POINT STATE PARK Cultural Resources Management Plan Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

Home , Charles Morse Stotz, Fort Duquesne Bridge, Fort Pitt Block House, Fort Pitt Bridge, Fort Prince George, Henry Bouquet

Public Version: This copy does not contain detailed information on archaeological site locations.

PA Bureau of State Parks

Department of Conservation & Natural Resources

.BSDI

POINT STATE PARK CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

March 2019

POINT STATE PARK CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

SUBMITTED TO: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Rachel Carson State Office Building 400 Market St. Harrisburg, PA 17105

SUBMITTED BY: 106 Group 1295 Bandana Blvd #335 Saint Paul, MN 55108

REPORT AUTHORS: Nicole Foss, M.A. Anne Ketz, M.A. Madeleine Bray, M.A. Cody Jennings, M.A.

March 2019 Point State Park CRMP Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED...... 1 1.1 Purpose of a CRMP ...... 1 1.2 Organization and Use of the CRMP ...... 1 1.3 Methodology for CRMP Preparation ...... 2 1.4 Overview of Point State Park ...... 3 1.4.1 Park Purpose Statement ...... 11 1.4.2 The Draw of Cultural Resources for Residents and Park Visitors: Economic Benefits of Cultural Resources ...... 11

2.0 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK ...... 13 2.1 State ...... 13 2.1.1 Constitution of Pennsylvania, Article 1, Section 27 ...... 13 2.1.2 Pennsylvania History Code (Title 37, Historical and Museums) ...... 14 2.1.3 Title 9: Burial Grounds ...... 16 2.1.4 Historic Burial Places Preservation Act ...... 16 2.1.5 Section 2002 of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Act No. 120 of 1970 ...... 17 2.2 Local ...... 18 2.2.1 Pittsburgh CLG and HRC ...... 18 2.3 Federal ...... 1 9 2.3.1 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as Amended (NHPA) ...... 19 2.3.2 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) ...... 20 2.3.3 U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as Amended ...... 21

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ...... 22 3.1 Geography of the Area...... 22 3.1.1 Terraces at the Point ...... 22 3.2 Pre-Contact Period ...... 25 3.2.1 Paleo-Indian (9,500–8,000 BCE) ...... 25 3.2.2 Archaic (8,000–1,000 BCE ) ...... 26 3.2.3 Woodland (1,000 BCE–1550 CE) ...... 26 3.2.4 Monongahela Culture (1050–1630 CE) ...... 27 3.3 Contact Period (1630–1783 CE) ...... 27

Point State Park CRMP Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

3.3.1 French and Indian War (1754–1763) ...... 28 3.3.2 Pontiac’s War (1763-1766) ...... 30 3.3.3 American Revolution (1765-1783)...... 31 3.4 Post-Contact Period (1784–Present) ...... 33 3.4.1 American Settlement (1784–1854) ...... 33 3.4.2 Industrial Era (1855–1950) ...... 36 3.4.3 Point State Park (1945 - Present) ...... 40

4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES AT POINT STATE PARK ...... 46 4.1 Cultural Resource Terminology ...... 46 4.2 Recorded Resources ...... 47 4.3 Previous Cultural Resources Work ...... 48 4.4 Reported and Potential Resources ...... 53 4.5 Human Remains ...... 54 4.5.1 Fort Duquesne Burials ...... 54 4.5.2 Mercer’s Fort Burial Ground ...... 55 4.5.3 Fort Pitt-Era Burial at the Point ...... 55 4.5.4 Grant’s Hill Fill ...... 56

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ...... 58 5.1 Staff Familiarity with the CRMP ...... 58 5.2 Training ...... 5 8 5.3 Identify Professional Cultural Resources Support ...... 58 5.4 SHPO Review and Consultation ...... 59 5.4.1 Threats to Historic Resources ...... 59 5.4.2 Consultation Process ...... 59 5.5 Other Consultation ...... 66 5.6 Exemptions Matrix ...... 66 5.6.1 How to Use the Exemptions Matrix ...... 67 5.6.2 Exemptions Matrix ...... 70 5.7 Review and Refinement of the CRMP ...... 73 5.8 CRMP and Interpretation ...... 73 5.9 Additional Considerations for Cultural Resources ...... 73 5.10 Conclusion ...... 74

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 75

Point State Park CRMP Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

7.0 APPENDICES...... 87 Appendix A: Cultural Resources Technical Support ...... 89 Appendix B: Cultural Resources Management Units ...... 103 Appendix C: Stakeholder Consultation ...... 179 Appendix D: Tribal Engagement ...... 183 Appendix E: Curation Plan ...... 187 Appendix F: Public Archaeology ...... 194 Appendix G: Cultural Resources Unanticipated Discoveries Plan ...... 198 Appendix H: Human Remains Treatment Plan ...... 201 Appendix I: Current Park Guidelines and Policies Recommendations ...... 204

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. POINT STATE PARK (RICKETTS ET AL. 2012) ...... 3 FIGURE 2. MAP OF POINT STATE PARK (DCNR ET AL. 2013) ...... 5 FIGURE 3. FOUNTAIN AT POINT STATE PARK (DCNR 2017) ...... 6 FIGURE 4. AN OUTLINE (TRACERY) OF THE LOCATION OF THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR-ERA FORT DUQUESNE (MYERS 2006) ...... 6 FIGURE 5. FORKS OF THE OHIO NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK ...... 8 FIGURE 6. PITTSBURGH RENAISSANCE HISTORIC DISTRICT ...... 9 FIGURE 7. FORT PITT BLOCK HOUSE (DCNR) ...... 10 FIGURE 8. PORTAL BRIDGE (DICKYLON 2015) ...... 10 FIGURE 9. POINT STATE PARK (106 GROUP) ...... 11 FIGURE 10. FORT PITT MUSEUM ENTRANCE (106 GROUP) ...... 11 FIGURE 11. PARK TRAIL (106 GROUP) ...... 12 FIGURE 12. POINT STATE PARK (106 GROUP) ...... 13 FIGURE 13. STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA KEYSTONE LOGO (COURTESY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA) ...... 13 FIGURE 14. PHMC LOGO (COURTESY OF THE PHMC) ...... 14 FIGURE 15. CITY OF PITTSBURGH LOGO ...... 18 FIGURE 16. THE PORTAL BRIDGE CARRIES INTERSTATE 279 OVER THE PARK (106 GROUP) ...... 21 FIGURE 17. CONFLUENCE OF THE ALLEGHENY AND MONONGAHELA RIVERS WHERE THEY MEET TO FORM THE OHIO RIVER AT THE POINT (SCHMITT 2007)...... 22 FIGURE 18. ELEVATIONS OF TERRACES AT THE POINT (106 GROUP) ...... 2 2 FIGURE 19. TERRACES ...... 24 FIGURE 20. PALEO-INDIAN DIORAMA AT THE STATE MUSEUM OF PENNSYLVANIA, SECTION OF ARCHAEOLOGY (EXPLOREPAHISTORY.COM 2018) ...... 25 FIGURE 21. EARLY ARCHAIC POINTS (KIRK CORNER NOTCHED, PALMER, CHARLESTON, AND KIRK) (STATE MUSEUM OF PENNSYLVANIA, SECTION OF ARCHAEOLOGY 2018)...... 26 FIGURE 22. ARTIST’S RECONSTRUCTION OF A MONONGAHELA CULTURE SITE (FOLEY FARM SITE) (PHMC 2018B) ...... 27 FIGURE 23. MODEL OF FORT DUQUESNE AT THE FORT PITT MUSEUM (HAMMILL 2011) ...... 28 FIGURE 24. PITTSBURGH IN 1758 (UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH 2018A) ...... 29 FIGURE 25. GENERAL JOHN FORBES (ALCHETRON 2017) ...... 29

iii

Point State Park CRMP Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

FIGURE 26. GUYASUTA (WIKIMEDIA COMMONS 2018) ...... 30 FIGURE 27. COLONEL HENRY BOUQUET (FORT PITT SOCIETY OF THE DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 2018) ...... 30 FIGURE 28. FORT PITT BLOCK HOUSE (COURTESY OF KELLY LINN) ...... 30 FIGURE 29. COLONEL GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1772 (MOUNT VERNON LADIES ASSOCIATION 2018) ...... 31 FIGURE 30. COLONEL GEORGE MORGAN (BLUNK 2006) ...... 32 FIGURE 31. PITTSBURGH IN 1790 (UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH 2018A) ...... 33 FIGURE 32. PITTSBURGH IN 1797 BY JOSEPH WARIN (NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY 2018) ...... 33 FIGURE 33. MAP OF PITTSBURGH, 1795 (DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 1899) ...... 34 FIGURE 34. PITTSBURGH IN 1817 (LANE 2008) ...... 35 FIGURE 35. PITTSBURGH IN 1826; THE EARTHEN EMBANKMENTS OF FORT PITT ARE VISIBLE BENEATH THE BUILDINGS (COLLOT 2018) ...... 35 FIGURE 36. PITTSBURGH IN 1859, AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE DUQUESNE FREIGHT DEPOT (LANE 2008) ...... 36 FIGURE 37. UNION BRIDGE, 1902 (CARNEGIE MUSEUM OF ART 2018) ...... 36 FIGURE 38. EXPOSITION HALL, 1943 (UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH 2018B) ...... 36 FIGURE 39. BLOCK HOUSE C. 1900 (FORT PITT SOCIETY OF THE DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 2018)...... 36 FIGURE 40. DAVIS ISLAND LOCK AND DAM NO. 1 (LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CIRCA 1969) ...... 37 FIGURE 41. BLOCK HOUSE IN 1907, WITH SURROUNDINGS RAZED TO MAKE WAY FOR THE RAILROAD (FORT PITT SOCIETY OF THE DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION) ...... 37 FIGURE 42. BLOCK HOUSE (LEFT) AND CARETAKER’S HOUSE (RIGHT) IN 1915. THE BLOCK HOUSE ROOF IS JUST VISIBLE ABOVE THE ELEVATED FREIGHT YARDS SURROUNDING IT (UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH 2018B)...... 37 FIGURE 43. MANCHESTER BRIDGE, 1918 (UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH 2018B) ...... 38 FIGURE 44. PARKLET AT POINT, 1932 (UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH 2018B) ...... 38 FIGURE 45. FLOOD CLEANUP NEAR EXPOSITION HALL, 1936 (BURTON 2018) ...... 39 FIGURE 46. ROBERT MOSES’ PLAN FOR THE POINT, 1939 (BURTON 2018) ...... 39 FIGURE 47. ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEST PIT FOR FORT DUQUESNE AT WATER ST. AND DUQUESNE WAY (BLISS 1944)...... 39 FIGURE 48. POINT, LOOKING NORTHEAST, 1943 (UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH 2018B) ...... 40 FIGURE 49. DEMOLITION AT THE POINT BEGINS, 1950 (UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH 2018B) ...... 41 FIGURE 50. POINT IN 1955 (UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH 2018B) ...... 42 FIGURE 51. PORTAL BRIDGE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, 1961 (PITTSBURGH PRESS) ...... 42 FIGURE 52. CAFE AT POINT STATE PARK (106 GROUP) ...... 44 FIGURE 53. NATIVE PLANTINGS (106 GROUP) ...... 44 FIGURE 54. PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS ...... 52 FIGURE 55. THOMAS HUTCHINS MAP OF FORT DUQUESNE AND MERCER’S FORT, 1759, WITH LOCATION OF BURIAL GROUND IN GREEN (HUTCHINS 1759)...... 55 FIGURE 56. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GRANT’S HILL (GOOGLE EARTH 2018) ...... 56 FIGURE 57. PITTSBURGH, WITH GRANT’S HILL VISIBLE TO THE LEFT PRIOR TO GRADING,1790 (NATIONAL ARCHIVES 2018) ...... 57 FIGURE 58. SHPO PROJECT REVIEW FORM (COURTESY OF THE SHPO) ...... 63 FIGURE 59. POINT STATE PARK OVERVIEW FACING WEST (RICKETTS ET AL. 2012) ...... 104 FIGURE 60. CR MANAGEMENT UNITS AT POINT STATE PARK ...... 110 FIGURE 61. FOUNTAIN, FACING NORTHEAST (RICKETTS ET AL. 2012) ...... 112 FIGURE 62. FOUNTAIN, FACING WEST (106 GROUP) ...... 112 FIGURE 63. STEPS FROM FOUNTAIN PLAZA TO GREAT LAWN, FACING SOUTH (106 GROUP) ...... 113 FIGURE 64. MONONGAHELA WHARF, FACING NORTHWEST (106 GROUP) ...... 115 FIGURE 65. ALLEGHENY WHARF, FACING SOUTHWEST (106 GROUP) ...... 116 FIGURE 66. ALLEGHENY WHARF, FACING WEST (RICKETTS ET AL. 2012) ...... 116

Point State Park CRMP Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

FIGURE 67. STAIRWAY FROM ALLEGHENY WHARF TO THREE RIVERS HERITAGE TRAIL, FACING SOUTHEAST (RICKETTS ET AL. 2012) ...... 117 FIGURE 68. WOODLANDS NORTH, FACING WEST (RICKETTS ET AL. 2012) ...... 119 FIGURE 69. WOODLANDS SOUTH, FACING EAST (106 GROUP) ...... 119 FIGURE 70. WOODLANDS NORTH, FACING EAST (RICKETTS ET AL. 2012) ...... 120 FIGURE 71: CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 3A: CONSOLIDATED PROFILES ...... 123 FIGURE 72: CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 3B: CONSOLIDATED PROFILES ...... 124 FIGURE 73: CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 3B: EXCAVATION UNIT WS 11 ...... 125 FIGURE 74: CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 3B: EXCAVATION UNIT WS 15 ...... 126 FIGURE 75. TRACERY OF FORT DUQUESNE ON THE GREAT LAWN (106 GROUP) ...... 127 FIGURE 76. GREAT LAWN, FACING EAST (106 GROUP) ...... 128 FIGURE 77. GREAT LAWN, FACING EAST (RICKETTS ET AL. 2012) ...... 128 FIGURE 78: CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 4: CONSOLIDATED PROFILES ...... 131 FIGURE 79: CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 4: EXCAVATION UNIT GS 6 ...... 132 FIGURE 80: CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 4: EXCAVATION UNIT GS 25 ...... 133 FIGURE 81. FORT PITT BLOCK HOUSE, FACING WEST (RICKETTS ET AL. 2012) ...... 134 FIGURE 82: CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 5: CONSOLIDATED PROFILES ...... 136 FIGURE 83: CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 5: EXCAVATION UNIT WITHIN THE INTERIOR OF THE BLOCK HOUSE137 FIGURE 84. PANORAMA OF THE ALLEGHENY OVERLOOK, FACING SOUTHEAST (106 GROUP) ...... 138 FIGURE 85. THE ALLEGHENY OVERLOOK, FACING NORTHEAST (106 GROUP) ...... 139 FIGURE 86. THE FORT PITT MUSEUM, FACING SOUTHWEST (106 GROUP) ...... 141 FIGURE 87. THE FORT PITT MUSEUM, FACING SOUTH (106 GROUP) ...... 141 FIGURE 88: CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 7: CONSOLIDATED PROFILES ...... 144 FIGURE 89. PORTAL BRIDGE OUTLET, FACING SOUTHEAST (106 GROUP) ...... 145 FIGURE 90. PORTAL BRIDGE INLET, FACING SOUTHWEST (106 GROUP) ...... 146 FIGURE 91. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES LOCATIONS NEAR THE PORTAL BRIDGE...... 148 FIGURE 92: CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 8A: CONSOLIDATED PROFILES ...... 149 FIGURE 93: CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 8A: PIT R ...... 150 FIGURE 94: CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 8A: EXCAVATION UNIT BW 30 ...... 151 FIGURE 95: CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 8B: EXCAVATION UNIT CS 0 ...... 152 FIGURE 96. PORTAL BRIDGE FACING EAST (106 GROUP) ...... 154 FIGURE 97. PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND REFLECTING POOL FACING WEST (106 GROUP) ...... 154 FIGURE 98. PORTAL BRIDGE AND REFLECTING POOL FACING SOUTHEAST (106 GROUP) ...... 155 FIGURE 99. PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND REFLECTING POOL FACING NORTHEAST (RICKETTS ET AL. 2012) ...... 155 FIGURE 100. CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 9: CONSOLIDATED PROFILES ...... 158 FIGURE 101. CITY SIDE LAWN FACING NORTHWEST (106 GROUP) ...... 159 FIGURE 102. CITY SIDE LAWN FACING EAST (106 GROUP)...... 160 FIGURE 103: CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 10: CONSOLIDATED PROFILES ...... 163 FIGURE 104. LOOKING FROM CITY SIDE WOODLANDS SOUTH TOWARDS CITY SIDE WOODLANDS NORTH (106 GROUP)...... 164 FIGURE 105. CITY SIDE WOODLANDS SOUTH FACING SOUTHEAST (106 GROUP) ...... 165 FIGURE 106. CITY SIDE WOODLANDS NORTH FACING NORTHEAST (106 GROUP) ...... 165 FIGURE 107: CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 11A: CONSOLIDATED PROFILES ...... 167 FIGURE 108: CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 11B: CONSOLIDATED PROFILES ...... 168 FIGURE 109. FLAG BASTION AND PARKING LOT FACING NORTHEAST (106 GROUP) ...... 169 FIGURE 110. FLAG BASTION FACING NORTH (106 GROUP) ...... 170 FIGURE 111. PATHWAY BETWEEN PARKING LOT AND FORT PITT MUSEUM FACING NORTHWEST (106 GROUP) ...... 170

Point State Park CRMP Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

FIGURE 112: CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 12: CONSOLIDATED PROFILES ...... 173 FIGURE 113: CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 12: PIT AA ...... 174 FIGURE 114: CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 12: PIT I ...... 175 FIGURE 115: CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 12: PIT N ...... 176 FIGURE 116: CR MANAGEMENT UNIT 12: PIT W ...... 177

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. TYPES OF DOCUMENTED CULTURAL RESOURCES AT POINT STATE PARK ...... 46 TABLE 2. RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES AT POINT STATE PARK ...... 48 TABLE 3. PUBLICATIONS OF PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES WORK AT THE POINT ...... 49 TABLE 4. POTENTIAL CULTURAL RESOURCES AT POINT STATE PARK ...... 53 TABLE 5. EXAMPLE OF ANNUAL REPORT OF NO EFFECT ACTIVITIES DOCUMENTATION ...... 61 TABLE 6. ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH SHPO REVIEW IS NOT REQUIRED ...... 70 TABLE 7. KEY PARTICIPANTS AND STAKEHOLDERS ...... 180 TABLE 8. TRIBAL NATION POINTS OF CONTACT ...... 183 TABLE 9. REPOSITORIES FOR COLLECTIONS EXCAVATED AT POINT STATE PARK ...... 190

Point State Park CRMP Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) provides an organizational and regulatory framework for addressing cultural resource1 protection and regulatory needs at Point State Park in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The plan also promotes a broader understanding of those resources and how they relate to the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources’ (DCNR) foundational principles as expressed in the DCNR’s mission and vision statements, as well as Point State Park’s Purpose Statement.

DCNR MISSION To conserve and sustain Pennsylvania’s natural resources for present and future generations’ use and enjoyment.

DCNR VISION As Pennsylvania’s leader and chief advocate for conservation and outdoor recreation, DCNR will inspire citizens to: Value their natural resources; Engage in conservation practices; Experience the outdoors.

POINT STATE PARK PURPOSE STATEMENT Recognize the historical significance of the site and enhance visitor understanding of the historical significance of the site; Provide opportunities for visitors to enjoy the natural, cultural, recreational, educational, and scenic resources of the park and its connection to Pittsburgh; and Protect and maintain the natural and cultural resources including the fundamental resources that define the park (Point State Park, Park Management Foundation Document, 2015)

This plan is intended to help the DCNR understand and guide decisions for the following three components of cultural resource management: x what resources do exist and may exist throughout the park; x the potential impact of actions on those resources; and x best practices that will provide a reasonable and efficient solution to avoid or minimize damage to those resources.

