brewerton's Fort McHenry, Md., 1861 ........ 44 45. Structures on the grounds of Fort McHenry, ca. 1800-183 5 80 11. Moore's sketch plan of Fort McHenry, 1864 . 17 29. Detail of Fort McHenry, Md., ca. 1833, 46. Archeological excavations and features 12. Fort McHenry, Md., Showing Armament, 1864 ......... 19 showing cross-section of parade wall ................. 45 east and northeast of the ravelin ....................
Recommended publications
  • A Many-Storied Place
    A Many-storied Place Historic Resource Study Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas Theodore Catton Principal Investigator Midwest Region National Park Service Omaha, Nebraska 2017 A Many-Storied Place Historic Resource Study Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas Theodore Catton Principal Investigator 2017 Recommended: {){ Superintendent, Arkansas Post AihV'j Concurred: Associate Regional Director, Cultural Resources, Midwest Region Date Approved: Date Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set. Proverbs 22:28 Words spoken by Regional Director Elbert Cox Arkansas Post National Memorial dedication June 23, 1964 Table of Contents List of Figures vii Introduction 1 1 – Geography and the River 4 2 – The Site in Antiquity and Quapaw Ethnogenesis 38 3 – A French and Spanish Outpost in Colonial America 72 4 – Osotouy and the Changing Native World 115 5 – Arkansas Post from the Louisiana Purchase to the Trail of Tears 141 6 – The River Port from Arkansas Statehood to the Civil War 179 7 – The Village and Environs from Reconstruction to Recent Times 209 Conclusion 237 Appendices 241 1 – Cultural Resource Base Map: Eight exhibits from the Memorial Unit CLR (a) Pre-1673 / Pre-Contact Period Contributing Features (b) 1673-1803 / Colonial and Revolutionary Period Contributing Features (c) 1804-1855 / Settlement and Early Statehood Period Contributing Features (d) 1856-1865 / Civil War Period Contributing Features (e) 1866-1928 / Late 19th and Early 20th Century Period Contributing Features (f) 1929-1963 / Early 20th Century Period
    [Show full text]
  • Arrow-Loops in the Great Tower of Kenilworth Castle: Symbolism Vs Active/Passive ‘Defence’
    Arrow-loops in the Great Tower of Kenilworth castle: Symbolism vs Active/Passive ‘Defence’ Arrow-loops in the Great Tower of Kenilworth ground below (Fig. 7, for which I am indebted to castle: Symbolism vs Active/Passive ‘Defence’ Dr. Richard K Morris). Those on the west side have hatchet-shaped bases, a cross-slit and no in- Derek Renn ternal seats. Lunn’s Tower, at the north-east angle It is surprising how few Norman castles exhibit of the outer curtain wall, is roughly octagonal, arrow-loops (that is, tall vertical slits, cut through with shallow angle buttresses tapering into a walls, widening internally (embrasure), some- broad plinth. It has arrow-loops at three levels, times with ancillary features such as a wider and some with cross-slits and badly-cut splayed bases. higher casemate. Even if their everyday purpose Toy attributed the widening at the foot of each was to simply to admit light and air, such loops loop to later re-cutting. When were these altera- could be used profitably by archers defending the tions (if alterations they be)7 carried out, and for castle. The earliest examples surviving in Eng- what reason ? He suggested ‘in the thirteenth cen- land seem to be those (of uncommon forms) in tury, to give crossbows [... ] greater play from the square wall towers of Dover castle (1185-90), side to side’, but this must be challenged. Greater and in the walls and towers of Framlingham cas- play would need a widening of the embrasure be- tle, although there may once have been slightly hind the slit.