1 The term “cultural resource” is used broadly to refer to resources with cultural and/or historical significance. Several federal and Commonwealth laws concern resources that fit into this definition, although they are referred to by specific (and varying) terms within the individual laws. Throughout this report, the term “cultural resources” is used generally to refer to cultural and historical resources, while “historic properties” is used when specifically discussing National Park Service (NPS)-designated resources (e.g., those that are National Register of Historic Places-eligible or listed). The use and definitions of these terms are discussed further in Chapter 4.0.

vii

PLANNING TEAM

PLANNING TEAM Department of Conservation Pennsylvania State Historic and Natural Resources Preservation Office 106 Group Paul Zeph, Planning Section Bill Callahan, Western Anne Ketz, Project Manager Chief Pennsylvania Community Nicole Foss, Historian and Preservation Coordinator Matt Azeles, Resource Archaeologist Management & Planning Barbara Frederick, Historic Molly McDonald, GIS Specialist Division Chief Preservation Supervisor Kelly Linn, Archaeologist and Jeffrey Anna, Assistant Regional Kira Heinrich, Historic Historian Park Manager Preservation Specialist Chris Evans, Graphic Designer Jeremy Rekich, Regional Elizabeth Rairigh, Division Manager - Western Division Chief, Preservation Services Nicole Pederson, Graphic Designer M. Frances Stein, Natural Steve McDougal, Historic Resource Program Specialist Preservation Specialist Madeleine Bray, Archaeologist Paula DeVore, Park Manager Doug McLearen, Division Chief, Cody Jennings, Planner Program Specialist Environmental Review Jake Weiland, Park Manager Saurabh Shah, Project Manager and IT/GIS Specialist Jessica Rohrdanz, Environmental Education Specialist

We would also like to extend our thanks to the following people and organizations that provided research materials and support: Amy L. Covell-Murthy and Dr. James Richardson at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Dr. Brooke Blades, A.D. Marble & Company, Liz Wheatley and Susan Matlack of the Fort Pitt Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution, and staff at the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACCD Allegheny Conference on Community Development ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 AMSL Above Mean Sea Level BCE Before Common Era CE Common Era CS City Side CFR Code of Federal Regulations CLG Certified Local Government CRGIS Cultural Resources Geographic Information System (GIS) database maintained by the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) CRMP Cultural Resources Management Plan FHWA Federal Highway Administration FOHD Forks of the Ohio Historic District FTA Federal Transit Administration HRC Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 NHL National Historic Landmark NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, As Amended NPS National Park Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places DCNR Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources PennDOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportation PHLF Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation PHMC Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission PRR Pennsylvania Railroad PRHD Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District Section 4(f) Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 Section 106 Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act, 1966 SHPO State Historic Preservation Office2 SOI Secretary of the Interior TCP Traditional Cultural Property THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer U.S. DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

2 In this report, the SHPO should be understood to refer to the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office, except where discussed generally within the legislative framework overview.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 Purpose of the CRMP This Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) provides the DCNR with an essential tool to ensure the preservation of important cultural resources, as well as promote a broader understanding of those resources and how they relate to Point State Park’s purpose. This CRMP provides an organizational and regulatory framework for cultural resource protection to: 1) facilitate compliance with local, state, and federal regulations regarding cultural resources, and 2) promote understanding and preservation of the park’s documented and potential cultural resources.

Specifically, this CRMP: x Provides Park staff with a more complete understanding of the cultural resources present within the park and the laws and procedures that govern or impact their identification and treatment. x Creates a set of procedures to ensure compliance with relevant laws and to provide park staff with tools and information to manage day-to-day, seasonal, and long-term park activities in a manner that protects, manages, and promotes the park’s cultural resources. x Identifies where there are gaps in existing knowledge of cultural resources within the park and develops strategies to address and eliminate those gaps.

By better understanding the unique and significant cultural resources at Point State Park, as well as the laws governing cultural resources in the Commonwealth, management staff will gain an appreciation for how the Point’s history informs the management of the park and ensure its cultural as well as natural and recreational resources are protected for future generations. 1.2 Organization and Use of the CRMP The first four chapters of this CRMP provide foundational information regarding the purpose of the CRMP, the resources present at the park,

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 1

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED and the laws that protect these resources, as well as the historic significance of the park and its resources. Chapter 5 provides an overall implementation strategy, as well as an Exemptions Matrix tool for determining which park activities require SHPO review prior to being undertaken. The Appendices outline procedures, such as how to respond if human remains are inadvertently discovered, as well as provide detailed cultural resources information regarding the park’s Cultural Resources (CR) Management Units. 1.3 Methodology for CRMP Preparation This CRMP was developed in two phases, as outlined in a 2017 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the PHMC and Point State Park. The CRMP was prepared in conformance with the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office’s (SHPO’s) current Guidance for Historic Preservation Planning. The goals for Phase I consisted of the following: x To provide an overview and analysis of the cultural resources (archaeological sites, cultural landscapes, historic buildings, structures, objects), define the current condition of these resources, and determine the relationship of these resources within the local and regional landscape. x To prioritize and establish draft research questions for future archaeological research in the park that addresses all periods of occupation and use. The goals for Phase II consisted of the following: x To delineate cultural resource management strategies for both archaeological and above-ground resources, reflecting all periods of occupation and use at the Point. x To identify key challenges to cultural resource management and provide possible solutions or actions to be integrated into the comprehensive Park Management Plan, which is in development. x To develop an implementation strategy for identified actions that includes priority order/phases. This includes an Exemptions Matrix to provide an “at-a-glance” tool for park managers and maintenance staff for activities that may affect cultural resources to determine which activities can proceed without SHPO review.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 2

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

x For the purpose of managing archaeological resources, to identify and map specific management areas [units] within the park, and synthesize the results of previous archaeological investigations in these areas to guide future park activities.

A draft version of the CRMP was prepared as part of Phase I, and a revised draft was prepared as part of Phase II. After the preparation of each draft, the DCNR and the SHPO provided comments, and a meeting was held on October 30, 2018 to discuss feedback and outline next steps. After the review of the revised draft CRMP is completed, a public meeting will be held in 2019 to present the CRMP and gather public and stakeholder input and commentary. 1.4 Overview of Point State Park This overview is adapted from the Point State Park Management Foundation Document [Park Management Foundation Document] (Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources [DCNR] 2015).3

The 36-acre, triangular-shaped Point State Park is located within the boundaries of the City of Pittsburgh in Allegheny County in southwestern Pennsylvania. It is bordered on the north by the Allegheny River, on the south by the Monongahela River, and on the east by Commonwealth Place (Figure 1). Park property extends to the center line of Commonwealth Place (Figure 2). The park is situated at the apex of downtown Pittsburgh where the Monongahela and Allegheny rivers meet to form the Ohio River. This area is often referred to as “the Point.” Point State Park was created as part of the passage of the Urban Redevelopment Law (Public Law 991, No. 385) on May 24, 1945. The law helped launch the Pittsburgh Renaissance, which spurred the city’s Figure 1. Point State Park (Ricketts et al. 2012) transformation from a capital of industry to a place of culture, history, and recreation.

Over 2.3 million residents of the Greater Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area live within a 20-mile radius of the park, and many of these residents live or work within walking distance of the park or within an easy commute using public transportation. Commuters traveling through the park daily

3 This information is also presented in the Point State Park Interpretive Plan (DCNR 2009).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 3

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED for work or for sporting and recreational events are estimated to be 27 percent of all visitors to the park. Due to its location and iconic design, Point State Park has high visibility and opportunity for public contact. The park frequently provides visitors with their first impression of what state parks offer through park programs and information booths. As a result, Point State Park serves as a “gateway” for visitors to learn about Pennsylvania state parks and make connections to other state parks.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 4

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

Figure 2. Map of Point State Park (DCNR et al. 2013)

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 5

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

The park is surrounded by diverse development including commercial properties (offices, retail spaces, hotels, and restaurants), sport complexes, entertainment venues, cultural sites, and residential properties. Several major downtown streets terminate at the park entrance and a major highway runs over the park. The Monongahela, Allegheny, and Ohio rivers along the park’s borders support commercial and recreational boat traffic.

Point State Park with its eye-catching fountain and centuries of history, is the iconic image for the City of Pittsburgh (Figure 3). The park serves as a green space in an urban environment and provides a connection to the various locations and activities within the city. It is a draw for tourism, sightseeing, and recreational events, and features two National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 4-listed historic districts—the National Figure 3. Fountain at Point State Park 5 Historic Landmark (NHL) Forks of the Ohio Historic District, which (DCNR 2017) encompasses resources dating to 1754–1790, including Forts Pitt and Duquesne and their associated features, and the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District, which encompasses resources dating to 1927–1974 (Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6).6 As a designated NHL, the Forks of the Ohio Historic District has been recognized by the Department of the Interior as a place of exceptional value to the nation as a whole.

The co-existence of these two historic districts, which cover two very different time periods (the late eighteenth century and the twentieth century) is emblematic of the park’s successful balance of historical depth and Modernist style established from its conception (DCNR et al. 2014:24; Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]). The Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District is a triangle-shaped district Figure 4. An outline (tracery) of the location of bounded by Stanwix Street on the east, the Allegheny River on the the French and Indian War-era Fort Duquesne northwest, and the Monongahela River on the southwest. While the (Myers 2006) resources of the NHL Forks of the Ohio Historic District are fully encompassed within Point State Park, the Pittsburgh Renaissance

4 The NRHP is “the official list of the Nation’s historic places worthy of preservation.” It was created with the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NPS 2018a). 5 An NHL is a “nationally significant historic place designated by the Secretary of the Interior because [it] possess[es] exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States” (NPS 2018b). All NHLs are also concurrently listed in the NRHP. 6 Title 37, §506(c) of Commonwealth law (discussed further below) restricts access to archaeological site locational information; the locations of archaeological sites are not depicted on these figures.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 6

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

Historic District includes resources outside the boundaries of Point State Park (Figure 5). See Chapter 4.0 for additional information about documented resources at the park.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 7

Figure

[ 1:2,000 Point State Park Boundaries Historic National Ohio the of Forks LandmarkNomination, (1960 1975 Update) al. et (Ricketts Resource Contributing 2012) al. et (Ricketts Resource Noncontributing 2012) 0 250 Meters 100 Feet Point State Park Cultural Resources Management Plan PennsylvaniaPittsburgh, National Ohio of the Forks Landmark Historic Map Producedby106 Group 7/23/2018 Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo,Aerogrid, and the GIS IGN, UserIGP, Community Lower Remnants of Original Ramparts Music Bastion Music Grenadier Bastion Grenadier Flag Bastion Flag Ohio Bastion Monongahela Bastion Monongahela Trace (Outline of Fort Duquesne) Fort PittMuseum Fort Pitt Block House Block Pitt Fort Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,AEX, Getmapping, USDA, USGS,

Point Walls

Allegheny River Allegheny Allegheny River Allegheny Fountain

Monongahela River Source: 106 Group; PA DCNR Source: 106 Group; PA Point State Park Cultural Resources Management Plan Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Point State Park Boundaries

Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District One Gateway Center (PRHD) (Listed in the NRHP in 2013)

"! Contributing Resource to PRHD

"! Noncontributing Resource to PRHD Gateway Towers Allegheny Towers Previously Listed in the NRHP prior to the Allegheny River Penthouse Apartments "! creation of the Pittsburgh Renaissance Fountain Historic District (Part of Forks of Fountain the Ohio) Gateway Plaza "! Landscape Feature (contributing status "! " Two Gateway Center not identified in NRHP Registration, but Trace (Outline of Fort Duquesne) "! "! (Part of Forks of the Ohio) considered part of the district's cultural The Pittsburgh Hilton landscape) Restrooms Lower Remnants of Original Ramparts (Part of Forks of the Ohio) "!

"! Pylons Gateway Station

"! Three Gateway Center Portal Bridge Kiosk Pump House "!

Fort Pitt Block House ! Point Walls " (Part of Forks of the Ohio) (Part of Forks of Cafe the Ohio) State Office Building

Monongahela River Maintenance "! Four Gateway Center

"! Fort Pitt Museum Equitable Plaza, (Part of Forks of the Ohio) Pittsburgh/Gateway Center Garage "!

Flag Bastion "! The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania Western Headquarters Building Pittsburgh Press Pedestrian Building Bridge

The IBM Building; 030Meters Five Gateway Center 1:3,000 0 150 Feet [

Westinghouse Electric Corporation Headquarters; Six Gateway Center

Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Figure Source: 106 Group; PA DCNR Map Produced by 106 Group 7/23/2018

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

The most intact and prominent of the NHL Forks of the Ohio Historic District’s above-ground resources is the Fort Pitt Block House (Figure 7). Built in 1764, the Block House is “Pittsburgh’s oldest authenticated structure,” and the only remaining building from Great Britain’s eighteenth-century fort, Fort Pitt (Fort Pitt Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution 2018). The Fort Pitt Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution owns the Block House and the property upon which it is located and maintains the Block House as a historic site open to the public.

The park is also home to a rich complex of archaeological resources, dating from 6,500 years ago (and perhaps even earlier), to the recent past. The archaeological sites and associated artifacts and features beneath the park’s surface chronicle its Native American, European, American, residential, military, industrial, and recreational histories. Figure 7. Fort Pitt Block House (DCNR) Beginning in the early twentieth century, Point State Park became the focus of attention for civic and political leaders and planners, intent on recasting industrial Pittsburgh as a cleaner and healthier city—a model for post-industrial urban America. The design and development of Point State Park as a park in the Modernist style in the 1950s through the 1970s was a significant part of Pittsburgh’s urban redevelopment known as the Renaissance (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:8).

The Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District encompasses the Modernist resources at the park designed by Ralph Griswold and Charles M. Stotz as part of the development of Point State Park. These include the Portal Bridge and associated Pedestrian Bridge and Reflecting Pool (Figure 8). Other Modernist, designed-landscape resources at the park include the re-created Fort Pitt Monongahela Bastion in which the Fort Pitt Museum is located; the Fountain; landscaped woodlands filled with native plants and expanses of lawn; traceries of the forts and original shoreline; and Figure 8. Portal Bridge curvilinear paved walkways (Figure 9). Renovations at the park in 1999– (Dickylon 2015) 2003 and 2006–2013 were carried out in conformance with the park’s overall Modernist style.

Visitors to the park can learn about the Point’s rich history via the Fort Pitt Museum, housed in the re-created Monongahela Bastion of Fort Pitt. The museum (Figure 10), which opened in 1969, is owned by the

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 10

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) and operated by the Senator John Heinz History Center. It is also a contributing resource to the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District. 1.4.1 Park Purpose Statement The purpose statement of Point State Park, as identified in the Point State Park, Park Management Foundation Document (DCNR 2015), is: 1. Recognize the historical significance of the site and enhance visitor understanding of the historical significance of the site. Figure 9. Point State Park (106 Group) 2. Provide opportunities for visitors to enjoy the natural, cultural, recreational, educational, and scenic resources of the park and its connection to Pittsburgh. 3. Protect and maintain the natural and cultural resources including the fundamental resources that define the park (DCNR 2015:8). The purpose statement identifies the specific reasons for the establishment of Point State Park, reflects the enabling legislation and legislative history that influenced park development, and lays the foundation for understanding what is most important about this park. 1.4.2 The Draw of Cultural Resources for Residents and Park Visitors: Economic Figure 10. Fort Pitt Museum Entrance Benefits of Cultural Resources (106 Group) In 2015, PlaceEconomics prepared a plan on the economics of historic preservation for the City of Pittsburgh. The plan outlines Pittsburgh’s rich historical heritage, of which the resources at Point State Park are an important part. The City of Pittsburgh contains 166 NRHP-listed properties (22 of which are historic districts) and five NHLs, including Forks of the Ohio Historic District (National Park Service [NPS] 2018a; PlaceEconomics 2015:5). In addition to federally designated historic resources, Pittsburgh has nearly 100 individual locally designated landmarks and 13 City Historic Districts (PlaceEconomics 2015:4, 6). Beyond contributing to the city’s cultural vibrancy and historical depth, cultural resources provide economic value as well.

Cultural resources bring economic value to the city by spurring historic tax credit projects, raising and sustaining the value of real estate, generating heritage tourism (which in turn fuels job growth), drawing and retaining young knowledge workers to the city, and supporting livable, human-scale population density (PlaceEconomics 2015:3).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 11

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

Of the economic benefits that historic resources at Point State Park offer, heritage tourism and geotourism are perhaps the greatest value. The National Trust for Historic Preservation defines heritage tourism as “traveling to experience the places, artifacts and activities that authentically represent the stories and people of the past and present. It includes cultural, historic, and natural resources” (National Trust for Historic Preservation 2018). Geotourism is defined as “tourism that sustains or enhances the distinctive geographical character of a place— its environment, heritage, aesthetics, culture, and the well-being of its residents” (National Geographic Partners, LLC 2018).

According to DCNR’s Pennsylvania’s Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2014-2019, “most outdoor enthusiasts also enjoy history and heritage and often combine those experiences in their trips. Visiting historic sites is the second most popular outdoor activity cited in the resident survey” (DCNR 2014:62). Point State Park offers visitors ample opportunity to enjoy both natural and historical resources (Figure 11).

As a place of nature, history, and recreation, and home of the Fountain, Figure 11. Park Trail (106 Group) the icon for the City of Pittsburgh, Point State Park provides a vital draw for both local residents and heritage tourists. By leveraging the park’s diverse historic assets—which range in age from thousands of years old to decades old—Point State Park can continue to cultivate and grow its presence as a significant aspect of Pittsburgh’s identity as a national urban destination.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 12

2.0 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

2.0 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK There are several federal and state laws that apply to the management of cultural resources for the park. In addition, there are a range of government agencies, tribes, and other stakeholders who may have a role in park decisions, depending on the nature of the project, the sources of funding, and the need for federal permitting or other agency roles. This plan includes a regulatory framework overview regarding the legal context in which Point State Park staff must manage the park’s cultural Figure 12. Point State Park (106 resources. Group) 2.1 State 2.1.1 Constitution of Pennsylvania, Article 1, Section 27 Article I, Section 27 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania states: The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.

This requires that state agencies “balance the detrimental effects an activity would have on the environment [including historic resources] Figure 13. State of Pennsylvania Keystone Logo against the social, economic, and environmental benefits” that would be (Courtesy of the State of gained by “controlled development of the state’s natural resources” Pennsylvania) (Widener University School of Law’s Environmental & Natural Resources Law Clinic 2010).

This section of the Constitution serves as the foundation for the requirements articulated in the State History Code, discussed below. It follows a precedent found in federal historic preservation law, which is to view and treat historic and cultural resources as part of the environment and as providing public benefit.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 13

2.0 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

2.1.2 Pennsylvania History Code (Title 37, Historical and Museums) The Pennsylvania History Code (commonly referred to as the State History Code) designates the PHMC as the “official agency of the Commonwealth for the conservation of Pennsylvania’s cultural heritage” (Pennsylvania General Assembly, Title 37). Administrative responsibilities under the History Code have been delegated to the SHPO, a bureau of PHMC (Communication with Elizabeth Rairigh, Division Chief, Preservation Services of the PHMC, September 2018). The SHPO administers all official state and federal historic preservation programs and activities. These include maintenance of the statewide cultural resources inventory, nomination of properties to the NRHP, Figure 14. PHMC Logo consultation with state and federal agencies regarding the effects of their (Courtesy of the PHMC) undertakings on cultural resources, completion of cultural resource surveys and archaeological investigations, and assisting local governments and Certified Local Governments with historic preservation issues and programs (Pennsylvania General Assembly, Title 37).

Under the Pennsylvania History Code, state agencies are required to: 1. Consult the commission [PHMC] before demolishing, altering or transferring any property under their ownership or control that is or may be of historical, architectural or archaeological significance. 2. Seek the advice of the commission on possible alternatives to the demolition, alteration or transfer of property under their ownership or control that is on or may be eligible for the Pennsylvania Register of Historic Places.7 3. Initiate measures and procedures to provide for the maintenance by means of preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of historic resources under their ownership or control that are listed on or are eligible for the Pennsylvania Register of Historic Places.

7 The Pennsylvania Register of Historic Places is defined in the Pennsylvania History Code as “a selected inventory of historic resources determined by the commission to be significant in the history, architecture, archaeology or culture of this Commonwealth, its communities or the nation” (Pennsylvania General Assembly, Title 37). It is the policy of PHMC to automatically enroll NRHP- listed properties into the Pennsylvania Register of Historic Places. The policy was implemented by the PHMC at their March 15, 2006 quarterly meeting and recorded in the minutes of that meeting to confirm what had been a long- standing practice.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 14

2.0 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

4. Institute procedures and policies to assure that their plans, programs, codes, regulations, and activities contribute to the preservation and enhancement of all historic resources in this Commonwealth (Pennsylvania General Assembly, Title 37; see also Laws of Pennsylvania Act No. 178-273).8

Point State Park For compliance with the requirements of Title 37 (the State History Code), DCNR must consult with the SHPO regarding any proposed project or activity at Point State Park that may affect the historic integrity of the park’s historic and cultural resources. The consultation process is discussed further in Section 5.4.2. Subsurface resources that may be affected include a wide variety of documented and potential archaeological sites and features. In addition, Point State Park has several above-ground resources that are NRHP-listed. The Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District encompasses the entirety of the park’s built, designed landscape and the majority of its buildings and structures. It also extends beyond the boundaries of the park. Point State Park is under DCNR ownership except for the Portal Bridge; the Fort Pitt and Fort Duquesne bridges, abutments, and associated highway ramps; and the Fort Pitt Block House and its immediate environs, the latter which is owned by the Daughters of the American Revolution.