    [Show full text]
  • Galway City Walls Conservation, Management and Interpretation Plan
    GALWAY CITY WALLS CONSERVATION, MANAGEMENT & INTERPRETATION PLAN MARCH 2013 Frontispiece- Woman at Doorway (Hall & Hall) Howley Hayes Architects & CRDS Ltd. were commissioned by Galway City Coun- cil and the Heritage Council to prepare a Conservation, Management & Interpre- tation Plan for the historic town defences. The surveys on which this plan are based were undertaken in Autumn 2012. We would like to thank all those who provided their time and guidance in the preparation of the plan with specialist advice from; Dr. Elizabeth Fitzpatrick, Dr. Kieran O’Conor, Dr. Jacinta Prunty & Mr. Paul Walsh. Cover Illustration- Phillips Map of Galway 1685. CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 UNDERSTANDING THE PLACE 6 3.0 PHYSICAL EVIDENCE 17 4.0 ASSESSMENT & STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 28 5.0 DEFINING ISSUES & VULNERABILITY 31 6.0 CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES 35 7.0 INTERPRETATION & MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES 37 8.0 CONSERVATION STRATEGIES 41 APPENDICES Statutory Protection 55 Bibliography 59 Cartographic Sources 60 Fortification Timeline 61 Endnotes 65 1.0 INTRODUCTION to the east, which today retains only a small population despite the ambitions of the Anglo- Norman founders. In 1484 the city was given its charter, and was largely rebuilt at that time to leave a unique legacy of stone buildings The Place and carvings from the late-medieval period. Galway City is situated on the north-eastern The medieval street pattern has largely been shore of a sheltered bay on the west coast of preserved, although the removal of the walls Ireland. It is located at the mouth of the River during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Corrib, which separates the east and western together with extra-mural developments as the sides of the county.
    [Show full text]
  • The Star Fort, September, 1814
    D-JLJ- UNITED STATES DEPARTHEI'irrr OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FORT MCHENRY NATIONAL MONUMENT AND HISTORIC SHRINE BALTIMORE 30, MARYLAND \\St ARtftlOlOGY The .Star Fort, September, 1814 Prepared by: Dr. W. Richard Walsh Contract Historian · Georgetown University Georgetown, D.C. November, 1958 r~ , .. I . ,. .. - •• '' I• ,•' --:• ' . '·· ~ -,, .. ., . · .· .. :· .·. • , :: .:'~ .: :/ F.1 _r1 .. .J '~ l. \ '. \~ IJ li :i. /:i1('fl ---. \J .. •• 1 : ... .. .. .. ,,.. - l ~ j Table of Contents Page Frontispiece ••••••••••••••• • • • • ii I. Introduction • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 II. The Star Fort, September 12-14, 1814 • • • • • • • 7 24 III. Conclusions. • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 • • • • • • ._: I f ,\ .. i ) ~ ',...___/ Errata p .. 2, line 60 '0 indiaten should read '0 indicate.io p. 3, line 4o "war-fare" should read 10 warfareo 18 p. a, line 8. "amatuer" should read "amateur.~ p .. 7, fn. 1, line 5. "principle" should read ~principal." p. 9, line 12. "wa.tteries" should read "batteries. ~ p. 10, · line 10. Delete "which." p .. 10, line 11. "patforms" should read "platforms." p. 10, line 17. "Descius" should read "Decius." p. 13, fn. \:1 9 line 5. "Jessup" should read "Jesupn in this and all subsequent mention of the name. o. 19, line 16~ "orciinarilly" should read "ordinarily .. '° p. 26, line 5. "Carrol" should read "Carroll." p. 26, line 7. "confederates" should read "Confederates." .a- -. ( ... ~ "'·. / I Introduction In 1776, Baltimore prepared itself for. attack by the British~ Already apprehensive because of threats from the sea by His Majesty's vessel, the Otter, the Committee of Safety choose Whetstone Point as the best fortifiable site against enemy destruction to the Baltimore harbor. A fort of sorts was therefore erected, but because the threat of a general naval attack never materialized and the actual fight­ ing of the war of the Revolution by-passed Baltimoreans, a well armed Fort vVhetstone was not accomplished.
    [Show full text]
  • Microfilm Publication M617, Returns from U.S
    Publication Number: M-617 Publication Title: Returns from U.S. Military Posts, 1800-1916 Date Published: 1968 RETURNS FROM U.S. MILITARY POSTS, 1800-1916 On the 1550 rolls of this microfilm publication, M617, are reproduced returns from U.S. military posts from the early 1800's to 1916, with a few returns extending through 1917. Most of the returns are part of Record Group 94, Records of the Adjutant General's Office; the remainder is part of Record Group 393, Records of United States Army Continental Commands, 1821-1920, and Record Group 395, Records of United States Army Overseas Operations and Commands, 1898-1942. The commanding officer of every post, as well ad commanders of all other bodies of troops such as department, division, brigade, regiment, or detachment, was required by Army Regulations to submit a return (a type of personnel report) to The Adjutant General at specified intervals, usually monthly, on forms provided by that office. Several additions and modifications were made in the form over the years, but basically it was designed to show the units that were stationed at a particular post and their strength, the names and duties of the officers, the number of officers present and absent, a listing of official communications received, and a record of events. In the early 19th century the form used for the post return usually was the same as the one used for regimental or organizational returns. Printed forms were issued by the Adjutant General’s Office, but more commonly used were manuscript forms patterned after the printed forms.