In addition, as mentioned above, the SHPO maintains the Commonwealth’s cultural resources inventory. Although there is extensive knowledge and documentation of existing historic and cultural resources at Point State Park as a result of over seven decades of archaeological excavations, as well as the designation of the NRHP- listed and NHL Forks of the Ohio Historic District and the NRHP-listed Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District, there is the potential for additional archaeological resources to exist intact across the Point (archaeological potential at the Point is discussed further in Appendix B). Consultation with the SHPO should be initiated before any unanticipated discoveries may be made. If and when previously undocumented archaeological resources are identified at Point State Park, the ongoing consultation process with the SHPO will ensure that these resources are

8 It is the intention of this document to aid the DCNR in complying with the third and fourth requirements of the State History Code concerning the historic resources at Point State Park.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 15

2.0 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK properly documented and added to the Commonwealth’s cultural resource inventory. 2.1.3 Title 9: Burial Grounds Chapter 7 “Reasonable Access to Burial Grounds” of Title 9: Burial Grounds of the Statutes of Pennsylvania, states: The owner of a cemetery not owned by a cemetery company shall grant an individual reasonable ingress and egress to a burial plot in the cemetery for the purpose of visiting the burial plot (Pennsylvania General Assembly, Title 9).

Point State Park There is documentation of a historical burial ground at Point State Park associated with Mercer’s Fort. The remains of three individuals were discovered in 2007, which may be associated with this burial ground. In addition, there is historical documentation referencing the burials of other individuals at the fort, both predating the construction of Fort Duquesne, and during the time when Fort Pitt was active (discussed further in Section 4.3). Although these historical burial locations are not currently managed as cemeteries, and the identities of the three individuals uncovered in 2007 are unknown,9 park staff should be aware that Title 9 requires that individual access to the burial plot(s) be granted for the purposes of visiting the burial plot(s). Information concerning the history and locations of these burials is provided in Section 4.5. 2.1.4 Historic Burial Places Preservation Act The Historic Burial Places Preservation Act protects burial grounds and associated individual burial lots …that have been in existence as a burial ground for more than 100 years wherein there have been no burials for at least 50 years and wherein there will be no future burials or listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as determined by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission from unlawful use, destruction, and or removal, including unlawful possession, destruction, or removal of associated memorials (Pennsylvania General Assembly 1994, Act 22, P.L. 141, No. 22).

9 The identity of at least one individual interred at the Point is known. In 1769, Virginian colonist Samuel Lightfoot was buried “along the bank of the Monongahela” at the Point (A.D. Marble & Company 2009:55-56).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 16

2.0 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

Point State Park As mentioned above, there is documentation concerning a historical burial ground at Point State Park associated with Mercer’s Fort as well as documentation of individual burials, and the remains of three individuals were discovered at the park in 2007 (discussed further in Section 4.3). The Mercer’s Fort burial ground has been in existence since at least the 1758 (the date that Mercer’s Fort was constructed), and possibly before, as there is the possibility it was used by the French prior to England’s takeover of the Point. There have likely been no formal burials at the Point for at least 200 years, based on the developmental history of the Point following the cessation of operations at Fort Pitt (the successor to Mercer’s Fort) in 1792. This burial ground and the individual burials referenced in historic documentation are protected under the Historic Burial Places Preservation Act from any unlawful destruction, use, or removal. 2.1.5 Section 2002 of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Act No. 120 of 1970 In 1970, Pennsylvania Act 120 “created a state counterpart to Section 4(f) which was codified in Section 2002” (Pennsylvania Department of Transportation [PennDOT] 2018a:1-2). Act No. 120 creates PennDOT and requires it to consider effects of transportation routes or programs to natural and historic landmarks, among several other factors. Section 2002 of the Administrative Code of 1929 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Act No. 120 of 1970 states that: No highway, transit line, highway interchange, airport, or other transportation corridor or facility, shall be built or expanded in such a way as to use any land from any recreation area, wildlife and/or waterfowl refuge, historic site, State forest land, State game land, wilderness areas or public park unless: (i) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (ii) such corridor or facility is planned and constructed so as to minimize harm to such recreation area, wildlife and/or waterfowl refuge, historic site, State forest land, State game land, wilderness area, or public park (Laws of Pennsylvania Act No. 120).

The requirements of Section 2000/PA Act 120 must be met for non- federal state funded transportation projects. Section 2002 “applies to all PennDOT transportation projects involving the construction or expansion

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 17

2.0 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK of a highway, transit line, highway interchange, airport or other transportation corridor or facility” [emphasis in original] (PennDOT 2018a:1-2).

Point State Park Compliance with Section 2002 of PA Act 120 is the responsibility of PennDOT. This state law is included here for reference because Interstate 279 runs through Point State Park, and the park is surrounded by city- and state-managed roads; therefore, it is important for park staff to be aware of the potential for state transportation-related projects that may concern park historic properties.

Figure 15. City of Pittsburgh Logo 2.2 Local (Courtesy of the City of Pittsburgh) As Point State Park is managed by the state but located within the City of Pittsburgh, park staff should be aware of the following programs. 2.2.1 Pittsburgh CLG and HRC The City of Pittsburgh participates in the Certified Local Government (CLG) program. This NPS program is enabled by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and is administered by the SHPO. It “gives municipalities the option of strengthening local historic preservation activities through exclusive funding incentives and enhanced technical assistance” (PHMC 2018a). CLGs are eligible for grants to implement their programs and are by-right consulting parties in federal Section 106 reviews (PHMC 2018a).

The Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission (HRC) reviews proposed new construction, demolition, and exterior work to locally designated historic buildings and neighborhoods in Pittsburgh and oversees the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (City of Pittsburgh 2018). Properties within designated City Historic Districts, and/or City Historic Landmarks, “are subject to protection (and regulation) by the Historic Review Commission. Properties that are in National Register Districts but not also within a City District are not so protected” (PlaceEconomics 2015). The NHL Forks of Ohio Historic District and the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District are not City-designated historic districts and therefore not subject to City oversight (PlaceEconomics 2015).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 18

2.0 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

Point State Park The City of Pittsburgh is a CLG, which makes it a by-right consulting party in federal Section 106 reviews. The park and its NRHP-listed properties therein are not City-designated, and therefore, state-level park projects are not subject to City oversight. However, for best practices, the City of Pittsburgh should be consulted in the review of projects that may impact the City’s management of its historic resources. 2.3 Federal An overview of federal laws pertaining to cultural resources is included below for reference. The DCNR is not responsible for implementation of these federal laws, but because federal undertakings may involve historic properties located within or adjacent to Point State Park, an overview of the federal regulatory framework is provided to serve as a reference for DCNR park management staff. Whichever federal agency is leading the undertaking will be responsible for implementation of these laws. 2.3.1 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as Amended (NHPA) Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, and implementing regulations 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800 require federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties (i.e. resources listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP), and seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to those properties.

A federal undertaking under NHPA is defined as: a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a federal agency; those carried out with federal financial assistance; and those requiring a federal permit, license or approval (36 CFR 800.16(y)).

Point State Park For federal undertakings that involve Point State Park, CFR Part 800 requires the federal agency to consult with the SHPO; federally recognized Native American tribes that have a current and/or ancestral interest in the Point area; representatives of local governments; applicants for federal assistance, permits, licenses and other approvals; and “certain individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the undertaking” including the public (CFR Part 800). Federally

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 19

2.0 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK recognized tribes who have identified Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, as a current and ancestral area of interest include the Catawba Indian Nation, the Delaware Nation of Oklahoma, the Delaware Tribe of Indians, the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, and the Seneca- Cayuga Nation.

Examples of projects at Point State Park that must comply with Section 106 of the NHPA include: x a Park project requiring permitting by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; x Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) work on Interstate 279, which runs through Point State Park; x any park project that receives funding through the federal Land & Water Conservation Fund, which “provides matching grants to state and tribal governments for the acquisition and development of public parks and other outdoor recreation sites” (U.S. Department of the Interior 2018); and/or x any other federally funded activity. 2.3.2 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) requires that federal agencies and institutions receiving federal funds return Native American cultural items to lineal descendants, or if lineal descendants cannot be identified, culturally affiliated tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. Cultural items include human remains, funerary and sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. The law also outlines the process to be followed when NAGPRA cultural items are discovered on tribal or federal lands (NPS 2012).

Point State Park While Point State Park is on state land, NAGPRA provides a helpful reference for a consultation process regarding Native American cultural items.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 20

2.0 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

2.3.3 U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as Amended

Section 4(f) the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Act: refers to the original section within the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 which provide[s] for consideration of park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites during transportation project development. The Figure 16. The Portal Bridge carries law, now codified in 49 U.S.C. §303 and 23 U.S.C. §138, applies Interstate 279 over the Park (106 Group) only to the U.S. Department of Transportation and is implemented by the Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] and the Federal Transit Administration [FTA] through the regulation 23 CFR 774 (U.S. DOT 2018).

Section 4(f) properties include properties such as parks, recreation areas, and refuges, as well as cultural resources (referred to in this legislation as historic sites) that are of national, state, or local significance, and are eligible for listing in, or are listed in, the NRHP. The law prohibits the U.S. DOT from approving or funding transportation projects that require the “use” of land from any historic site, public park, recreation area, or wildlife refuge unless the following conditions have been met: 1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the land, and 2) the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from its use.

The exception is if the U.S. DOT determines that a transportation use of Section 4(f) property results in a de minimis impact, analysis of avoidance alternatives is not required and the Section 4(f) evaluation process is complete. A similar provision to Section 4(f) is also included in Title 23 U.S.C. § 138, which applies only to the Federal-Aid Highway Program.

Point State Park Compliance with Section 4(f) is the responsibility of U.S. DOT. This federal law is included here for reference because Interstate 279 runs through Point State Park, and therefore, it is important for park staff to be aware of the potential for federal transportation-related laws and projects that may concern historic properties at the park (Figure 16).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 21

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 3.1 Geography of the Area Point State Park is located within the City of Pittsburgh where the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers meet to form the Ohio River (Figure 17). The park is situated within the Unglaciated Appalachian Plateau. The Unglaciated Appalachian Plateau is a high plateau of relatively flat sedimentary rocks, primarily shale, sandstone, limestone, and coal of the Conemaugh Group. This bedrock, which begins 661.5 feet above mean Figure 17. Confluence of the Allegheny sea level (AMSL) and dates to the early to middle Paleozoic age, is and Monongahela rivers where they underlain by the Allegheny Group and overlain by Quaternary age meet to form the Ohio River at the Point (Schmitt 2007). outwash from the Wisconsin and Illinoisan glacial advances, alluvium, and historic fill (Vento 2007:4, 5; Cowin 1985:22; Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2008:8). Elevations in the area range from 1,400 feet AMSL to 710 feet AMSL for the pool elevation of the Allegheny River. The geography around and including the Point is characterized by both steep and broad terraced river valleys (Vento 2007:5). 3.1.1 Terraces at the Point Approximately 70,000 years ago, during the late Pleistocene, Late Wisconsin sediments were deposited along the Ohio and Allegheny river valleys. The deposits were up to 80 feet thick in certain parts of Pittsburgh (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2008:9). By 10,000 years ago, the glaciers were in full retreat, leading to the formation of massive rivers, which cut new channels into the Late Wisconsin deposits during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene. This resulted in the formation of the river channels, floodplains, and terraces we see today at and around the Point (A.D. Marble & Company 2006; Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003:7). The current Point landform consists of a higher, older Pleistocene terrace (T1), as well as a lower, more recent Holocene terrace (T0), in addition to fill along the banks and apex of the Point (discussed further below) (A.D. Marble & Company 2006:6) (Figure 18). Figure 18. Elevations of Terraces at the Point (106 Group) Terrace T1, which is above the lower floodplain zone, has a nominal modern elevation of 729 feet AMSL, and is “consistently encountered on the city side of the portal underpass and essentially occurs in the area of the mapped outline of Fort Pitt” (Vento 2007:3). Terrace T0, which is within the lower floodplain zone, has a nominal elevation of 722 feet

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 22

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

AMSL, and “is principally situated riverward of the portal underpass,” although it does extend along the north side of Point State Park into the City Side part of the park (Vento 2007:3) (Figure 19). The original surface elevation of T1 is 728 to 730 feet above sea level, while the original surface elevation of T0, which is still extant in several places, is 724 feet AMSL (A.D. Marble & Company 2009a, 2009b). The original surface of T1 may be extant in some City Side areas of the park.

The landscape has not remained static since the formations of the terraces at the Point. Periodic flooding and resultant cut-and-fill episodes have resulted in “interbedded floodplain silts, sand bands, and discontinuous wash lenses” at the Point (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003:7). Maximum water levels along the Ohio River and its major tributaries occur during the late winter and early spring (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2008:8-9). Notable flood years include 1763, 1888, 1936, 1962, 1967, 1972 and 1996. In 1763, the parade ground of Fort Pitt was submerged beneath over seven feet of water; the floodwater reached an elevation of 24 feet above the existing river pool elevation (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2008:9). Today, the river level is approximately 710.0 feet AMSL as a result of dams built along it during the twentieth century, compared to its eighteenth-century elevation of between 695.0 and 700.0 feet AMSL (A.D. Marble & Company 2006:6).

The various flood episodes through time have resulted in substantial deposits of soil at the Point; in some cases, this has helped to seal in archaeologically significant deposits. Prior to the construction of dams and other flood control measures, floods reached higher than the level of the T1 terrace; after the river level was raised and flooding was more controlled, flooding continued to occur on the T0 terrace but did not reach higher than the surface of the T1 terrace (Blades 2018:1). During the construction of Point State Park, most of the upper two to four feet of the T1 terrace were graded away; conversely, the surface of T0 remains intact in many places. With this surface soil, shallow deposits of Pre-Contact and Contact resources were removed as well. However, as discussed further in Appendix B, a plethora of archaeological resources are present on both terraces.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 23

) )

[ Figure $'0DUEOH $'0DUEOH 1:2,000 (Stotz 2005 (Stotz 2005

Lower Terrace Upper Terrace Manmade (Fill) 7 Point State Park Boundary 7 0 250 Meters 100 Feet Note: are approximate and have been Locations report by georeferencingmapped previous as and aerial maps historical well as figures photographs. Point State Park Cultural Resources Management Plan PennsylvaniaPittsburgh, Terraces

/201 /2 Group Group Map Producedby106 Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo,Aerogrid, and the GIS IGN, UserIGP, Community

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,AEX, Getmapping, USDA, USGS,

Allegheny River Allegheny Allegheny River Allegheny

Monongahela River Source: 106 Group; PA DCNR Source: 106 Group; PA

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

3.2 Pre-Contact Period 3.2.1 Paleo-Indian (9,500–8,000 BCE10) During the advent of the early Holocene 12,000 years ago, an increasingly warm and dry climate encouraged the final retreat of the glaciers. Land that had lain under thick glaciers gradually rebounded from the melting ice sheets and emerged from the glacial lakes, as the landscape was colonized by new plant and animal regimes. Bands of nomadic hunters moved into the territory in pursuit of large game such as mastodon, caribou, and Pleistocene bison, that followed the northward expansion of spruce forest, parkland, and prairie. Some researchers have suggested that the Paleo-Indian period may begin as early as 14,000 BCE (Adovasio 1993:207) (Figure 20). The lack of cultural material from this earlier period may be a result of glacial destruction or the burying of older sites.

Because these bands of big game hunters were relatively small and their Figure 20. Paleo-Indian diorama at the occupations short-term as they moved with the game, isolated artifacts, State Museum of Pennsylvania, Section of Archaeology (ExplorePAHistory.com 2018) kill and processing sites, camp sites, quarries, and expedient- manufacturing sites are the most likely material evidence for this time period, while long-term habitation sites are rare. Seventy-two percent of Paleo-Indian sites in Pennsylvania are located “less than 200 meters from second or higher-order streams” (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003:7). A Paleo-Indian site (36AL005) is located on Brunot Island, approximately two miles upriver from Point State Park (Cowin 1985:40). One of the earliest Paleo-Indian sites in the nation, Meadowcroft Rockshelter, is located approximately 40 miles southwest of Pittsburgh, in Washington County, Pennsylvania (Senator John Heinz History Center 2018a).

The most common type of diagnostic Paleo-Indian lithics are lanceolate projectile points with fluting/elongated channel scars. Other lithics often associated with Paleo-Indian sites include keeled unifacial tools, gravers, and blades. Cherts and jaspers are common material types. The glacial till mixed within stratified alluvial deposits along the Allegheny River yielded rocks and minerals from Canada that served as common raw materials for the production of lithics, including Onondaga and Delaware

10 Before Common Era (BCE); synonymous with BC.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 25

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND cherts, greenstone, and granites (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003:7). 3.2.2 Archaic (8,000–1,000 BCE11) With the beginning of warmer and drier temperatures and the accompanying glacial retreat during the Early Archaic (8,000–6,000 BCE), Pre-Contact peoples had access to a shifting spectrum of flora and fauna. This included a growing abundance of ungulates such as caribou and elk which replaced Pleistocene megafauna. During this time, people continued to live in small bands, but there was a general increase in upland encampments, in contrast to the preference for floodplain environments during the Paleo-Indian period. Tools characteristic of the Figure 21. Early Archaic points (Kirk Early Archaic include Kirk, Palmer, Big Sandy, and Thebes tool types, corner notched, Palmer, Charleston, and Kirk) (State Museum of and projectile point attributes such as basal grinding (Figure 21) Pennsylvania, Section of Archaeology (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003:9). 2018)

During the Middle Archaic (6,000–3,000 BCE), bands of hunters and gathers responded to the Late Holocene transition to a drier climate by specializing their resource procurement. Populations increased, leading to increased territorialism and larger, more sedentary settlements (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003:9-10). As settlements grew larger during the Late Archaic (3,000–1,000 BCE), long-distance interaction and trade among settlements increased. Highly valued materials such as copper, marine shell, and quality chert were traded over vast distances. Settlements were common along riverways, which served as important transportation routes. Late Archaic peoples continued to specialize their subsistence practices and utilize diverse resources. Encampments were common in both uplands and major riverine areas (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003:10). In 2007, a Late Archaic projectile point was found on the Great Lawn at Point State Park during construction activity (A.D. Marble & Company 2009a:34). 3.2.3 Woodland (1,000 BCE–1550 CE) During the Early Woodland (1,000–100 BCE) and Middle Woodland (100 BCE–1000 CE), more sedentary settlements allowed for the production of ceramics and an intensification in cultivation of food- bearing plants such as squash, pumpkins, gourds, and corn. The Late Woodland (1,000–1550 CE) brought an increasing reliance on domesticated plants, as well as continued use of upland sites (Seeman

11 Common Era (CE); synonymous with AD.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 26

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

1979; Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003:10). The bow and arrow became a favored hunting tool and ceramic production became more diversified (PHMC 2018b). 3.2.4 Monongahela Culture (1050–1630 CE) The Monongahela Culture, which arose during the Late Woodland, is characterized by large sedentary circular villages that practiced maize agriculture and the production of specific ceramic designs (Figure 22). Monongahela sites are found in southwest Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, northeastern West Virginia, and western Maryland during the late prehistoric and proto-historic periods. By the time Europeans arrived in southwestern Pennsylvania, it appears that members of the Monongahela Culture had been dispersed by population shifts, disease, and warfare. During this time, the Delaware and Shawnee moved into the Forks Upper Ohio River Valley, which the Iroquois had claimed, to escape European encroachment (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003:10; Maslowski 2017). Figure 22. Artist’s reconstruction of a Monongahela Culture site (Foley Farm 3.3 Contact Period (1630–1783 CE) Site) (PHMC 2018b) The Contact Period refers to a period of cultural transition characterized by initial interactions between Native Americans and Europeans (PHMC 2018b). In southwestern Pennsylvania, this began with the arrival of the French and British in the Ohio River Valley, first for trade, and then increasingly for warfare as each European nation vied for control of an area that had been Native American homeland. At first, trade proved an important path for the solidification of alliances between European and Native American powers, but gradually, the threat of France’s growing chain of forts linking their land in Canada to the Louisiana Territory spurred Great Britain to action.

In 1681, the colony of Pennsylvania was founded as a refuge for Quakers at the request of William Penn, a Quaker leader. The colony was named in honor of Penn’s father, who had previously lent King Charles II money which was repaid by the land grant for the colony. Although they had been granted the land by the King, Penn and his heirs proceeded to purchase the land in Pennsylvania from the local tribes in a series of acquisitions between 1683 and the 1760s (PHMC 2015; Historical Society of Pennsylvania 2013). With each land purchase, the border of Pennsylvania came increasingly close to the Point, a heavily contested location.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 27

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

3.3.1 French and Indian War (1754–1763) During this time, Tanacharison (Half King), a Native American leader at Logstown, located approximately 20 miles downstream from the Point, saw an opportunity to cement an alliance with the British, and invited them to construct a stronghold at the Forks of the Ohio. In spring of 1754, a group of Virginia colonists led by Captain William Trent built a small fort named Fort Prince George, consisting of a trade storehouse and stockade, at the Point. The location had been identified by 21-year- old George Washington, a major in the Virginia militia, as an optimum spot for the colony to affirm Britain’s claim to the much-contested Forks of the Ohio. However, within hours of the fort’s completion, French forces arrived and compelled the Virginians to surrender. The French Figure 23. Model of Fort Duquesne at the Fort Pitt Museum (Hammill 2011) proceeded to construct their own fort on the lower (T0) terrace at the Point, which they named Fort Duquesne in honor of Marquis Duquesne, governor-general of New France (Alberts 1980; Daughters of the American Revolution 1899; A.D. Marble & Company 2006:6) (Figure 23).