    [Show full text]
  • Fortification Renaissance: the Roman Origins of the Trace Italienne
    FORTIFICATION RENAISSANCE: THE ROMAN ORIGINS OF THE TRACE ITALIENNE Robert T. Vigus Thesis Prepared for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS May 2013 APPROVED: Guy Chet, Committee Co-Chair Christopher Fuhrmann, Committee Co-Chair Walter Roberts, Committee Member Richard B. McCaslin, Chair of the Department of History Mark Wardell, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School Vigus, Robert T. Fortification Renaissance: The Roman Origins of the Trace Italienne. Master of Arts (History), May 2013, pp.71, 35 illustrations, bibliography, 67 titles. The Military Revolution thesis posited by Michael Roberts and expanded upon by Geoffrey Parker places the trace italienne style of fortification of the early modern period as something that is a novel creation, borne out of the minds of Renaissance geniuses. Research shows, however, that the key component of the trace italienne, the angled bastion, has its roots in Greek and Roman writing, and in extant constructions by Roman and Byzantine engineers. The angled bastion of the trace italienne was yet another aspect of the resurgent Greek and Roman culture characteristic of the Renaissance along with the traditions of medicine, mathematics, and science. The writings of the ancients were bolstered by physical examples located in important trading and pilgrimage routes. Furthermore, the geometric layout of the trace italienne stems from Ottoman fortifications that preceded it by at least two hundred years. The Renaissance geniuses combined ancient bastion designs with eastern geometry to match a burgeoning threat in the rising power of the siege cannon. Copyright 2013 by Robert T. Vigus ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would not have been possible without the assistance and encouragement of many people.
    [Show full text]
  • VOL. 1889 Twentieth Annual Reunion of the Association of the Graduates of the United States Military Academy, at West Point
    TWENTIETH ANNUAL REUNION OF THE ASSOCIATION I GRADUATES OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY, AT WEST POINT, NEW YORK, _YUNE i21/t, 1889. EAST SAGINAW, MICH. EVENING NEWS PRINTING AND BINDING HOUSE. 1889. Annual Reunion, June 2th, 1889. MINUTES OF THE BUSINESS MEETING. WEST POINT, N. Y., JUNE 12th, 1889. The Association met in the Chapel of the United States Mili- tary Academy, at 2.30 o'clock P. M., and was called to order by General George W. Cullum, of the Executive Committee. The Chaplain of the Military Academy offered the customary prayer. The roll was then called by the Secretary. ROLL OF MEMBERS. Those present are indicated by a *, and those deceased in italic. 1808. 1820. Sylvanus Thayer. Edward G. W. Butler. Rawlins Lowndes. 1814. John M. Tufts. Charles S. Merchant. 1821. 1815. ~181~~5~.~Seth M. Capron. Simon Willard. 1822.1822. James Monroe. WILLIAM C. YOUNG. Thomas J. Leslie. David H. Vinton. Charles Davies. Isaac R. Trimble. Benjamin H. Wright. 1818. 1823. Horace Webster. Alfred Mordeca. Harvey Brown. GEORGE S. GREENE. Hartman Bache. HANNIBAL DAY. George H. Crosman. 1819. Edmund B. Alexander. Edward D. Mansfield. 1824. Henry Brewerton. Henry A. Thompson. Dennis H. Mahan. Joshua Baker. Robert P. Parrott, Daniel Tyler. John King Findlay. William H. Swift. John M. Fessenden. 4 ANNUAL REUNION, JUNE 12Tli, 1889. 1825. Ward B. Burnett. James H. Simpson. Washington Seawell. Alfred Brush. N. Sayre Harris. Rlo2Randolph B. Marcy. 1826. ALBERT G. EDWARDS. WILLIAM H. C. BARTLETT. 1833. Samuel P. Heintzelman. John G. Barnard. AUGUSTUS J. PLEASANTON. *GEORGE W. CULLUM. Edwin B. Babbitt.
    [Show full text]
  • CDSG Newsletter - Winter 2021 Page 2
    CDSGThe Newsletter The Coast Defense Study Group, Inc. — Winter 2021 * * * * * CDSG Meeting and Tour Calendar Membership Minute Please advise Terry McGovern of any additions Quentin Schillare or changes at tcmcgovern@att.net As we move into the second month of 2021 the membership 2021 CDSG Special Tour of the Coast Defense Study Group has grown a bit. We now have August 21 - 29 and August 25 - September 3, 2021 403 individual members and 19 organizational members for a Sweden total of 422. This total includes 18 new members, including two Terry McGovern, tcmcgovern@att.net who have rejoined after a short break. It is unknown what impact the coronavirus has had on membership. Membership depends 2021 CDSG Conference on several variables. Some members join and renew to have access October 12 - 17, 2021 to our quarterly publications, others sign up to be eligible for a Charleston/Savannah conference or special tour, and still others with an interest in the Gary Alexander, oozlefinch@att.net history of seacoast fortifications find us on the Internet or from a friend. Regardless, membership supports all CDSG activities. 2022 CDSG Conference Things are quiet now, but they will pick up in October with the March 30 - April 3, 2022 Charleston/Savannah conference followed six months later in late New Orleans March 2022 with our visit to New Orleans. Quentin Schillare, qschillare@kc.rr.com * * * * * 2021 Nominations Committee for the 2023 CDSG Special Tour CDSG Board September Northern Poland Terry McGovern – Corporate Secretary Terry McGovern, tcmcgovern@att.net The CDSG Nominations Committee, Danny Malone, Tom Other Meetings and Tours Batha, and Alex Hall, are seeking board candidates for the full Board to consider by May 1, 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Adaptation Stategies: Case Studies (Chapter 5)
    Case Study 5: Strategic Planning and Responsible Investments for Threatened Historic Structures, Dry Tortugas National Park, Florida Contributing Authors: Dan Kimball (Everglades / Dry Tortugas National Parks, retired), Marcy Rockman (NPS Climate Change Response Program), and Kelly Clark (Dry Tortugas National Park) Goals Sea level rise and increased tropical storm intensity pose a serious risk to the long-term sustainability of historic Fort Jefferson at Dry Tortugas National Park, Florida. The park is trying to mitigate these effects over time through strategic planning, informed decision making, and responsible investments that consider historical integrity and long-term sustainability of the fort and island on which it was built. Historic Fort Jefferson is a six-sided structure built on a landform that is impacted by coastal processes. Image credit: Marcy Rockman, NPS. Challenges and Needs Located 110 km (70 mi) west of Key West, Florida, in the Gulf of Mexico, the seven small islands and historic Fort Jefferson of Dry Tortugas National Park sit on the front lines of the climate change discussion and decision-making process within the National Park Service. The most pressing climate change issues that could directly affect the resources and operations of Dry Tortugas National Park are sea level rise and increased tropical storm intensity. These two factors pose a serious risk to long-term sustainability of Fort Jefferson, the main cultural resource and the base of all park operations, as well as the other islands and accompanying natural resources of the park. For more than 165 years, Fort Jefferson on Garden Key has exhibited incredible resilience to storms and the marine environment of the Dry Tortugas.
    [Show full text]
  • Autographs – Auction November 8, 2018 at 1:30Pm 1
    Autographs – Auction November 8, 2018 at 1:30pm 1 (AMERICAN REVOLUTION.) CHARLES LEE. Brief Letter Signed, as Secretary 1 to the Board of Treasury, to Commissioner of the Continental Loan Office for the State of Massachusetts Bay Nathaniel Appleton, sending "the Resolution of the Congress for the Renewal of lost or destroyed Certificates, and a form of the Bond required to be taken on every such Occasion" [not present]. ½ page, tall 4to; moderate toning at edges and horizontal folds. Philadelphia, 16 June 1780 [300/400] Charles Lee (1758-1815) held the post of Secretary to the Board of Treasury during 1780 before beginning law practice in Virginia; he served as U.S. Attorney General, 1795-1801. From the Collection of William Wheeler III. (AMERICAN REVOLUTION.) WILLIAM WILLIAMS. 2 Autograph Document Signed, "Wm Williams Treas'r," ordering Mr. David Lathrop to pay £5.16.6 to John Clark. 4x7½ inches; ink cancellation through signature, minor scattered staining, folds, docketing on verso. Lebanon, 20 May 1782 [200/300] William Williams (1731-1811) was a signer from CT who twice paid for expeditions of the Continental Army out of his own pocket; he was a selectman, and, between 1752 and 1796, both town clerk and town treasurer of Lebanon. (AMERICAN REVOLUTION--AMERICAN SOLDIERS.) Group of 8 items 3 Signed, or Signed and Inscribed. Format and condition vary. Vp, 1774-1805 [800/1,200] Henry Knox. Document Signed, "HKnox," selling his sloop Quick Lime to Edward Thillman. 2 pages, tall 4to, with integral blank. Np, 24 May 1805 * John Chester (2). ALsS, as Supervisor of the Revenue, to Collector White, sending [revenue] stamps and home distillery certificates [not present].