Fort Duquesne was approximately 150 square feet, constructed of timber salvaged from Fort Prince George and harvested from the surrounding woods. Soon, a cluster of houses, cabins, and other structures grew up around the fort, housing Native Americans and French traders and soldiers (Alberts 1980:13; A.D. Marble & Company 2009a:14). A burial ground was sited approximately 250 feet to the east of the fort (Hutchins 1759).

Over the next few years, as tensions grew between France, England, and the Native American tribes in the region, English forces attempted again and again to take back the Point (among other locations along the Colonies’ western border), to which they had so briefly laid claim, from the French. The British forces suffered several significant defeats in the process. This included the Battle of the Monongahela in 1755, in which the majority of General Edward Braddock’s forces and Braddock himself were massacred prior to reaching the Point in an attempt to take Fort Duquesne. In the aftermath of Braddock’s defeat, British colonists found themselves the victim of raids led by French and Native American forces from Fort Duquesne (A.D. Marble & Company 2009a:16). Similarly, British troops led by Major James Grant were massacred on what later became known as Grant’s Hill in the Battle of Fort Duquesne in

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 28

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

September 1758 in another attempt to seize the Point (Union Savings Bank 1939:5) (Figure 24).

Finally, in November 1758, General John Forbes, despite ailing health, led a successful advance of 6,000 soldiers on Fort Duquesne (Figure 25). The French, after determining that the battle could not be won, burned the fort and fled prior to the arrival of Forbes’ forces. Under Colonel Hugh Mercer, construction began on a small, temporary fort, referred to as Mercer’s Fort, and shortly after, construction commenced under General John Stanwix on what was to be Britain’s largest fort in North

America. The fort was named Fort Pitt by General Forbes in honor of Figure 24. Pittsburgh in 1758 (University Secretary of State for War William Pitt (Alberts 1980; Daughters of the of Pittsburgh 2018a) American Revolution 1899). A.D. Marble & Company (2006) note that the majority of Fort Pitt was constructed on the higher (T1) terrace, while portions of two of its bastions were on the lower (T0) terrace (A.D. Marble & Company 2006:6).

In addition to the advent of Fort Pitt on the Point, a corollary town of traders and merchants arose alongside the military stronghold. Located on approximately 4.8 acres between the fort and the Allegheny River was what came to be known as Lower Town, which was protected by the fort’s fortified embankment and a ditch known as the Isthmus (Cowin 1985:64). By 1761, Lower Town contained 58 houses, and an additional 48 houses were located in Upper Town, which was on the Monongahela side above the fort (Cowin 1985:69). Floods the following two springs, in 1762 and 1763, severely damaged the Ohio Bastion and swept away several traders’ cabins, but the presence of Lower Town persisted (Cowin 1985:60; 117).

The French and Indian War, of which the battle for the Forks of the Ohio was an important part, raged from 1754 to 1763, although the fighting Figure 25. General John Forbes was largely ended in North America by 1760. The conflict continued (Alchetron 2017) until 1763 in the European theater as part of the Seven Years’ War, which also involved the Austrian-led Holy Roman Empire, the Russian Empire, Spain, Germany, and Sweden. The signing of the Treaty of Paris on February 10, 1763, officially marked the conclusion of the French and Indian War. On October 7, 1763, King George III issued the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which prohibited settlement west of a line drawn along the Appalachians, near the Eastern Continental Divide. Great Britain had made several significant land gains from the French,

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 29

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND including the Forks of the Ohio, but its victory in North America would prove short-lived, as the Colonies, which had fought on behalf of the Crown, began to question its rule.12 Similarly, efforts to keep peace with the tribes by the reserving of land for Native Americans in the Royal Proclamation were destined to fail as Great Britain’s power over the Colonies, and the limiting of their westward expansion, dwindled. 3.3.2 Pontiac’s War (1763-1766) Although the Treaty of Paris brokered peace between France and Great Britain, the French’s Native American allies were far from satisfied with Figure 26. Guyasuta (Wikimedia the war’s conclusion, especially as encroachment on their land Commons 2018) accelerated and Great Britain no longer found it necessary to attempt to maintain their favor. Beginning in 1763, Odawa leader Obwandiyag (Pontiac) and Seneca leader Guyasuta, as well as other Native American leaders and warriors, launched a series of attacks on British soldiers and colonists (Figure 26). A two-month siege on Fort Pitt ended with a victory by Colonel Henry Bouquet and his troops at the Battle of Bushy Run approximately 20 miles east of Pittsburgh, which allowed Colonel Bouquet to continue on to Fort Pitt to relieve the beleaguered garrison (Senator John Heinz History Center 2018b) (Figure 27).

Shortly before the siege on Fort Pitt commenced, Lower Town was dismantled and its wood stored within the fort, where its residents took Figure 27. Colonel Henry Bouquet shelter as well. Following Colonel Bouquet’s victory at Bushy Run, he (Fort Pitt Society of the Daughters of ordered the construction of three redoubts to bolster defenses along the the American Revolution 2018) western walls that had been damaged by recent floods; one of these, the Fort Pitt Block House, still remains (Cowin 1985:69) (Figure 28). Despite the deconstruction of Lower Town, the British were determined to maintain their presence at the Point. By 1764, the year after the siege on Fort Pitt, the merchant’s residences at Lower Town had been reconstructed. In the midst of Native American efforts to drive out the British, the nascent town of Pittsburgh was slowly coalescing around Fort Pitt. Also in 1764, Colonel John Campbell platted the Plan of Pittsburgh in an effort to introduce order to the arrangements of

Figure 28. Fort Pitt Block House (Courtesy of Kelly Linn) 12 The Fort Pitt Museum at Point State Park, which is operated by the Senator John Heinz History Center under contract with the PHMC, interprets the French and Indian War, Pontiac’s War, and the Revolutionary War. This era is the basis of the National Historic Landmark designation for the Forks of the Ohio Historic District.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 30

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND buildings, which were continuing to crop up alongside the fort (Cowin 1985:70; 77). 3.3.3 American Revolution (1765-1783) Tensions between Great Britain and its Thirteen Colonies grew in the aftermath of the French and Indian War, as Great Britain imposed direct taxes through the Stamp Act to fund British troops in North America without the colonists’ consent. This led to the colonial slogan “No taxation without representation.” Despite the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766, additional taxes and legislation unfavorable to the Colonies followed.

During this time, the first Treaty of Fort Stanwix was signed in New York in 1768 between Great Britain and the Six Nations of the Iroquois. The treaty extended the line established in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 further west, near Fort Pitt and along the Ohio River first to the Figure 29. Colonel George Kanawha River, and then with additional pressure from land speculators, Washington, 1772 (Mount Vernon to the Tennessee River. It was not until 1773 that the Purchase Line was Ladies Association 2018) fixed between Pennsylvania and the Six Nations, and not until 1774, following Dunmore’s War, that other tribal nations in the Ohio Valley, including the Shawnees, were forced to recognize the Ohio River boundary. The Purchase Line included Fort Pitt within Pennsylvania (Grymes 2017; Sullivan 2013; NPS 2015).

In 1772, the British abandoned Fort Pitt and in 1774, Dr. James Connolly and the Virginia militia he commanded under the direction of Lord Dunmore, Royal Governor of Virginia, took possession of Fort Pitt and renamed it Fort Dunmore in an effort to settle a boundary dispute between the Virginia and Pennsylvania colonies (Burton 1909:72; Cowin 1985:71-72; Senator John Heinz History Center 2018b; Daughters of the American Revolution 1899). The dispute would not be settled until 1785, when Pennsylvania’s western border was established on land that included the Point (Daughters of the American Revolution 1899:33).

Throughout this time, settlement at Pittsburgh slowly but surely progressed. Though Colonel George Washington observed “just 20 log houses, inhabited by Indian traders,” along the Monongahela during an October 1770 visit, there were also several commercial establishments (Figure 29). This included the trading firm of Baynton, Wharton, and Morgan at Ferry and Water Streets, the trading firm of Richard and

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 31

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

William Butler on the south side of Penn Avenue and the east side of Marbury Street, and Samuel Semple’s tavern at the corner of Water and Ferry Streets, in the former home of Colonel and Indian Agent Colonel George Morgan (Cowin 1985:79) (Figure 30).

In 1774, following various forms of protest including the destruction of a shipment of tea in Boston Harbor known as the Boston Tea Party, twelve of the colonies formed a Continental Congress in an effort to consolidate and assert their power. Battles began between colonial militia forces and the British the following year. Also in 1775, Captain John Neville took possession of Fort Dunmore, which had been abandoned by Dr. Figure 30. Colonel George Morgan Connolly, and restored the fort’s name to Fort Pitt. In 1776, George (Blunk 2006) Washington was placed in command of the Continental Army, and the Continental Congress issued the Declaration of Independence shortly after, on July 4. The following year, in June 1777, American Brigadier General Edward Hand took over command of Fort Pitt from Captain Neville. Although the fort managed to avoid direct battle during the Revolutionary War, it served as an armory and staging ground for attacks against Indians. The year 1778 saw the signing of the first written treaty between the United States and a Native American tribe in the form of the Treaty of Fort Pitt, a treaty of alliance between the United States and the Delaware (Lenape) (Senator John Heinz History Center 2018b; Downes 1940:216). Over the next few years, General McIntosh succeeded General Hand at Fort Pitt in 1778, and was in turn succeeded by General William Irvine in 1781 (Daughters of the American Revolution 1899).

A major expedition against the Seneca tribe, led by General Daniel Brodhead IV, left from Fort Pitt one year after the signing of the 1778 treaty at the fort. General Brodhead was a military and political leader during and after the Revolutionary War who was in command of several forts, including Fort Pitt. Brodhead led several raids from his headquarters at Fort Pitt against Native American tribes who were resisting the encroachment of American settlers. In 1779, he led 605 men from Fort Pitt to the headwaters of the Allegheny River in New York, where he decimated the villages of the Seneca living there. Brodhead received acknowledgement from General George Washington and Congress for this raid, a military venture that was a success for the newly formed United States but devastating to the Seneca (Stone 1924). Conflict between the British and Americans continued in North America

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 32

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND during this time, ending with the Treaty of Paris in 1783, in which Great Britain recognized the United States’ sovereignty.

In 1784, the second Treaty of Fort Stanwix was signed, this time between the United States and the Six Nations of Iroquois. In part, this treaty was intended to establish peace between the United States and the Mohawk, Onondaga, Cayuga and Seneca, who had sided with the British during the Revolutionary War. This treaty was also the mechanism by which the United States formally acquired the Indian lands that they had won from the British following the Revolutionary War. In the treaty, the Iroquois Confederacy ceded all its claims to the Ohio Country. When tribes such as the Shawnee, Mingo, and Delaware, who had not been party to the treaty, failed to accept its authority, the United States embarked on a series of treaties with those tribes to solidify its holdings in the Ohio Country (Grymes 2017; Ohio History Central 2018). 3.4 Post-Contact Period (1784–Present) 3.4.1 American Settlement (1784–1854) In 1784, the town of Pittsburgh was surveyed and laid out by George Woods and Thomas Vickroy, who were commissioned by John Penn and John Penn, Jr. The Campbell plan layout of 1764 was retained around Market Street to preserve the buildings already constructed there (Cowin 1985:79, 81). In 1785, the Fort Pitt tract, which had been subdivided into 32 lots, was purchased by two former officers of the fort, Major Isaac Craig and Colonel Stephen Bayard, though garrisons remained at the fort Figure 31. Pittsburgh in 1790 until 1792 (Stotz 1966; Cowin 1985:72). By 1786, “Pittsburgh had 36 (University of Pittsburgh 2018a) log houses, one stone house, one frame house, five small mercantile establishments, and the Pittsburgh Academy” (Cowin 1985:82). Allegheny County was established in 1788 and Pittsburgh was named the county seat (Cowin 1985:82) (Figure 31).

Craig, Bayard, and three other investors formed the Turnbull, Marmie and Company mercantile venture, and by 1792, began selling the materials that comprised Fort Pitt, which included over a million bricks and hundreds of timbers (Stotz 1966). According to Vera Cowin, “by late in the century, nothing remained above ground except Bouquet's Redoubt, the stone magazine, and mounds of dirt which marked the lines of the walls” (Cowin 1985:82) (Figure 32). In 1792, as Fort Pitt was Figure 32. Pittsburgh in 1797 by dismantled to construct the rising city of Pittsburgh, Fort LaFayette was Joseph Warin (New York Public

Library 2018)

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 33

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND built at the present-day intersection of Penn Avenue and Ninth Street under the direction of Major Isaac Craig, following President George Washington’s orders, to serve as a defense amidst ongoing hostilities with the Native Americans. Fort LaFayette was abandoned in 1814 following the War of 1812 (Cowin 1985:72; Senator John Heinz History Center 2018b; Daughters of the American Revolution 1899; Richter 2001).

Although a few commercial ventures centered around trading had existed at the Point since the 1750s, it was not until in 1784, when Pittsburgh was platted for the second time, that commercial and residential development really began to flourish. One of the earliest commercial ventures during this new phase of development at the Point was the Point Brewery, constructed adjacent to the former location of Fort Duquesne in 1795 (Figure 33). Nine new states were established between 1800 and 1840, with Pittsburgh serving as both a stopping point and settling point for pioneers heading west, affirming its role as the Gateway to the West. Between October 1785 and December 1788 alone, “an estimated 16,200 immigrants came through Pittsburgh where they acquired supplies” (Cowin 1985:83). Pittsburgh soon became a manufacturing center, as the Figure 33. Map of Pittsburgh, 1795 Point filled up with carpenters, distillers, tailors, metalsmiths, lumber (Daughters of the American yards, and boat builders (Cowin 1985:83). As part of this development, a Revolution 1899) layer of fill was placed on the south bank of the Point along the Monongahela, circa 1790-1820, to expand and stabilize the Point (A.D. Marble & Company 2009a:83-84).

Following the American Revolution, the town of Pittsburgh continued to grow in the shadow of Fort Pitt, and the need for the redoubts and the fort itself became less and less necessary. By 1785, when Fort Pitt was officially sold to Alexander Ross and Stephen Bayard, only two of the redoubts were still standing. The fate of the others is not known but it is speculated that they were used for building materials, much like Fort Pitt was dismantled for the salvage of bricks, stones, and timbers which were immediately recycled into new dwellings for the expanding city.

The Fort Pitt Block House remained intact but was annexed to a larger dwelling house in 1785 and used as a residence for two years by Isaac Craig. Craig was Deputy Quartermaster General and military storekeeper of Pittsburgh in 1791, led federal troops during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, and helped prepare munitions during the War of 1812. For the 18

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 34

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND years following Craig’s initial occupation, the Block House changed ownership several times. It was eventually purchased, along with the majority of the Point, in 1805 by James O’Hara, 6th Quartermaster General for the U.S. Army. By 1816, the Block House and the annexed structure (built by Craig) were occupied by George Shiras, then owner of the Point Brewery, and two of his brewmasters (Linn 2010).

By 1800, Allegheny County had a population of 15,000, and Pittsburgh was its leading town (Alberts 1980:29-30). Over the following decades, development continued on the Point and neighboring areas, but remnants of the forts persisted. In 1808, Zadok Cramer, a young entrepreneur who Figure 34. Pittsburgh in 1817 (Lane had come to town in 1800, wrote that “the ditch and mound [of Fort Pitt], 2008) with its salient angles and bastions, are still to be seen” despite the boat yards, taverns, foundries, and commercial and residential buildings that were filling in the landscape (Hastings, Etheridge and Bliss 1809:195). In 1816, Pittsburgh was incorporated as a city, and even a decade later, the earthen embankments of Fort Pitt were still visible on the landscape, homes and buildings perched atop them (Figure 34, Figure 35).

In 1830, leveling of the last above-ground vestiges of Fort Pitt, including its ramparts and ditches, was undertaken in order to facilitate further development at the Point (Alberts 1980:32). A major flood occurred on the Point in 1832, bringing further disruption to its native soils, and on Figure 35. Pittsburgh in 1826; the May 26, 1836, the City passed an ordinance authorizing the removal of earthen embankments of Fort Pitt are visible beneath the buildings (Collot 10 feet from Grant’s Hill, known at that time as the “Hump.” Seven feet 2018) were removed in 1849, with much of the fill being used to level the adjacent Smithfield Street (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 26 September 1936). Although the Point managed to escape the Great Fire of 1845, which consumed 982 buildings to the east, 10 steamboats were destroyed in a fire at the Monongahela Wharf in 1859 (Cowin 1985:119).

In 1848, installation of an underground sewer system began in Pittsburgh. Prior to this, sewage was conveyed in above-ground wood or brick lines. Between 1848 and 1868, “sewers were installed, first in the commercial and older sections of the city and then expanding, until a system of approximately five miles of sewers was in place. Sewers were generally available, but most city residents still depended on cesspool and privy vaults for waste disposal” (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003:26). At the Point, as with the rest of the city, sewers were installed along street and road right-of-ways (Bliss 1944).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 35

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

3.4.2 Industrial Era (1855–1950) Although settlement and commercial and industrial development continued at the Point for centuries, the primacy of industry commenced in 1854 with the construction of the Pennsylvania Railroad (PRR)’s Duquesne Freight Depot on the Point, at the end of Liberty Avenue (Cowin 1985:116) (Figure 36). During the construction of the PRR freight depot, workmen encountered a powder magazine and a dozen cannonballs from Fort Pitt (Bliss 1944:74-75). Based on historical maps, Figure 36. Pittsburgh in 1859, after the completion of the Duquesne Freight it appears that the banks on either side of the Point were expanded with Depot (Lane 2008) the placement of additional fill around this time (ESRI 2018).

By 1850, Pittsburgh was a leading industrial center, with booming coal, iron, steel, boat-building, and glass industries. Additional major flooding occurred in 1852, 1861, and 1865, but progress continued (Cowin 1985:119). The years 1874 and 1876 saw the construction of the covered wooden Union Bridge, later replaced by the Manchester Bridge, across the Allegheny, and the steel suspension Point Bridge across the Monongahela (Alberts 1980:33) (Figure 37). Both bridges were anchored into several feet of fill at the apex of the Point. Figure 37. Union Bridge, 1902 (Carnegie Museum of Art 2018) The Point’s primarily industrial character was altered somewhat, at least on the northern side, when the Western Pennsylvania Exposition Society decided to build a new Exposition Hall on the Allegheny River side of the Point in 1889 over the fill along the shoreline, after the original Exposition Hall burned on the north shore of the Allegheny River. The Exposition Hall, along with a Music Hall and Machinery Hall, were completed in 1901 (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003:30; University of Pittsburgh 2018b) (Figure 38). Also during this time, in 1894, the Block House, which had been leased out by the Schenley Figure 38. Exposition Hall, 1943 family as a dwelling, was given to the Pittsburgh Daughters of the (University of Pittsburgh 2018b) American Revolution by Mary Schenley, granddaughter of General James O’Hara and an honorary member of the organization (Daughters of the American Revolution 1899) (Figure 39). The Daughters of the American Revolution opened the Block House to the public as a museum on July 15 of the following year, and in 1905, they constructed a Caretaker’s House adjacent to the Block House (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:10).

The earliest lock and dam facility in the Pittsburgh area was the Ohio River Lock and Dam No. 1 at Davis Island in 1885, followed by Figure 39. Block House c. 1900 (Fort

Pitt Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution 2018). Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 36

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Allegheny River Lock and Dam No. 1 in 1902, and the Monongahela Lock and Dam No. 1 in 1915 (Figure 40). Over the next three decades, the Ohio River No. 1 and Allegheny River Lock and Dam No. 1 were replaced by the Allegheny River Lock and Dam No. 2 and Emsworth Locks and Dam. The overall effect from the locks and dams system raised the river levels at the Point from 700 feet to 710 feet by the first part of the twentieth century (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2018; Blackley 2017).

As the level of the Ohio River was being raised, the ground level of the Point was being raised as well. In the first few years of the twentieth century, a debate broke out within Pittsburgh on whether or not to level Figure 40. Davis Island Lock and the remaining “Hump” of Grant’s Hill. Those in favor argued it would Dam No. 1 (Library of Congress circa 1969) remove an obstacle to progress in development, while those opposed felt the money to carry out the project would be ill-spent and would damage buildings already established on the hill. The PRR, which was in favor of the levelling, proposed to use fill from Grant’s Hill in the construction of an elevated rail line along the Allegheny Wharf. During the debate, the Daughters of the American Revolution, who were strongly opposed to the proposed purchase (and demolition) of the Fort Pitt Block House to make way for construction PRR’s elevated line, sought legal counsel in the matter (Pittsburgh Press, 16 April 1904; PHMC 2003:10; Linn Figure 41. Block House in 1907, with 2010:2). surroundings razed to make way for the railroad (Fort Pitt Society of the By 1907, several blocks of buildings around the Block House had been Daughters of the American cleared for PRR lines, and in 1911, the final cut of Grant’s Hill was Revolution) made, removing approximately 15 feet from its elevation (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 26 September 1936; Union Savings Bank 1939:27) (Figure 41). While it did not end up obtaining the Block House, PRR did ultimately use “10 to 15 feet of fill materials from ‘The Hump’ excavation on Grant Street to cover their property at the Point ... as a flood control measure” (Alberts 1980:33; Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003:27). By 1915, the Block House and its immediate surrounds were barely visible beneath the retaining walls that held back the fill that created the elevated freight yards of the PRR (Figure 42). Figure 42. Block House (left) and The Point underwent yet another major construction episode in 1911– Caretaker’s House (right) in 1915. The 1915 when the Manchester Bridge was built to replace the Union Bridge Block House roof is just visible above the elevated freight yards surrounding across the Allegheny River (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003) it (University of Pittsburgh 2018b). (Figure 43). The following year, the Exposition Park closed amidst a

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 37

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND widespread polio epidemic (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003:25). Part of the Exposition Park was initially used as an indoor ice skating rink, but in time the buildings were eventually repurposed by the City for use as an auto pound, in step with the decidedly industrial character that had come to characterize the Point (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003). Throughout the increasing gains made by industry at the Point, which brought with it “traffic congestion and urban blight,” the

Daughters of the American Revolution continued to operate the Block Figure 43. Manchester Bridge, 1918 House as a museum (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR (University of Pittsburgh 2018b) 2015]:4; Linn 2010). A small concession to culture and recreation could also be found at a modest “parklet” perched at the tip of the Point, which offered visitors benches from which to survey the changing landscape around them (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003) (Figure 44).

Over the next three decades, the Point continued to exhibit a strong industrial character, although a movement to reclaim the Point from the rails and foundries that had overtaken the Gateway to the West was slowly but surely gaining momentum. As early as 1836, when development on the Point was still a mixture of commercial and residential buildings, Pittsburgh Mayor Jonas R. McClintock suggested that a historic park be constructed at the Point in his inaugural address (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:4). Nearly a century later, landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. “urged Figure 44. Parklet at Point, 1932 Pittsburgh ‘to rise to its opportunity and nobly form the Point into a great (University of Pittsburgh 2018b) monument’” (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:4).

Beginning in the 1930s, these early calls for a change to the City’s most notable landform gained new momentum. In 1930, Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce president James Rae created a Special Activities Committee for riverfront development as a “first step toward downtown beautification” (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:4). That same year, “U.S. Senator David Reed introduced a bill in Congress for a memorial park at the Point to honor George Rogers Clark, explorer and Revolutionary War leader” (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:4). In 1935, the Citizens Committee on the City Plan suggested that the Point Bridge be removed as part of a transportation plan, and an urban park be developed on the Point centered around the Block House (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:4).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 38

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

In 1936, the same year as the devastating St. Patrick’s Day flood, the City submitted a proposal to the U.S. Department of the Interior for the designation of Fort Pitt as a national park, and began research on the land that comprised the Point to determine the possible locations of remnants of the historic forts (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003:11; Bliss 1944:52) (Figure 45). The idea of a national historic park garnered increasing support, with the Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania13 and the Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce supporting the idea of a national park with reconstructed forts (Park Management Foundation Figure 45. Flood Cleanup near Exposition Document [DCNR 2015]:5). In 1938, the chairman of the City Planning Hall, 1936 (Burton 2018) Commission proposed the relocation of the Manchester and Point bridges away from the apex of the Point and the construction of a small museum with historical exhibits and a model of the historic forts (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:5).

In 1938, the NPS was authorized to investigate the Point’s potential for designation as a national historic park by the Secretary of the Interior. To support data gathering, the Point Park Commission was created by the Pittsburgh Regional Planning Association and the Pittsburgh City Council (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:5). Robert Moses, a highly skilled and influential parks commissioner from New York City who generated both acclaim and controversy with his decisions, was hired to create a plan to redevelop the Point. Moses recommended the rerouting of traffic, the preservation of the Block House, and the construction of a landscaped park (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:5) (Figure 46). Figure 46. Robert Moses’ Plan for the Point, 1939 (Burton 2018)

The proposal to move forward with the designation of the Point as a national historic park was approved and a Works Progress Administration archaeological project was initiated in an attempt to confirm the existence and location of the remnants of the historic forts in 1942 (Figure 47). Under Wesley Bliss, the existence of the forts was established, but the effort to establish a national historic park encountered difficulties with land acquisition and traffic. The final blow came when President Franklin D. Roosevelt canceled all work related to national historic sites to devote national resources to World War II, and the proposal to designate Point as a national park was shelved indefinitely (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003). Figure 47. Archaeological Test Pit for Fort Duquesne at Water St. and Duquesne Way (Bliss 1944)

13 Now the Senator John Heinz History Center.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 39

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Despite the failure to designate a national historic park at the Point, progress on the park concept moved forward along other channels. In 1943, the Allegheny Conference on Community Development (ACCD) was established. Leaders in business, public administration, and education came together to “develop a unified plan for the region, become the central coordinating agency, and provide the leadership to implement the plan. One of their top priorities was the development of Figure 48. Point, Looking Northeast, the Point” (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:5) 1943 (University of Pittsburgh 2018b) (Figure 48). 3.4.3 Point State Park (1945 - Present) Point State Park was created with the passage of the Urban Redevelopment Law (P.L. 991, No. 385) on May 24, 1945. The goal of the Urban Redevelopment Law was to “promote elimination of blighted areas through acquisition, planning, and redevelopment” (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:19). The law “allowed communities to establish redevelopment authorities with powers to issue tax-exempt revenue bonds and condemn, acquire and clear blighted properties through eminent domain, as well as buy, sell, lease, and manage properties and conduct studies for the planning and redevelopment of these areas for public use and the benefit of the community. The law also provided loans and grants to the communities to cover the costs of acquiring and clearing properties” (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:5).

Thirty-six acres were designated for redevelopment as the Point Park Project historic park. Landscape architect Ralph E. Griswold and architect and historian Charles M. Stotz were hired by the Pittsburgh Regional Planning Association in the summer of 1945 to develop a plan for the park. Also in the mid-1940s, Edgar J. Kaufmann, a department store owner and member of the ACCD, commissioned Frank Lloyd Wright to draft a design for a civic center at the Point. Wright’s 1947 plan for a massive circular civic center encircled by a spiraling road, and his revised design of a monolithic tower adjoining bridges over the Monongahela and Allegheny rivers, while visually arresting, were not embraced by Pittsburgh officials. Griswold and Stotz’s plan, which was ultimately implemented, “was different from numerous other plans for the Point in that it addressed all three major factors needed to develop the park: the rivers, the fort sites, and the highways, with a primary focus on

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 40

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND the geographic and historic significance of the site” (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:5).

The creation, design, and construction of Point State Park was an integral part of the Pittsburgh Renaissance, an urban renewal effort that transformed the Point and the surrounding area from a place of languishing industry and traffic congestion to a celebration of Pittsburgh’s unique heritage and location at the forks of the three rivers. Ricketts et al. (2012) describes the initiation of the Pittsburgh Renaissance as follows: After decades of studies, surveys, plans, and proposals that were meant to remedy the problems facing the twentieth century city of Pittsburgh—such as infamous pollution, frequent flooding, congested traffic, and blighted neighborhoods—but that were never realized, the transformation known as the Pittsburgh Renaissance finally began in the Post-World War II era. In 1945, an imposing group of local leaders, many of whom were prominent businessmen, accomplished an urban renewal initiative that reshaped the city and, in particular, reshaped the 59 acres at the Point (Ricketts et al. 2012:8-2).

In October 1945, Governor Edward Martin and Attorney General James H. Duff approved the creation of the park, and $4 million was authorized by the state legislature for purchase of the land and creation of the state park. The Commonwealth began acquiring properties on the Point in 1946, and by 1949 had purchased the last parcel of land needed for the park (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:5-6). The following year, demolition of the buildings and structures within the boundaries of the proposed park began, and the fill that covered the Point Figure 49. Demolition at the Point Begins, 1950 (University of Pittsburgh was largely removed, with some retained for landscaping at the park 2018b) (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003:18) (Figure 49). According to Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. (2003): Subgrading of the Point was ‘based on a uniform 6 inch depth below finished grade for proposed surface construction, planted areas and lawns.’ All the streets were removed and the utilities abandoned.14 A central drain for the park with catch basins and

14 Although research did not indicate whether the abandoned utilities at the Point were removed at this time, it is likely that the utilities were left in place. In the absence of state or local ordinances requiring otherwise, abandoned utilities are usually left in place for cost savings (Morehead and Field 2014). Currently,

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 41

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

inlets slopes down to the Point and through the site of Fort Duquesne ... Highway construction over Point State Park destroyed the center of Fort Pitt including nearly all of the parade ground, two wells, the west ravelin, curtains, and sections of the bastions (Point Park Commission 1952; Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003:27).

On April 29, 1953, the Point Park Committee of the ACCD approved a Statement of Basic Policy for Point State Park. It “stated that only historic events and personalities that symbolize the significance of the frontier period of the Point in American history prior to 1800 shall be portrayed and depicted” (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:19). The policy also stated that “no private memorials Figure 50. Point in 1955 (University of constituting of tributes to individuals, groups, or organizations shall be Pittsburgh 2018b) erected in the Park” (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:19). The Commonwealth later adopted the resolution. The groundbreaking for the park began that same year (Figure 50).

To ensure that the very resources that had spurred the idea of the park were not lost in its construction, archaeologist James L. Swauger of the Carnegie Museum, at his own prompting, was contracted by the Department of Forests and Waters (the precursor to the DCNR) to conduct salvage archaeology at the site of Fort Pitt with funding from the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation (Alberts 1980; Bliss 1944:6-7). Swauger went on to conduct four seasons of excavations at the site (1953, 1958, 1962, and 1964), along with Richard Lang and Albert M. Hayes. Initial agreements specified that the Department of Forest and Waters and Pittsburgh City Parks would operate and maintain the park with Commonwealth funds (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:25). In 1960, the Forks of the Ohio complex of resources was designated an NHL as part of the Pittsburgh Renaissance (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:19; Ricketts et al. 2012:7-7). The following year, PennDOT began construction of the interstate highways and the Portal Bridge that would carry them across Figure 51. Portal Bridge Under the park (Figure 51). Construction, 1961 (Pittsburgh Press)

The Forks of the Ohio NHL was listed as a historic district in the NRHP with the latter’s creation in 1966. By 1967, the Fort Pitt Museum

PennDOT allows pipelines meeting certain requirements to be retired in place (PennDOT 2018b:1-21).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 42

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND building15; the Portal Bridge, Pedestrian Bridge, and Reflecting Pool; and the portal plaza area were completed (Ricketts et al. 2012). The Portal Bridge was designed by Pittsburgh architect Charles Morse Stotz in consultation with Gordon Bunshaft of the New York office of Skidmore Owings & Merrill, and Eugene Freyssinet, a structural engineer from France (Ricketts 2012:7-8). The Fort Pitt Museum was designed by Stotz with an “unobtrusive profile [...] nestle[d] between the earthworks of the Portal Bridge that support the Fort Pitt Bridge ramps and the angular outline of the reconstructed Monongahela Bastion” (Ricketts et al. 2012:7-8). The museum and the Fort Duquesne Bridge, which replaced the Point Bridge that had previously been removed from the Point, both opened in 1969. The following year, in 1970, the Manchester Bridge was demolished. That same year, the Department of Forests and Waters became the Department of Environmental Resources. A flood at the Point in 1972 due to Hurricane Agnes prompted modifications of the original construction plans for park, resulting in the elevation of the Fountain and pump house above Pittsburgh Flood Stage levels. Point State Park was officially dedicated by the Commonwealth on August 4, 1974 (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:14, 6).

In 1983, an agreement was made with the City of Pittsburgh to provide all maintenance and administer the park on a reimbursable basis. The following year, Fort Pitt Museum Associates were granted the right to regulate concessions within the museum and sponsor a vendor on park grounds near the museum. In 1984, special provisions were established relating to memorials, the Portal Arch Bridge, the Reflecting Pool (Decorative Pools), and recreational equipment at Point State Park. These were revised in 2002, including the addition of an exception to the prohibition of recreational equipment at the park (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]: 19, 20, 25).

Between 1999 and 2003, a process was carried out to develop a unified plan for the park. The Point State Park Planning Committee was formed, comprised of representatives throughout the City, and meetings were convened to invite stakeholder input. As a result of this process, Pressley Associates prepared plans for a redesign of the park, which was carried out from 2006 to 2013. This included additional seating on the Allegheny Wharf, the addition of an amphitheater on the Monongahela Wharf, a

15 The exhibits were completed in 1968, and the museum opened the following year (Senator John Heinz History Center 2017).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 43

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND seasonal cafe, an Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)- accessible canoe and kayak launch, and new native plantings, park benches, light poles, and directional signs (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:10) (Figure 52, Figure 53). In addition, several renovations were made to the City Side of the park to accommodate events “including irrigated turf area, electrical and water hookups for vendors, and a stage area with electrical transformer” (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:14). According to the NRHP nomination for the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District, which encompasses Point State Park, these renovations included “expanding access, increasing connections to the water, streamlining park maintenance, and incorporating historical interpretation, all while better accommodating special events” (Ricketts et al. 2012:7-7, 7-8).

During this time, important advancements were made to the understanding of Point State Park’s cultural resources. Christine Davis Figure 52. Cafe at Point State Consultants, Inc. prepared a Phase IA report, which provided insights Park (106 Group) into the potential for intact archaeological resources at the park (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003). Excavations were also carried out at the Block House by Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. and Michael Baker Jr., Inc. (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2013; Michael Baker Jr., Inc. 2005). In 2006-2007 and 2009, A.D. Marble & Company completed archaeological investigation across the park in advance of landscape improvements. A.D. Marble & Company’s work also included geophysical analyses to inform understanding of the formational processes that have occurred at the Point (A.D. Marble & Company 2006; A.D. Marble & Company 2009a, 2009b).

The results of these excavations have confirmed not only the continuing presence of historic Fort Pitt, but also archaeological resources from the Archaic, Woodland, Contact, Settlement, and Industrial time periods. These findings underscore the immense historic complexity and value of Figure 53. Native Plantings (106 the Point for the city, state, and nation’s heritage, and the imperative for Group) protecting the resources that have managed to remain intact despite centuries of heavy use and development.

In 2012, a new agreement was made in which the DCNR took over sole responsibility for Point State Park operations, maintenance, and policing from the City of Pittsburgh (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:24). That same year, the NRHP nomination was prepared

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 44

3.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND for the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District, celebrating the Modernist design at Point State Park and the surrounding area. In 2013, the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District was listed in the NRHP. Additional renovations to the park in 2013 included the raising of the fountain plaza by 9.48 inches and the addition of a second story to the pump house (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:14, 20).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 45

4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES AT POINT STATE PARK This chapter first provides an overview of the terminology used to discuss cultural resources at Point State Park. Then a summary of previous cultural resources work at the park is provided, followed by a discussion of the known and potential resources at the park. 4.1 Cultural Resource Terminology The term “cultural resource” is used broadly to refer to resources with cultural and/or historical significance. Several federal laws concern resources that fit into this broad definition, although they are referred to by specific (and varying) terms within the individual laws. For example, NHPA refers to “historic properties,” NAGPRA refers to “Native American Cultural Items,” and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA) addresses the “human environment” that includes the social and cultural aspects of the environment, which in turn includes “culturally valued aspects of the environment ... [such as] historic properties” (National Preservation Institute 2018). Throughout this report, the term “cultural resources” is used generally to refer to cultural and historical resources, while “historic properties” is used when specifically discussing NPS-designated resources (e.g., those that are NRHP-eligible or listed, including NHLs). Collections, which include historical, archaeological, and cultural materials and artifacts, are discussed in Appendix E.

The NPS recognizes six different categories of historic properties within the NRHP program. Definitions and examples are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Types of Documented Cultural Resources at Point State Park

Type NPS Definition Example Building “Created principally to shelter any form of human activity” Fort Pitt Block House (NPS 1995:4). Structure “Functional constructions made usually for purposes other Portal Bridge than creating human shelter” (NPS 1995:4). Object “Constructions that are primarily artistic in nature or are A boundary marker relatively small in scale and simply constructed” (NPS 1995:5). Site “The location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic Site of Fort Duquesne occupation or activity, or a building or structure ... where the location itself possesses historic, cultural or archeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure” (NPS 1995:5).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 46

4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Type NPS Definition Example District “A significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, Forks of the Ohio Historic buildings, structures, or objects united historically or District and Pittsburgh aesthetically by plan or physical development” (NPS 1995:5). Renaissance Historic District Landscape NPS recognizes a variety of landscapes as potential historic Although the park’s properties, including: landscape is not specifically x Cultural Landscapes (defined as “a geographic area, counted as a property or including both cultural and natural resources and the resource type in the NRHP wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a nomination for the historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other Pittsburgh Renaissance cultural or aesthetic values”) (Birnbaum 1994). Historic District, the Examples of cultural landscapes include: landscape of the park is o Historic sites, recognized in the nomination o Historic designed landscapes, as integral to the o Historic vernacular landscapes, and significance of the district, o Ethnographic landscapes (Birnbaum 1994). and therefore contributing to x Native American Traditional Cultural Landscapes the district’s significance. (currently in the process of being formally defined by NPS [Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 2017]).

There is a seventh property type, Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs), which can fall into any of the six categories above. A TCP is “a property that is eligible for inclusion in the [NRHP] based on its associations with the cultural practices, traditions, beliefs, lifeways, arts, crafts, or social institutions of a living community” (NPS 2012). While there are no currently documented TCPs at Point State Park, it does not appear that any formal identification efforts have been undertaken. This type of property may be identified at the park in the course of future tribal engagement. 4.2 Recorded Resources The term “recorded resources” in this document refers to those that have been documented within the SHPO’s cultural resources inventory, which is maintained in the Cultural Resources Geographic Information System (CRGIS) database. Some of these resources (those listed as contributing resources to the NRHP-listed historic districts) are also documented in the NRHP. The SHPO documents resources using the categories of historic properties defined by NPS. Figure 5 and Figure 6 in Chapter 1.0 depict the locations of the resources presented in Table 2.16 A list of reports from previous cultural resources work at the Point is included in Section 4.3.