    [Show full text]
  • Mdl Ilem "7 .Nd
    .. ) ''· I United States Department of the Interior B-8 National Park Service Nadonal Register of Historic Places Registration Form 1\il ..... ii .. - ill ~-. .......w.a ........... ol clip.llily far llldMUI ....- • diArico. Soc ils1rcdaal • Quidtliia .. Conpetinr Noliaml l!gi!w fl!:!!!! (NKloml llllPeer lllllal• 16). ~ mdl ilem "7 .nD,. •a• ill• ....,..... "'- er bJ _.. .. .....-i WarDllca. ltu ilom ** • llppl7 • dlt ,....,,, 111i1s ....,_..... - "NIA" far ... awlicoblc." Far f\aUca, ICylca, _..., ud - ol 1ipi"'-e, - cllllJ die c:MepW ud ........... liled im llliJ ........... Far ..idibanll ... - CGllinatlclli ..... (J'Gr9 IG«Xla). ,.,,. Ill --.. l. Name ol Property historic name Fort McHenry other names I sate number Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine Street & number Locust Point, at east end of Port Avenue l ] not tor pubiicabon Cify, town Bal hmore Lil VIClDltY state Matyaana coae 2 4 county Baltimore (City) coae 510 bp cooe 21230 Ownership or Property Category of Property Number of Resources within Property [ ) private [ 1 build.ing(s) Contributing• Noncontributing [ ) public-local [ J) district 004 006 buildings [ 1 public-State [ 1 site 001 ooo sites [ J) public-Federal [ 1 structure 031 006 structures [ J object 006 003 objects 042 015 Total Name of related multiple property listing: N/A Number or contributing resources previomly listed In the National Register 001 * Please note that the contributing resources generally correspond to Fort McHenry' s List of Classified Structures (LCS ) . In some instances, single LCS entries encompass multiple resources (e.g . the water battery guns and emplacements (LCS no. 81221) consist of 11 cannons and 24 gun emplacements, but are counted as one contributing .f.t~~ Agmcy Catilicatioa ere y ce DO of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering propenies in cbe National Register of Hisloric Places and meeu d:le procedural and professional requirements let forth in 36 CPR Put 60.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Enforcement & Compliance Report
    Maryland Department of the Environment ANNUAL ENFORCEMENT & COMPLIANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2017 Larry Hogan Boyd K. Rutherford Ben Grumbles Horacio Tablada Governor Lieutenant Governor Secretary Deputy Secretary TABLE OF CONTENTS Section One – REPORT BASIS AND SUMMARY INFORMATION 3 Statutory Authority and Scope 4 Organization of the Report 4 MDE Executive Summary 5 MDE Performance Measures – Executive Summary 6 Enforcement Workforce 6 Section 1-301(d) Penalty Summary 7 MDE Performance Measures Historical Annual Summary FY 1998 – 2004 8 MDE Performance Measures Historical Annual Summary FY 2005 – 2010 9 MDE Performance Measures Historical Annual Summary FY 2011 – 2017 10 MDE Enforcement Actions Historical Annual Summary FY 1998 – 2017 11 MDE Penalties Historical Annual Summary Chart FY 1998 - 2017 11 MDE’s Enforcement and Compliance Process and Services to Permittees 12 and Businesses The Enforcement and Compliance Process 12 Enforcement Process Flow Chart 13 Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) 14 Contacts or Consultations with Businesses 15 Compliance Assistance 15 Consultations with Businesses 15 Section Two - ADMINISTRATION DETAILS 17 Measuring Enforcement and Compliance 18 Performance Measures Table Overview and Definitions 19 Enforcement and Compliance Performance Measures Table Format 23 Air and Radiation Administration (ARA) 25 ARA Executive Summary 26 ARA Performance Measures 27 Ambient Air Quality Control 28 Air Quality Complaints 34 Asbestos 38 Radiation Machines 42 Radioactive Materials Licensing and Compliance 46 Land
    [Show full text]