16 Archaeology site locations are protected and are therefore not included in the CRMP figures.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 47

4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Table 2. Recorded Cultural Resources at Point State Park

Federal Type of SHPO Designation Resource Name Resource Number Status PRHD1 FOHD2 Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District 156390 [PRHD] NRHP-Listed N/A N/A District FOHD - Portal Bridge Structure 156390 [PRHD] NRHP-Listed PRHD - C NC* Forks of the Ohio NRHP- District 001742 [FOHD] PRHD - C N/A Historic District Listed/NHL Fort Pitt Block Building 001742 [FOHD] NRHP-Listed PRHD - C FOHD - C House FOHD - Fort Pitt Museum Building 001742 [FOHD] NRHP-Listed PRHD - C NC FOHD - Fountain Structure 001742 [FOHD] NRHP-Listed PRHD - C NC Fort Pitt Not NRHP- Site 36AL0091 PRHD - C* FOHD - C* [archaeological] Site Listed Fort Pitt Blockhouse Not NRHP- Site 36AL0522 PRHD - C* FOHD - C* [archaeological] Site Listed Forks of the Ohio Not NRHP- Site 36AL0581 PRHD - C* FOHD - C* [archaeological] Site Listed 1. Denotes whether a resource is contributing (C) or non-contributing (NC) to the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District (PRHD). 2. Denotes whether a resource is contributing (C) or non-contributing (NC) to the Forks of the Ohio Historic District (FOHD). * Denotes whether a resource is considered by the SHPO to be contributing (C) or non-contributing (NC) to a specific historic district, based on whether the resource conforms to the theme and period of significance for that district. These resources’ C/NC statuses have not yet been formally determined by the NPS. Sites 36AL0522 and 36AL0581 have been evaluated and recommended eligible as contributing resources. (Sources for table: PHMC 2018c; Ricketts et al. 2012; Mendinghall 1975). 4.3 Previous Cultural Resources Work A great deal of cultural resources work has occurred at the Point over the last 70 years. The table below lists publications regarding previous cultural resources work. Documents that describe the known and potential cultural resources at the Point are included as well. The locations of repositories for these documents are also included. In addition, the DCNR has digital copies of the reports identified by an asterisk next to the publication year. The locations of previous excavations are shown in Figure 54. Locations depicted on the figure are approximate and have been mapped by georeferencing previous report figures, historical maps, and aerial photographs.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 48

4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Table 3. Publications of Previous Cultural Resources Work at the Point

Year Report Author Report Title 1944* Wesley L. Bliss Report of the Point Park Commission of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. On file at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1954* Arthur M. Hayes Fort Pitt Excavations. Carnegie Museum Archaeological Newsletter, No. 8, pp.8-12. On file at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1959* James L. Swauger Historic Archaeology at Fort Pitt, 1953. Annals of Carnegie Museum 35:247-274. On file at the Carnegie Library, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1960* James L. Swauger Excavations at the Flag Bastion of Fort Pitt, 1958-1959. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 30:111-117. On file at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1963 National Park Service Historic American Buildings Survey: Bouquet’s Redoubt (Fort Pitt Blockhouse). On file at the National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 1967* James L. Swauger and Excavations at the Music Bastion of Fort Pitt, 1964-1965. Annals Richard W. Lang of Carnegie Museum 39(2):33-67. On file at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1968* James L. Swauger Museum Bastion Dig at Fort Pitt. Carnegie Magazine 42:82-84. On file at the Carnegie Library, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1975 Joseph S. Mendinghall National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for the Forks of the Ohio. On file at the SHPO, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 1977* James L. Swauger Digging Up Fort Pitt. The Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine 60(2):185-192. Electronic document (https://journals.psu.edu/wph/article/view/3478/3309). 1980 Stephen Kibert Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey: Point State Park Survey Form. On file at the SHPO, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 1985 Verna L. Cowin Urban Archaeology: A Study of Pittsburgh. On file at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2003* Christine Davis Point State Park (City of Pittsburgh) Comprehensive Master Consultants, Inc. Plan: Phase IA Cultural Resource Survey, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. On file at the SHPO, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 49

4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Year Report Author Report Title 2003* PHMC An Historic Structures Report Fort Pitt Blockhouse, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for the Fort Pitt Society, Daughters of the American Revolution. On file at the PHMC, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 2005* Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Archaeological Excavations in the Fort Pitt Blockhouse, City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. On file at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2006* A.D. Marble & Company Geoarchaeological and Geophysical Survey: Sites of Fort Duquesne and Fort Pitt, Point State Park, City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. On file at the SHPO, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 2006* Richard W. Lang The Fort Pitt “Music Bastion” - Salient Points Regarding the Bastion as a Restored Monumental Archaeological Feature, and as an Integral Part of the Forks of the Ohio National Historic Landmark at Point State Park, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. On file at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2009* A.D. Marble & Company Archaeological Investigations at Point State Park, City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (Vols. I and II). Prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. On file at the SHPO, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 2009 * A.D. Marble & Company Archaeological Investigations Along the City Side South Walk, Point State Park, City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. On file at the SHPO, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 2011 James B. Richardson, III Report on the Archaeological Monitoring of the Removal and Excavation for a New Flag Pole at the Fort Pitt Blockhouse, May 2011. On file at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2012 Ricketts, Laura C., Anne National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for the Nelson, Albert Tannler, Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District. On file at the SHPO, and Frank Stroker Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 2013* Kelly Linn The Fort Pitt Block House Statement of Significance. On file with the author and the PA DCNR, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 50

4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Year Report Author Report Title 2013* Christine Davis Phase I Archaeological Survey, Fort Pitt Block House, City of Consultants, Inc. Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, PA. On file at the SHPO, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. *Digital copy of report on file at the PA DCNR, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 51

CONTENT

REMOVED

Under §506, subsection c. of the State History Code (Title 37), “The commission [PHMC] shall have and maintain proprietary rights over the maps and surveys indicating the location of archaeological resources or archaeological field investigations that have been inventoried or surveyed. These maps and surveys are excluded from the provisions of the act of June 21, 1957 (P.L.390, No.212), referred to as the Right-to- Know Law.”

4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4 Reported and Potential Resources “Reported resources” are resources whose presence at the park has been noted, but which have not been recorded as cultural resources in official state and/or national registers or databases for cultural resources. Such resources may be noted in historical primary sources such as maps and journals. “Potential resources” refer to resources that are likely to be present within the park, but whose presence has not yet been confirmed through documentation and/or field-verification methods, such as archaeological investigation. In addition to the cultural resources that have been recorded at Point State Park, nearly all of which have been evaluated for NRHP eligibility (Table 2), there is the potential for a variety of significant cultural resources and human remains to exist intact below the surface of Point State Park.

Similarly, even though there are two NRHP-listed historic districts that include the park, the potential for other significant cultural resources outside the periods of significance for the historic districts remains. Any resources older than 50 years, including historical utilities, may have historical significance.

Several natural and human-made formation processes have been operating on the Point for tens of thousands of years. These include major floods, erosion, water drainage, and construction, resulting in the addition, rearrangement, and removal of soil and other natural and human-made materials. All these factors affect the potential for cultural resources from different time periods to remain intact. In addition, each subsequent episode of activity at the Point may have resulted in the destruction of the remnants of the activities that came before. Table 4 presents a list of the types of cultural resources that have the potential to exist intact (in whole or in part) at the park.

Table 4. Potential Cultural Resources at Point State Park

Type Description Structure17 x Historical utility lines and associated features. x Intact remnants of historical roadways. x Foundations and footings associated with historical bridges. Object x A wide variety of objects may be present below the surface of the Point. These may include equipment and weaponry associated with the historic forts. Previous archaeological reports provide examples of artifacts found to date. Site x Features and artifacts associated with historical buildings. x Structural remnants, features, and artifacts associated with all periods of occupation and use of the site. x Burial ground/individual burials.

17 Definitions for each property type are included in Table 1.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 53

4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Type Description District x Groupings of resources associated with a particular time period and theme, other than the two already documented in the Forks of the Ohio Historic District and the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District. This may include, for example, an archaeological historic district associated with the working-class Irish who lived on the Point during the nineteenth century. Landscape x As mentioned above, although the park’s landscape is not specifically counted as a property or resource type in the NRHP nomination for the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District, the landscape of the park is recognized in the nomination as integral to, and therefore contributing to, the significance of the district. Traditional x The proper identification of TCPs requires consultation with the communities Cultural Property and Native American tribes that have associations with a location. (TCP) Human x There is the potential for both intact and fragmentary human remains throughout Remains18 Point State Park.

There are many examples of reported resources at the Point for which archaeological evidence may still exist, but have not yet been identified or formally documented as historic properties. This includes the examples provided above, as well as resources such as the King’s Garden, where the garrison at Fort Pitt grew fruits, vegetables, and grains, or the Western Pennsylvania Exposition Society’s Exposition Hall and associated buildings along the Allegheny. The following section provides an overview of reported burials and the potential for the discovery of additional human remains at the Point, in addition to the human remains that have already been discovered at Point State Park over the past two decades. 4.5 Human Remains 4.5.1 Fort Duquesne Burials During the construction of Fort Duquesne, French soldiers exhumed eight bodies from earlier burials. It is thought that these earlier burials may have been “French and French Canadians who had died since arriving in April and whose graves would be intruded upon by fort construction activities” (A.D. Marble & Company 2009a:55-56). It is unknown how many burials were present during that time, their exact location or specific associations, or how many may still remain.

18 Human remains are not categorized as a historic property type by the NPS, but they may be found in association with any of the NPS historic property categories, and are protected under state law (see Chapter 2.0 Legislative Framework).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 54

4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.5.2 Mercer’s Fort Burial Ground There was a burial ground associated with Mercer’s Fort in the vicinity of the Block House; the remains of three individuals uncovered in 2007 appear to have been associated with this feature (A.D. Marble & Company 2009a:55) (Figure 55). Although it is possible that the cemetery was moved to accommodate the construction of Fort Pitt, the discovery of the remains mentioned above demonstrates that not all, if any, burials were removed. In addition to a high potential for human remains in the immediate vicinity of the burial ground, numerous major flooding episodes at the Point over the years have likely shifted and displaced remains from their original locations.

Figure 55. Thomas Hutchins Map of Fort Duquesne and Mercer’s Fort, 1759, with location of Burial Ground in Green (Hutchins 1759).

4.5.3 Fort Pitt-Era Burial at the Point In 1769, there was an interment of a Virginian colonist, Samuel Lightfoot, “along the bank of the Monongahela” at the Point (A.D. Marble & Company 2009a:55-56). There may have been other burials associated with Fort Pitt and/or the nearby community of Lower Town at the Point during this time.

Due to the presence of the documented burial ground and other recorded burials at the Point, as well as the high probability of unrecorded burials from thousands of years of occupation at the Point, there is the potential for human remains anywhere on the original terraces at the Point.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 55

4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.5.4 Grant’s Hill Fill The use of fill from Grant’s Hill, which was the site of documented remains of Major Grant’s troops who were massacred in the Battle of Fort Duquesne in 1758, as well as the site of Pre-Contact burial mounds, introduces additional potential for displaced and likely fragmentary European and Native American human remains in the fill at the Point that was sourced from Grant’s Hill (Figure 56, Figure 57). In 1855, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette republished an article from the first edition of the Gazette, which was printed in 1786. The article, written by Judge Brackenridge, described the early town of Pittsburgh, noting, “Bones and weapons are yet found on [Grant’s] hill, the bones white with the weather, the weapons covered with rust. On the summit of this hill is a mound of earth, supposed to be a catacomb or ancient burying place of the savages. There can be no doubt of this as on the opening some of the like tumuli or hills of earth, bones are found” (Brackenridge 1855). While it is known that fill from Grant’s Hill was placed at the Point along the bank of the Allegheny, additional fill from Grant’s Hill may have been placed at other locations on the Point as well during the successive grading and fill removal episodes that the hill underwent (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003:27). In addition, the grading, construction, and flooding episodes at the Point may have displaced some of the Grant’s Hill fill from its original known location along the bank of the Allegheny.

Figure 56. Approximate Location of Grant’s Hill (Google Earth 2018)

Because of this high potential for human remains (both intact and fragmentary) throughout the Point, great care must be taken with any ground disturbance, and staff should be vigilant for any indication of the presence of human remains. See Appendix H for protocols regarding human remains.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 56

4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Figure 57. Pittsburgh, with Grant’s Hill Visible to the Left Prior to Grading,1790 (National Archives 2018)

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 57

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY This chapter presents an implementation plan for the CRMP, referencing specific procedures provided in the Appendices where appropriate.

This CRMP is a working document. It will interface with a variety of DCNR management and planning documents, including the park-specific plans such as the Maintenance and Use Plan (under development), Flood Management Strategy (under development), Interpretation Plan, and Special Event Guidelines; DCNR-wide plans and policies, such as the BSP Strategic Plan (under development), as well as Title 17 Rules and Regulations for Pennsylvania State Parks. As of December 2018, a Programmatic Agreement (PA) is being developed between the SHPO and DCNR. Upon finalization of the PA, applicable parts will be integrated into the CRMP. 5.1 Staff Familiarity with the CRMP The first step for implementation of this CRMP consists of park management staff familiarizing themselves with the contents of this document. The first four chapters provide foundational material for understanding the purpose of the CRMP, the resources present at the park, and the laws that protect these resources, as well as the historical significance of the park and its resources. The remainder of the plan outlines implementation procedures. 5.2 Training Park management staff will undergo cultural resources training by SHPO staff on an annual or three-year basis (depending on the DCNR timeline for management plan revisions). In addition, a staff member at the regional level will receive CRGIS training and access to the cultural resource layers in CRGIS, and the park manager will receive training and planner-level access to CRGIS. Training by the SHPO will include an overview of applicable Commonwealth laws including the State History Code (outlined in Chapter 2), use of the Exemptions Matrix (see Section 5.6), and SHPO procedures for project review and consultation. Additional topics may include cultural resources best practices; historic building maintenance; unanticipated discoveries; curation procedures; tribal consultation; and best practices and applicable laws regarding human remains. 5.3 Identify Professional Cultural Resources Support By following the procedures in this document, park management staff will identify which activities require consultation with the SHPO, and initiate SHPO consultation prior to the commencement of these activities. To carry out certain activities appropriately in regard to cultural resources, DCNR will require the services of professional cultural resources consultants.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 58

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

DCNR will identify on-call professional cultural resources consultants in advance who can address cultural resources needs as they arise. This includes archaeologists, architectural historians, historic architects, and historic landscape specialists who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI’s) Professional Qualification Standards. An outline for the process of identifying cultural resource consultants, including draft request for proposals (RFPs) for both archaeology and architectural history investigations, is included in Appendix A Cultural Resources Technical Support. Research questions to inform future archaeological investigations at Point State Park are included in Appendix A as well. 5.4 SHPO Review and Consultation Under the State History Code, state agencies are required to consult the SHPO prior to undertaking any activity that may alter or otherwise impact a cultural resource that has historical significance; seek the SHPO’s advice on possible alternatives that avoid or mitigate the impact; and initiate measures to protect or maintain the resource. The SHPO’s role under the State History Code is to assist the responsible agency—in this case, the DCNR—in meeting its obligations, including identifying potential adverse effects of a project to cultural resources, and implementing protective measures to avoid or mitigate these effects. 5.4.1 Threats to Historic Resources An effect is considered adverse if it diminishes a resource’s ability to convey its historical significance. Examples of adverse effects (threats) to cultural and historic resources include: x Inappropriate alterations; x Physical destruction of all or part of a historic building or archaeological site (e.g., ground disturbance in the case of archaeological sites); x Change of a property’s setting or location; x Introduction of visual or audible intrusions; x Neglect of a resource that leads to its deterioration; and x Transfer of a property out of state or federal ownership without adequate restrictions to ensure its long-term preservation (PHMC 2018d).

Further detail regarding threats to cultural resources and appropriate treatment of these resources is included in Appendix B Cultural Resources Management Units. 5.4.2 Consultation Process The DCNR and SHPO are currently preparing a PA concerning activities that may affect cultural resources at Point State Park. The PA will provide protocols for consultation between the two agencies regarding specific proposed activities. When the PA is finalized, it will be incorporated into the CRMP. Presented below is the general process for consultation with the SHPO.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 59

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

The steps of consultation with the SHPO include: 1) Anticipate Consultation 2) Initiate Consultation 3) Identify Cultural Resources a. At Point State Park, above-ground resources have already been identified and evaluated, and their eligibility has been determined (Step 4, below) (see Chapter 4.0). b. Not all below-ground resources have been identified (see Chapter 4.0).

If cultural resources are identified that may be impacted by the proposed project, the following steps will also take place: 4) Determine Eligibility of Cultural Resources a. As mentioned, at Point State Park, above-ground resources have already been determined eligible and/or are currently listed in the NRHP. b. Not all below-ground resources have been identified or had their eligibility for listing in the NRHP evaluated. 5) Resolve Effects to Cultural Resources

These steps are explained in greater detail below.

Anticipate Consultation Compliance with the procedures outlined in this plan will be facilitated by regular, cyclical planning of park activities that can be anticipated on a seasonal, yearly, or other regular basis. Many activities in the park can be anticipated on a regular, recurring basis. Regular review of all proposed activities within the normal cycle of park management should include consulting the Exemptions Matrix (see Section 5.6). The Exemptions Matrix should be consulted as part of standard meeting and planning procedures. Park activities and projects that may adversely affect historic and cultural resources should be anticipated and planned to allow sufficient time for consultation with the SHPO prior to the undertaking. Consultation with the SHPO should be initiated as early in the planning process as possible. Annual or quarterly reporting can be utilized as a tool to assist in planning for appropriate SHPO consultation and review time needed for anticipatory actions. The Park Maintenance and Use Plan (under development) should inform the CRMP, and vice versa, to ensure that regularly scheduled and anticipated maintenance, and use activities at the park comply with the CRMP.

Any project or activity that may negatively affect cultural resources at the park requires SHPO review. Prior to undertaking any activity that may adversely affect cultural resources at the park, Park staff will consult the Exemptions Matrix (see Section 5.6). Detailed descriptions of the CR Management Units and a discussion of their historical significance, character-defining features, and archaeological potential, which informs the recommendations in the Exemptions Matrix, is presented in Appendix B. If the activity is identified as one that does not require SHPO review, activity may proceed. If the activity is identified as one that does require SHPO review, the activity or project will be submitted for SHPO

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 60

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY review. If a project is not included in the Exemptions Matrix, the SHPO must be consulted to determine if a review should take place. It is anticipated that the Exemptions Matrix will continue to evolve through time and use.

Park activities that are determined to not require SHPO consultation should be tracked in a spreadsheet for annual reporting within the DCNR and to the SHPO, which will be submitted as an Annual Report of No Effect Activities. An example is provided below (Table 5).

Table 5. Example of Annual Report of No Effect Activities Documentation

PEPC ID 12345 22345 Project Title Maintenance of historic vegetation in Etc. planting beds in Woodlands South Superintendent Approval Date 1/1/2018 Assessment of Effect No Adverse Effect Documentation Method Streamlined Review (PA) Streamline Criteria Within existing planting beds to a depth of 6” SHPO Consult Required No THPO Consult Required No Additional Consulting Parties None Historic Landscape Specialist No Historic Architect No Archaeologist No Historian No Anthropologist No Curator No Other Advisor No Section 106 Advisor No

Bureau of State Parks Resource and Recreational Review (R3) The R3 is a planning tool to help park managers identify, avoid, or mitigate environmental impacts from proposed state park projects or activities. Park managers are required to use this tool early in the project- planning process to identify how the project may have direct, indirect, and/or cumulative impacts on the environment in the park. The R3 process may trigger a formal environmental assessment, or cultural resources identification and/or evaluation of the proposed project by the SHPO.

Some of the information requested in the R3 and the SHPO Project Review Form overlap, including a description of the proposed activity, the number of acres to be disturbed, and whether there are any

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 61

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY historical or cultural resources (including archaeological sites) that may be impacted by the proposed activity. Whenever a proposed activity requires the preparation of a R3, a SHPO Project Review Form should be prepared as well, unless the activity is included in the Exemptions Matrix (below).

Initiate Consultation Initiating consultation under the State History Code is the responsibility of the DCNR. All requests for consultation/project review must be initiated using the Project Review Form, available on the Forms and Guidance page of the SHPO website (http://www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/About/Pages/Forms- Guidance.aspx). A sample review form is provided below (Figure 58). Please note the required attachments (including a map, project description and scope, site plan, and photographs). As of February 2019, all materials must be submitted via mail in hard-copy form. If sufficient information is provided, the SHPO will make a determination whether or not any historic properties will be adversely affected by the project. If there is not enough information for the SHPO to make a determination, SHPO staff will request additional information, and/or recommend additional consultation. If the SHPO determines that any historic properties will be adversely affected, additional consultation steps will follow (see below).

For any questions regarding the consultation process or cultural resources at Point State Park, contact:

SHPO Contact for Point State Park Staff Division Chief, Archaeology and Protection (717) 772-0925

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 62

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Figure 58. SHPO Project Review Form (courtesy of the SHPO)

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 63

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Identify Cultural Resources Prior to completing an application to submit a project for review, the applicant must “make a ‘reasonable and good faith effort’ to identify any significant historic resources within the project area” (PHMC 2018d). Any NRHP-listed or -eligible properties must be identified on the Project Review Form. This CRMP details known and potential cultural resources located within the park in Chapter 4.0, although the SHPO should always be contacted and the CRGIS database reviewed for the most current information regarding known cultural resources. See Table 2 (Chapter 4.0) for a list of all currently documented resources in the park. Above-Ground Resources The above-ground historic resources in the park have already been identified and evaluated as part of the NHL designation and NRHP nominations for the Forks of the Ohio Historic District, and the NRHP nomination for the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District (Figure 5 and Figure 6). The primary potential impacts to above-ground resources are: 1) direct impacts to the fabric of a building or structure; and 2) indirect impacts to the overall design and layout of the park. If the SHPO determines that any additional identification of architectural and historical properties is needed, the work will be completed by a professional who meets the SOI’s Professional Qualification Standards for architectural history in compliance with the Guidelines for Architectural Investigations in Pennsylvania (SHPO 2014). Below-Ground Resources Although there is extensive knowledge and documentation of existing historic and cultural resources at Point State Park as a result of over seven decades of archaeological excavations and the designation of the NRHP-listed and NHL Forks of the Ohio Historic District and the NRHP-listed Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District, there is high potential for previously undocumented intact Pre-Contact, Contact, and Post-Contact/Historic Period archaeological resources to exist across the Point (archaeological potential at the Point is discussed further in Appendix B).

In the course of a project review, the SHPO may determine that an archaeological investigation (excavation) is necessary to identify any undocumented archaeological resources within the project area. If new archaeological resources are located, the SHPO will determine whether they are part of an existing site or district, or if they should be documented as part of a new site or district. Archaeological investigation will be completed by a professional who meets the SOI’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology in compliance with the SHPO’s Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Pennsylvania (SHPO 2017). To maximize efficiency and minimize delays, DCNR should prepare a list of pre-approved consultants who can quickly and efficiently respond to cultural resources identification needs in the park. Information regarding identification of archaeological consultants is included in Appendix A.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 64

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Determine Eligibility of Cultural Resources When previously unevaluated resources are discovered that have the potential to be affected by a proposed action, they should be evaluated for NRHP eligibility. Resources that have historical significance under the NRHP criteria19 and maintain historic integrity are eligible to be listed in the NRHP. Evaluation of newly identified resources and assessment of effects to known significant resources (such as the NRHP-listed historic districts) must be completed by a professional who meets the SOI’s Professional Qualification Standards for the type of resource that is being evaluated. For example, if an archaeological site is being evaluated, the individual conducting the evaluation should meet the SOI’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology. The SHPO will assist DCNR with resource evaluation as part of the consultative process. In addition, the SHPO will offer an official opinion on effects for each proposed action that reaches this level of consultation. Above-Ground Resources As mentioned above, the above-ground historic resources in the park have already been identified and evaluated as part of the NHL designation and NRHP nominations for the Forks of the Ohio Historic District, and the NRHP nomination for the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District (Figure 5 and Figure 6). Below-Ground Resources There is great potential for the existence of as-yet-undocumented archaeological components of the Forks of the Ohio Historic District, and/or of known archaeological sites at the Point (36AL0091 - Fort Pitt Site; 36AL0522 - Fort Pitt Blockhouse Site; and 36AL00581 - Forks of the Ohio Site). In addition, there is potential in multiple areas of the park for the discovery of other significant archaeological sites. Archaeological sites that are identified as part of archaeological investigations (discussed above) should be evaluated for NRHP eligibility by a professional who meets the SOI’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology.

Resolve Effects to Cultural Resources If the SHPO determines that an NRHP-listed or eligible cultural resource may be affected by a DCNR action, the DCNR must seek, in consultation with the SHPO, to protect the integrity of the historic or cultural resource. The primary goal of this stage of consultation with the SHPO is to minimize and/or avoid adverse impacts to resources, with mitigation undertaken as a last resort. Protection of significant resources is given priority under the State History Code and is recommended as a best practice. An example of a protective measures is redesigning an action to avoid adverse impacts to cultural resources.

If it is not possible to protect a resource in a manner that avoids an adverse effect, the DCNR should seek to identify an approach that will minimize adverse effects to the resource.

19 The NRHP criteria are: A) association with an important event or pattern in history; B) association with a significant person; C) exhibits distinctive design or construction; and/or D) has the potential to yield information important to history or prehistory (NPS 1995).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 65

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Mitigation If the DCNR and SHPO cannot find a solution that would avoid or minimize adverse effects to a resource, they will develop an appropriate mitigation plan that will offset the loss of integrity of the resource. For example, an archaeological site may undergo intensive excavation, analysis, and reporting to capture as much information potential from the site as possible and make it available for further research. All mitigation work should be led and supervised by a professional who meets the SOI’s Professional Qualification Standards for the type of resource that is being evaluated. Incorporating public archaeology into archaeological fieldwork may also serve as a form of mitigation; see Appendix F Public Archaeology for guidance on public archaeology.

The mitigation plan will be formalized in a Letter of Agreement between the two agencies, which will outline the action, impacted resources, potential adverse effect, and proposed mitigation measures. Once this plan is accepted by the SHPO, the action may proceed. 5.5 Other Consultation If it is determined by the DCNR, the SHPO, or a federal agency (in the latter case, if a proposed action qualifies as a federal undertaking) that consultation with entities in addition to the SHPO (such as other state, local or federal agencies, tribes, community organizations, and/or members of the public) is required, Appendix C Stakeholder Consultation should be referenced.

The DCNR will develop a program for engaging with Native American tribes. This requires a long-term commitment and dedicated staff to ensure consistency in agency messaging and best practices. Appendix D Tribal Engagement provides guidance on consulting with tribes. 5.6 Exemptions Matrix Over time, the Point has undergone a wide variety of disturbances, including cut and fill episodes from both natural (e.g., flooding) and human activities (grading, excavation for construction, trenching, etc.). Even the work that has been done to honor the history of the site, such as the construction and renovation of Point State Park and the archaeological excavations, as well as the utilities work to meet the needs of the public, has destroyed irreplaceable resources. This is not to say that further ground disturbance should not occur; rather, future work must undergo appropriate review and proceed in such a way that if resources must be destroyed, the information they contain will not be lost forever.

An Exemptions Matrix has been developed to identify activities that DCNR staff may exempt from SHPO review. The purpose of this matrix is to identify activities that will not adversely affect the historic integrity of known and potential cultural resources, and thereby support best practices by park staff in a timely manner. As discussed above, adverse effects are those which negatively impact a resource’s ability to convey its historical significance. By following the recommendations in this matrix, park staff can

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 66

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ensure that the integrity of the park’s cultural and historic resources is preserved. Activities that can be exempted have been identified in consultation with the SHPO, and meet the following criteria: x Will not physically, visually, or audibly affect above-ground cultural resources; x Will not physically affect archaeological resources, or involves ground disturbance in areas that can be documented as having been previously disturbed (existing ROW or easement); and x Have no known public controversy based on historic preservation issues.

All park activities must be undertaken in accordance with this CRMP. No ground disturbance using powered equipment may proceed without first contacting the PA One Call System (www.pa1call.org). 5.6.1 How to Use the Exemptions Matrix Consult the Exemptions Matrix (below) to determine if the proposed activity is exempt from SHPO review. Activities will fall into one of the following three categories: 1) Exempt, 2) Requiring Review by a Professional Meeting the SOI’s Standards, or 3) Requiring SHPO Review. These are discussed further below.

Exempt Activities Proposed actions identified within the Exemptions Matrix can proceed without SHPO review. For activities in the matrix marked with an asterisk, please see below. Projects not submitted for review should be noted on the Annual Report of No Effect Activities that will be submitted yearly to the SHPO and DCNR central office for review and consideration (see Table 5).

If a proposed activity is on the matrix but there are questions concerning the conditions, and DCNR staff cannot determine if an exemption applies, the DCNR may provide, at its discretion, a copy of the Project Review Form and relevant attachments, such as plans, photographs, or material specifications, to the SHPO for review and comment.

Activities Requiring Review by Professional Meeting SOI’s Standards Activities identified with an asterisk (*) require review of the proposed work by a professional meeting the SOI’s Professional Qualification Standards in the area(s) of expertise that pertain to the resource which may be potentially affected by the proposed work. For example, if proposed ground disturbance may impact an archaeological resource, the work must be reviewed by a professional that meets the SOI’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology. If proposed work may affect the exterior of a building or structure that is part of the NRHP-listed Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District, the work must be reviewed by a professional that meets the Professional Qualification Standards for architectural history and/or historic architecture.

If an SOI-qualified professional is not available to assist in the evaluation and/or design of an activity denoted with an asterisk (*) in the table, the exemption does not apply, and the project should be documented on the Project Review Form and provided to the SHPO for review and comment.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 67

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Activities Requiring SHPO Review Any proposed activity not included on this Exemptions Matrix must be submitted to the SHPO for review. This includes, but is not limited to, activities that pose threats to cultural and historic resources, such as the following: x Utility work below/adjacent to/outside of existing modern utility corridors. x Removal of trees (root removal or other ground disturbance). x Alteration of park features, including buildings, landscape features, pathways, signage, etc. in such a way as to change the original shape, size, form, color, texture, or roof pitch. This includes alteration for a variety of reasons, including provision of handicapped access and compliance to meet health and safety code requirements. x Re-grading of the ground surface (e.g., topographic contouring). x Removal of park features, including landscape features, pathways, signage, etc. x Relocation of park features from their original locations. x Addition of any new building, structure, or feature (including signage, planting beds, pathways, sidewalks, roads/cart ways, drainage features, utilities, etc.) x Introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that affect the integrity of a resource’s historically significant features. x Transferring, leasing, or selling property containing a cultural resource out of Commonwealth ownership.

In addition to activities that can cause direct adverse effects (such as ground disturbance that destroys an archaeological site, or building alterations that damage a building’s integrity), there is also the potential for accumulation of the effects of activities over time that, taken individually, do not have an adverse effect, but cumulatively can damage resources. The Exemptions Matrix has been developed with this in mind, but DCNR staff should be aware of this possibility when considering exempt activities.

A Note Regarding Ground Disturbance While some activities that involve ground disturbance are included in the Exemptions Matrix, the Exemptions Matrix does not provide maximum allowable ground-disturbance depths for the following reasons: x Current specific ground surface elevations throughout the park are unknown for most areas. x Ground surface elevations vary widely across the park, including within individual Cultural Resource Management Units. x Previous archaeological excavations only reveal the depth at which archaeological materials are known to exist below the current ground surface in excavated areas. They do not preclude the existence of archaeological materials at shallower depths in unexcavated areas. This is especially true at a place such as the Point, which has undergone thousands of years of construction, demolition, and fill activities, particularly within the last two hundred years.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 68

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

As a result, when undertaking ground disturbance activities that are either exempt or require review by an SOI professional, but do not require SHPO review, great care should be taken to ensure that below- ground resources or human remains are not disturbed. If disturbance of a below-ground resource or human remains occurs, Appendix G (Cultural Resources Unanticipated Discoveries Plan) and/or Appendix H (Human Remains Treatment Plan) should be followed.

It is recommended that ground surface elevations be measured and soil corings/geoprobing be conducted on a grid system throughout the park, with spacing and depth determined by a geomorphologist and an archaeologist with experience in an urban environment who meets the SOI’s Professional Qualification Standards. This will allow for a more complete and nuanced understanding of the nature and depth of fill, and potential for archaeological resources in the park, and will in turn better inform decision-making regarding ground-disturbing activities.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 69

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

5.6.2 Exemptions Matrix

Table 6. Activities for Which SHPO Review Is Not Required Activity Conditions Site Work Repaving or resurfacing existing paved areas Improvements do not exceed the width, depth, and vertical alignment of existing conditions. There is no change in surface materials or drainage. Cleaning and repair of walkways, driveways, steps Repair must be done with in-kind materials and stairways, parking areas, and exterior retaining (matching material, dimensions, design, color, walls finish, detailing, and operation) in such a way that form, size, and design are not altered. Cleaning concrete, steel, stone, and wood components of buildings and structures must be done with nonabrasive materials or water pressure less than 300 PSI. Repair of existing park mechanics (e.g., Fountain and Provided that the repair will not involve ground pump mechanical equipment). disturbance. Mowing/spraying/reseeding the grass. Ground disturbance for lawn maintenance not to exceed two inches below the ground surface. Snowplowing/de-icing sidewalks and circulation Seasonal maintenance of circulation routes will not routes result in the addition of any new circulation routes. Repair or replacement of landscape materials (e.g., Repair or replacement must be done with in-kind borders of planting beds) for the purposes of park materials (matching material, dimensions, design, maintenance. color, finish, detailing, and operation) in such a way that form, size, and design are not altered. Maintenance of existing trees and shrubs within Must be within existing planting beds, to a depth of existing planting beds (e.g., cleaning, pruning, six inches or less below the planting bed surface.20 mulching) In-ground service and utility lines repair or Work is confined to existing trenches. replacement

20 While topsoil was placed to a height of approximately 12 inches above the Great Lawn ground surface during the construction of the planting beds, archaeological investigation has shown an intact Pre-Contact soil sequence in areas of the Woodlands beginning less than a foot below the Great Lawn ground surface (approximately 724 feet above sea level).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 70

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Activity Conditions Maintenance and repair of landscape features that are Work to plantings, fences, retaining walls, 50 years in age or older, or NRHP-listed/contributing walkways, and statuary 50 years in age or older is to an NRHP-listed district*21 in-kind using like methods and as much of original material as possible. Must conform to the SOI’s Standards for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. Building/Structure Exteriors Masonry repair and cleaning for buildings that are 50 Mortar should match original material, mortar years in age or older, or NRHP-listed/contributing to composition, color, joint profile, and width. an NRHP-listed district* Must conform to the SOI’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. In-kind repair or replacement of historic building In-kind is understood to mean matching material, features (roofs, doors, foundations, porches, siding, dimensions, design, color, finish, detailing, and paint or other finishes, exterior architectural details, operation. In-kind work should not require removal gutters or downspouts, steps)* or alteration of architectural features. Must conform to the SOI’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Replacement with new materials or not in-kind work requires consultation with SHPO. Repair of windows for buildings that are 50 years in Must be in-kind repair, which includes scraping and age or older, or NRHP-listed/contributing to an repainting of windows, replacement of window NRHP-listed district* sash, glass, and hardware. Must conform to the SOI’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Repair or in-kind replacement of wheelchair ramps Provided does not require removal or alteration to architectural features or introduction of new materials not already present. Must conform to the SOI’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. New design/location requires project review. Mothballing to secure and protect vacant buildings* Treatments should not remove or damage architectural features of the property such as windows/doors. Must conform to the SOI’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

21 Proposed activities marked with an asterisk must be reviewed by a professional who meets the SOI’s Professional Qualification Standards in the area(s) of expertise that pertain to the resource which may be potentially affected by the proposed work. See above for examples.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 71

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Activity Conditions Replacement of non-original windows installed after Windows must either match the configuration and 1970, or after the applicable NRHP-listed historic proportions of historic windows or the current district’s Period of Significance (the Pittsburgh configuration. If replacement windows have Renaissance Historic District’s Period of Significance muntins, they should be true divided lights or three- ends in 1974). park grid system that includes an interior, exterior and spacer bar. Exterior applied muntin is also acceptable. Muntins applied only to the interior or placed between double insulated glass are not acceptable. Must conform to the SOI’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Installation of water, natural gas, and electric meters Provided the new meters are installed on the side or back of a building (non-primary elevation) and are not readily visible Demolition of buildings or structures that are not Provided that site work that would not involve new contributing to an NRHP-listed district, and that were ground disturbance. constructed after the NRHP-listed historic district’s Period of Significance (the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District’s Period of Significance ends in 1974). Building/Structure Interiors Repair or replacement of the following systems: Provided the work does not change the appearance electrical, plumbing, mechanical, fire, ventilation, at the exterior and no architectural features will be computer, lighting affected at the interior. In-kind repair, repainting or refinishing of In-kind is understood to mean matching material, architectural features (walls, ceilings, doors, molding, dimensions, design, color, finish, detailing, and fireplaces, mantels, light fixtures, woodwork, floors)* operation. Replacement with new materials or not in-kind work requires consultation with SHPO. In- kind work should not require removal or alteration of architectural features. Repair of interior plaster ceilings and walls* When repairs are not feasible, repairing with smooth finish dry wall is acceptable provided it will not change relationships between wall and architectural trim (new surface lies in same plan as existing wall). Restroom improvements for handicapped access Provided work is contained within the existing restroom and no structural changes are needed. Asbestos abatement activities* Provided they do not involve structural changes or the removal or alteration of decorative features.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 72

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Activity Conditions Activities to bring a property up to code* Provided no structural changes are needed. Any changes to kitchens, bathrooms, or basement Provided changes are not visible from and do not spaces considered to lack integrity* detract from significant exterior or interior architectural features. 5.7 Review and Refinement of the CRMP As mentioned above, the CRMP is a working document, and should be periodically reviewed to ensure that it is up-to-date and continuing to meet the DCNR’s needs. Park management staff will meet regularly, based on DCNR’s internal plan revision schedule (e.g. every three years), with BSP regional staff and SHPO staff to evaluate the CRMP and propose updates as needed. As the CRMP, including the Exemptions Matrix, undergoes implementation, park management staff will document what is and is not working to inform refinements of the plan. 5.8 CRMP and Interpretation This CRMP provides an in-depth overview of both known and potential cultural resources at the park. Interpretation of these resources allows visitors to the park to enhance both their understanding and appreciation of what makes Point State Park an exciting and vital place to Pittsburgh, the Commonwealth, and the nation. Fostering this appreciation enriches visitor experience, as well as helps visitors to better understand why particular policies and management practices are in place. Future interpretive planning should acknowledge the areas of significance identified in this CRMP (see Chapter 3 and Appendix B), and interpretive planning should reference this CRMP to ensure that efforts to interpret the resources do not harm the resources themselves. In addition, interpretive themes and stories should not be limited to what has already been evaluated and determined significant. For example, Point State Park contains archaeological resources representing Native Americans, early immigrants and settlers, and industrial, commercial, and transportation themes which have not yet been evaluated for potential historical significance and eligibility for listing in the NRHP. 5.9 Additional Considerations for Cultural Resources A Curation Plan should be prepared for the artifacts that will be recovered during future archaeological investigations or inadvertent finds. An artifact Curation Plan is outlined in Appendix E Curation Plan. In addition, a Curation Plan should be prepared for any artifacts that have been recovered in the past but are not in recognized curation facilities.

If it is determined in consultation with the SHPO that archaeological investigation at Point State Park should include a public archaeology component, Appendix F Public Archaeology should be referenced for general guidance on incorporating a public component into an archaeological investigation.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 73

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

If, during park maintenance and activities, cultural resources or human remains are inadvertently discovered, the processes outlined in Appendix G Unanticipated Discoveries, and Appendix H Human Remains should be followed as appropriate.

Recommendations regarding current policies and guidelines concerning activities that may affect cultural resources in the park are presented in Appendix I Current Park Guidelines and Policies Recommendations. 5.10 Conclusion The DCNR is committed to building on its strong relationships with the PHMC and other state and local partners and stakeholders. This collaboration provides a solid foundation for the park’s ongoing commitment to preserving and promoting its invaluable historic and cultural resources. Increasing awareness of the park’s extraordinary history both enhances current visitors’ experiences and presents a powerful draw to tourists from outside the area in search of heritage destinations. The implementation of this CRMP will ensure that the park, with its historic resources that tell a vital part of our nation’s history, is a premier destination for future generations of visitors both near and far.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 74

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY A.D. Marble & Company 2006 Geoarchaeological and Geophysical Survey: Sites of Fort Duquesne and Fort Pitt, Point State Park, City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for the DCNR. On file at the SHPO, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

2009a Archaeological Investigations at Point State Park, City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Volumes I and II. Prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. On file at the SHPO, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

2009b Archaeological Investigations Along the City Side South Walk, Point State Park, City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. On file at the SHPO, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Adovasio, James M. 1993 The Ones That Will Not Go Away: A Biased View of Pre-Clovis Populations in the New World. In From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Paleolithic-Paleo-Indian Adaptations, edited by O. Soffer and N.D. Praslov. Plenum Press, New York City, New York.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation [ACHP] 2005 Consulting with Indian Tribes in the Section 106 Review Process. Electronic document, http://www.achp.gov/regs-tribes.html, accessed March 3, 2018.

2017 Native American Traditional Cultural Landscapes and the Section 106 Review Process: Questions and Answers. http://www.achp.gov/docs/landscapes%20q%20&%20a%207-11-12.pdf, accessed March 18, 2018.

Alberts, Robert C. 1980 The Shaping of the Point: Pittsburgh’s Renaissance Park. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Alchetron 2017 General John Forbes. Electronic document, https://alchetron.com/John-Forbes-(British-Army- officer), accessed February 17, 2018.

Birnbaum, Charles A. 1994 Preservation Briefs 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes. Electronic document, https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 75

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

preserve/preservedocs/preservation-briefs/36Preserve-Brief-Landscapes.pdf, accessed February 2, 2018.

Blackley, Katie 2017 Whatever Happened to Allegheny River Lock and Dam Number One? Electronic document, http://wesa.fm/post/what-ever-happened-allegheny-river-lock-and-dam-number-one, accessed March 17, 2018.

Blades, Brooke 2018 Comments on Archaeology Section of Historic Preservation Plan. On file at the DCNR, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Bliss, Wesley L. 1944 Report of the Point Park Commission of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. On file at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Blunk, Richard 2006 Col. George Morgan. Electronic document, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/14971978/george-morgan, accessed March 17, 2018.

Brackenridge, Hugh Henry 1855 [1768] Untitled article. Republished in “The Pittsburgh Gazette in its Seventieth Year.” 24 August. Pittsburgh Gazette, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Burton, Clarene Monroe 1909 John Connolly, A Tory of the Revolution. American Antiquarian Society. Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, 70-105. The Davis Press, Worcester, Massachusetts.

Burton, Clint 2018 The Brookline Connection. Electronic document, www.brooklineconnection.com, accessed February 15, 2018.

Carnegie Museum of Art 2018 Union Bridge, 1902. Electronic document, http://exhibit.library.pitt.edu/pghbridges/, accessed March 3, 2018.

Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003 Point State Park (City of Pittsburgh) Comprehensive Master Plan: Phase IA Cultural Resource Survey, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. On file at the SHPO, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 76

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

2008 Phase lB Archaeological Survey and Phase Il/Ill Archaeological Mitigation for the North Shore Connector (NSC), City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. On file at the SHPO, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

2013 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Fort Pitt Block House, City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, PA. On file at the SHPO, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

City of Pittsburgh 2018 Historic Review Commission. Electronic document, http://pittsburghpa.gov/dcp/hrc/index.html, accessed March 3, 2018.

Collins 2018 Collins English Dictionary. Electronic document, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/, accessed March 2, 2018.

Collot, Georges-Henri-Victor 2018 Voyage dans l’Amerique Septentrionale. Electronic document, https://www.loc.gov/item/01021531/, accessed March 3, 2018.

Cowin, Verna L. 1985 Urban Archaeology: A Study of Pittsburgh. On file at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Daughters of the American Revolution 1899 Fort Duquesne and Fort Pitt: Early Names of Pittsburgh Streets. Pittsburgh Chapter, Daughters of the American Revolution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Dickylon 2015 The pedestrian underpass under Interstate 279 in Point State Park, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Electronic document, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Point_State_Park_I-279_underpass.jpg, accessed March 3, 2018.

Downes, Randolph C. 1940 Council Fires on the Upper Ohio: A Narrative of Indian Affairs in the Upper Ohio Valley until 1795. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

ESRI 2018 Pittsburgh Historic Maps. Electronic document, esriurl.com/pittsburgh, accessed March 5, 2018.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 77

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

ExplorePAHistory.com 2018 Paleo-Indian Diorama at the State Museum of Pennsylvania. Electronic document, http://explorepahistory.com/displayimage.php?imgId=1-2-89A&storyId=1-9-14, accessed March 3, 2018.

Fort Pitt Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution 2018 Fort Pitt Block House. Electronic document, http://www.fortpittblockhouse.com/, accessed January 15, 2018.

Grymes, Charles 2017 Key Treaties Defining the Boundaries Separating English and Native American Territories in Virginia. Electronic document, http://www.virginiaplaces.org/settleland/treaties.html, accessed July 12, 2018.

Hammill, John 2011 Fort Pitt. Electronic document, http://johnsmilitaryhistory.com/fortpitt.html, accessed February 28, 2018.

Hastings, Etheridge and Bliss 1809 Monthly Anthology and Boston Review. Hastings, Etheridge and Bliss, Boston, Massachusetts.

Hayes, Arthur M. 1954 Fort Pitt Excavations. Carnegie Museum Archaeological Newsletter, No. 8, pp.8-12. On file at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Historical Society of Pennsylvania 2013 Land Records Guide 1681-2012. Electronic document, https://hsp.org/collections/catalogs- research-tools/subject-guides/land-records-guide, accessed July 12, 2018.

Hutchins, Thomas 1759 Plan of Fort Duquesne and Fort at Pittsburgh Spring, 1759. Thomas Hutchins Papers, Collection 308. On file at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Lane, Christopher W. 2008 A Panorama of Pittsburgh: Nineteenth Century Printed Views. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Lang, Richard W. 2006 The Fort Pitt “Music Bastion” - Salient Points Regarding the Bastion as a Restored Monumental Archaeological Feature, and as an Integral Part of the Forks of the Ohio National Historic

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 78

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Landmark at Point State Park, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. On file at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Library of Congress 1969 [circa] Historic American Engineering Record for Davis Island Dam & Lock No. 1, Ohio River, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. On file at the Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C.

Linn, Kelly 2010 Historic Structures Report- Fort Pitt Block House: Errata. On file with the author.

2013 The Fort Pitt Block House. On file with the author.

2017 Diet by Design: Harvest Crops of the King’s Garden at Fort Pitt. Presented October 28, 2017 at the Fort Pitt Museum, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. On file with the author.

Maslowski, Robert F. 2017 Monongahela Culture. Electronic document, https://www.wvencyclopedia.org/articles/2013, accessed March 7, 2018.

Mendinghall, Joseph S. 1975 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form For the Forks of the Ohio. On file at the PHMC, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. 2005 Archaeological Excavations in the Fort Pitt Blockhouse, City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. On file at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Moore, Brent 2005 Point State Park. Electronic document, https://www.flickr.com/photos/94502827@N00, accessed March 3, 2018.

Morehead, Murv, and Al Field 2014 Abandoned Underground Utilities: The “Un-Seen Elephant in the Corner.” Electronic document, http://cdnassets.hw.net/86/d1/cb48fb9f4b5ba298b29baa795fba/8795.pdf, accessed July 10, 2018.

Morning Herald, The [Uniontown, Pennsylvania] 1959 Flag Bastion is Rebuilt at Fort Pitt. 16 July. Uniontown, Pennsylvania.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 79

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mount Vernon Ladies Association 2018 Life Portraits of George Washington. Electronic document, https://www.mountvernon.org/george- washington/artwork/life-portraits-of-george-washington/, accessed October 17, 2017.

Myers, Kevin 2006 Outline of Fort Duquesne. Electronic document, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Duquesne_outline.JPG, accessed March 3, 2018.

National Geographic Partners, LLC 2018 Geotourism. Electronic document, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/maps/geotourism/, accessed March 3, 2018.

National Park Service [NPS] 1963 Historic American Buildings Survey: Bouquet’s Redoubt (Fort Pitt Blockhouse). On file at the National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

1995 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

2012 Traditional Cultural Properties. Electronic document, https://www.nps.gov/history/tribes/Documents/TCP.pdf, accessed February 28, 2018.

2015 1768 Boundary Line Treaty of Fort Stanwix. Electronic document, https://www.nps.gov/fost/learn/historyculture/1768-boundary-line-treaty.htm, accessed July 12, 2018.

2018a National Register of Historic Places. Electronic document, https://www.nps.gov/nr/, accessed March 3, 2018.

2018b National Historic Landmarks Program. Electronic document, https://www.nps.gov/nhl/, accessed March 3, 2018.

2018c Tribal Directory Assessment Tool. Electronic document, https://www.nps.gov/nagpra/DOCUMENTS/INDEX.htm, accessed March 3, 2018.

National Preservation Institute 2018 What are “Cultural Resources?” Electronic document, https://www.npi.org/NEPA/what-are, accessed June 16, 2018.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 80

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

National Trust for Historic Preservation 2018 Preservation Glossary: Heritage Tourism. Electronic document, https://savingplaces.org/stories/preservation-glossary-todays-word-heritage- tourism#.WqV3SWrwbIU, accessed February 15, 2018.

New York Public Library 2018 Vue de Pittsburgh. Electronic document, https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47d9-7b25- a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99, accessed February 15, 2018.

Ohio History Central 2018 Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1784). Electronic document, http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Treaty_of_Fort_Stanwix_(1784), accessed July 12, 2018.

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) 2009 Point State Park Interpretive Plan. On file at the DCNR, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

2011 Rehabilitate Portal Bridge DGS 107-7, Phase 7, Point State Park, City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County. On file at the DCNR, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

2014 Pennsylvania’s Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2014-2019. Electronic document, http://www.apps.dcnr.state.pa.us/parecplan/parecplan.pdf, accessed May 18, 2018.

2015 Point State Park, Park Management Foundation Document. On file at the DCNR, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

2017 Point State Park Album. Electronic document, https://www.flickr.com/photos/padcnr/, accessed March 3, 2018.

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 106 Group, Blue Rhino Studio, and BPI (DCNR et al.) 2013 Point State Park Map. Electronic document, http://www.docs.dcnr.pa.gov/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_003297.pdf, accessed August 18, 2017.

2014 Point State Park Exhibits Schematic Design. On file at the DCNR, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) 2018a Publication 349 Section 4(f)/Section 2002 Handbook. Electronic document, https://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/pubsforms/publications/pub%20349.pdf, accessed March 27, 2018.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 81

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

2018b Design Manual Part 5 Utility Relocation: Gas - Water - Sanitary Sewer - Electric Telecommunications - Cable Television. Publication 16 (DM-5). Electronic document, http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB%2016M/PUB%2016M.pdf, accessed July 10, 2018.

2018c Cultural Resources Management Program: Tribal Consultation. Electronic document, https://www.paprojectpath.org/penndot-crm/tribal-consultation, accessed February 28, 2018.

2018 Metal Detecting in State Parks. Electronic document, https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/StateParks/RulesAndRegulations/MetalDetecting/Pages/default.aspx, accessed June 12, 2018.

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) 2003 An Historic Structures Report: Fort Pitt Blockhouse, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. On file at the PHMC, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

2006 Curation Guidelines: Preparing Archaeological Collections for Submission to the State Museum of Pennsylvania. On file at the PHMC, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

2015 1681-1776: The Quaker Province. Electronic document, http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/pa-history/1681-1776.html, accessed July 12, 2018.

2018a Certified Local Government. Electronic document, http://www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/Community-Preservation/Pages/Certified-Local- Government.aspx, accessed March 3, 2018.

2018b Time Periods. Electronic document, http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/archaeology/native-american/time-periods.html, accessed March 7, 2018.

2018c Cultural Resources Geographic Information System (CRGIS). Electronic document, http://www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/Cultural-Resources-GIS/Pages/default.aspx, accessed January 12, 2018.

2018d Review Process. Electronic document, http://www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/Project- Review/Pages/Review-Process.aspx, accessed February 28, 2018.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 82

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 2014 Guidelines for Architectural Investigations in Pennsylvania. Electronic document, http://www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/About/Documents/Architectural-Guidelines.pdf, accessed April 30, 2018.

2017 Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Pennsylvania. Electronic document, http://www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/About/Documents/SHPO-Guidelines-Archaeological- Investigation.pdf, accessed April 30, 2018.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania] 1936 “Hump” Removal Outstanding Feat. 26 September. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Pittsburgh Press [Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania] 1904 Both Bond Measures May Pass the City Councils Next Week; Bigelew Returns and Announces Plans for Prompt Action—Explodes Story of a Pennsylvania Railroad Scheme; Rush Work on Duquesne Way Line. 16 April. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

PlaceEconomics 2015 Historic Preservation: Part of the DNA of Pittsburgh. Electronic document, http://www.placeeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Final-Pittsburgh_8.25.15.pdf, accessed February 15, 2018.

Point Park Commission 1952 Preliminary Report: Landscape Development Point State Park. Prepared for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters. On file at the Senator John Heinz History Center.

Project Archaeology 2018 About Project Archaeology. Electronic document, https://projectarchaeology.org/about, accessed March 1, 2018.

Richter, Daniel K. 2001 Facing East from Indian Country: A Native History of Early America. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Ricketts, Laura C., Anne Nelson, Albert Tannler, and Frank Stroker (Ricketts et al.) 2012 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District. On file at the PHMC, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 83

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Schmitt, Henry C. 2007 Pittsburgh Point Park from top of Duquesne Incline. Electronic document, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pittsburgh-Point.jpg, accessed March 19, 2018.

Seeman, Mark F. 1979 The Hopewell Interaction Sphere: The Evidence for Inter-regional Trade and Structural Complexity. Indiana County Historical Society, Indiana, Pennsylvania.

Senator John Heinz History Center 2017 Fort Pitt Museum’s New Exhibition to Highlight the Life and Legacy of Nat Youngblood. Electronic document, http://www.heinzhistorycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Press- Release-4-27-17-Fort-Pitt-Museum-Nat-Youngblood.pdf, accessed July 11, 2018.

2018a Meadowcroft Rockshelter. Electronic document, http://www.heinzhistorycenter.org/exhibits/meadowcroft-rockshelter, accessed March 7, 2018.

2018b Fort Pitt Timeline. Electronic document, http://www.heinzhistorycenter.org/exhibits/fort-pitt- timeline, accessed March 8, 2018.

State Museum of Pennsylvania, Section of Archaeology. 2018 Projectile Point Types of the Early Archaic Period. Electronic document, http://twipa.blogspot.com/2018/01/, accessed March 3, 2018.

Stone, Rufus B. 1924 Brodhead's Raid on the Senecas. Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine, VII(2): 88-101.

Stotz, Charles 1966 The Architectural Heritage of Early Western Pennsylvania: a Record of Building Before 1860. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Sullivan, Ken 2013 Treaty of Camp Charlotte. Electronic document, https://www.wvencyclopedia.org/articles/766, accessed July 12, 2018.

Swauger, James L. 1959 Historic Archaeology at Fort Pitt, 1953. Annals of Carnegie Museum 35:247-274. On file at the Carnegie Library, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

1960 Excavations at the Flag Bastion of Fort Pitt, 1958-1959. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 30:111-117. On file at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 84

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1968 Museum Bastion Dig at Fort Pitt. Carnegie Magazine 42:82-84.

1977 Digging Up Fort Pitt. The Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine 60(2):185-192. Electronic document, https://journals.psu.edu/wph/article/view/3478/3309, accessed February 15, 2018.

Swauger, James L. and Richard W. Lang 1967 Excavations at the Music Bastion of Fort Pitt, 1964-1965. Annals of Carnegie Museum 39(2):33- 67.

Union Savings Bank 1939 Grant’s Hill: Center of the Pittsburgh Drama. Union Savings Bank, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

University of Pittsburgh 2018a Get to the Point! Electronic document, http://exhibit.library.pitt.edu/thepoint/, accessed February 15, 2018.

2018b Historic Pittsburgh. Electronic document, http://historicpittsburgh.org/, accessed February 17, 2018.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2018 Emsworth Locks & Dams. Electronic document, http://www.lrp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/Locks-and-Dams/Emsworth-Locks-Dams/, accessed March 17, 2018.

U.S. Department of the Interior 2018 Land & Water Conservation Fund. Electronic document, https://www.doi.gov/lwcf, accessed February 2, 2018.

U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) 2018 Section 4(f) Overview. Electronic document, https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/env_topics/4f_tutorial/overview.aspx?h=e#h, accessed February 27, 2018.

Vento, Dr. Frank J. 2007 Additional Geomorphological and Geoarchaeological Investigations at the Proposed Point State Park Drainage Improvement Study Area, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. On file at the PHMC, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 85

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Widener University School of Law’s Environmental & Natural Resources Law Clinic 2010 A Citizen’s Guide to Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Electronic document, http://blogs.law.widener.edu/envirolawcenter/files/2010/03/PA_Citizens_Guide_to_Art_I_Sect_27. pdf, accessed February 27, 2018.

Wikimedia Commons 2018 Portrait of Guyasuta. Electronic document, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Guyasuta#/media/File:Guyasuta.jpg, accessed February 3, 2018.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 86

APPENDICES

7.0 APPENDICES

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 87

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 88

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Cultural Resources Technical Support Purpose Statement The purpose of this appendix is to provide more details on the technical work requirements for cultural resources investigations at the park, specifically archaeology and architectural history, including requirements for professionals meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI’s) Professional Qualification Standards. Standard methodologies for both archaeological and architectural history cultural resources work are also included. This section focuses on technical aspects of Phase I, II, and III work, and does not discuss the regulatory and consultation requirements that are usually the framework for these studies (for discussion of this, see Chapter 2.0).

Depending on the type of proposed work being considered, the DCNR may also require the services of a historian, historic architect, landscape architect, conservationist, curator, or historic preservationist meeting the SOI’s Professional Qualification Standards. The Standards should be consulted as appropriate, and the RFP revised accordingly. Archaeology Standards for Methodology All archaeological investigations should comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716, as amended and annotated) and the SHPO’s Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Pennsylvania. The different levels of archaeological investigation are outlined and generally defined here; for additional details on methodology requirements, see the SHPO’s guidelines (SHPO 2017).22

Prior to undertaking any of these phases, consultation with the SHPO should occur. See Section 5.4 for an overview of the consultation process. Phase I – Identification This phase of archaeological investigation, commonly known as “Phase I,” focuses on the identification of archaeological sites within a project area. Phase I studies typically include: x Documentary research to identify known sites, including review of Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey (PASS) files and previous archaeological reports; x Predictive modeling to identify areas of higher archaeological potential, which may entail review of local settlement and development history, historical maps and aerial photography, and environmental data including soils, hydrology, and ecology;

22 A citation is provided for the version of the SHPO Guidelines that was referenced in the preparation of this CRMP. The most recent version of Guidelines should always be consulted.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 89

APPENDICES

x Field survey. Specific methodologies should be based on the results of background research and predictive modeling, but at a minimum should include: o Walkover of the survey area; o Controlled surface collection if artifacts are present on the surface and the ground surface is suitable for artifact collection; o Geomorphological testing in the form of soil probing/coring in areas that have not previously been archaeologically investigated prior to more intrusive archaeological survey techniques, such as shovel testing; o Shovel testing; o In areas where archaeologically sensitive soils may extend deeper than 1 meter (m), test excavation units may be necessary; o Additional research or specialized techniques may be required by the SHPO (see the SHPO’s Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Pennsylvania); x Analysis of field results and artifacts; and x Reporting. Phase II – Evaluation Phase II studies focus on the evaluation of archaeological resources for historical significance, specifically to determine if the resources are eligible for listing in the NRHP. Phase II studies involve a more in-depth examination of archaeological resources and typically include: x Development of a work plan/research design with contexts and site-focused research questions; x Additional documentary research; x Field testing. Specific methodologies should be based on the results of Phase I survey and the ability to recover sufficient data to answer research questions, but may include: o Additional shovel testing; o Hand excavation of larger test excavation units; o Controlled mechanical trenching or stripping if appropriate; o Additional research or specialized techniques may be required by the SHPO (see the SHPO’s Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Pennsylvania); x Analysis of field results and artifacts; and x Reporting, including a written evaluation of the resource’s significance (using NRHP criteria) and integrity.

Phase III – Mitigation Phase III typically involves mitigation of unavoidable adverse effects to NRHP-eligible or listed archaeological resources. Types of mitigation can vary, but for archaeological sites, mitigation frequently includes data recovery excavation in order to learn more about a site prior to damage or destruction. As

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 90

APPENDICES with Phase II investigations, specific methods for data recovery will vary based on the type of archaeological resource and associated research questions, but may include: x Preparation of a work plan/research design with contexts and site-focused research questions; x Field excavation, including: o Excavation units or block excavations; o Controlled mechanical trenching or stripping if appropriate; x Artifact analysis; x Comprehensive reporting; and x Public engagement and dissemination of data recovery results.

Unanticipated Discoveries Phase I, II, and III archaeological studies are usually planned and completed in advance of a project. However, it is possible that unanticipated archaeological resources may be discovered during ground- disturbing activities and may require archaeological investigations to identify, evaluate, and/or mitigate the resource. In the case of unanticipated discoveries, many of the methods detailed above would be used. Procedures for responding to unanticipated discoveries are addressed in Appendix G.

Consultant Qualification Requirements The SHPO maintains a list of cultural resources consultants at http://www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/About/Pages/Consultants-List.aspx. However, the SHPO does not require proof of qualifications for companies on this list, nor does it endorse companies on the list. Prior to retaining consultants, DCNR should review proof of qualifications, including confirmation that the SOI’s Professional Qualification Standards are met, and request recent work products to assess quality of work. This section outlines general requirements for archaeological consultants. General Qualifications All work should be supervised by a Principal Investigator who: x Meets the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI’s) Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61). These standards outline the minimum education and experience requirements for archaeologists performing identification, evaluation, and mitigation/treatment of archaeological sites. The SOI’s Professional Qualification Standards are widely used throughout the United States as minimum standards for Principal Investigators: o The minimum professional qualifications in archaeology are a graduate degree in archaeology, anthropology, or closely related field plus: At least one year of full-time professional experience or equivalent specialized training in archaeological research, administration or management; At least four months of supervised field and analytic experience in general North American archaeology, and Demonstrated ability to carry research to completion.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 91

APPENDICES

o In addition to these minimum qualifications, a professional in prehistoric [Pre-Contact] archaeology shall have at least one year of full-time professional experience at a supervisory level in the study of archaeological resources of the prehistoric period. A professional in historic [post-contact] archaeology shall have at least one year of full-time professional experience at a supervisory level in the study of archaeological resources of the historic period. x Has demonstrated experience conducting archaeological investigations in Pennsylvania. For Point State Park, archaeological experience in Pittsburgh, southwestern Pennsylvania, and upper Ohio River Valley may be particularly appropriate. Special Considerations Time period: For projects involving the evaluation or mitigation of archaeological sites that are known to date to a specific time period (i.e. Pre-Contact), consultants should have prior demonstrated experience with sites of this type, in addition to meeting the general qualification criteria above.

Urban context: Urban archaeology is a specialized branch of archaeology. Selected consultants should have experience conducting archaeological investigations in an urban context.

Human remains: Because of the high potential for uncovering human remains in subsurface spots across the park, the selected consultants should have expertise in distinguishing human bones from faunal (animal) bones in order to ensure appropriate treatment.

Pre-Approved Archaeological Consultants List and RFP To maximize efficiency and minimize delays, DCNR should prepare a list of pre-approved consultants who can quickly and efficiently respond to cultural resources identification needs in the park, including unanticipated discoveries. Consultant services may be solicited through issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) that outlines the specific education and experience requirements necessary for inclusion in the DCNR’s pre-approved consultant list. A sample outline for a RFP for on-call archaeological consultants is included below.

Draft RFP – Archaeology The DCNR is soliciting proposals from qualified consultants to provide archaeological services for Point State Park. Scope of Work Provide archaeological consulting services, including (but not limited to): x Archaeological literature reviews and assessments; x Identification (Phase I survey) and evaluation (Phase II testing) of potentially significant archaeological resources;

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 92

APPENDICES

x Mitigation of effects to significant resources, including Phase III data recovery; x Preparation of technical documentation of Phase I, II, and III investigations; x Artifact analysis and curation; and/or x Archaeological Monitoring.

Services shall be at the request of the DCNR. The consultant shall submit a time and materials estimate and schedule for each requested project. Respondents will be required to provide qualified personnel in a timely manner to perform these services. Qualifications All studies carried out under this scope of work must be under the direct supervision of an individual who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61): x Graduate degree in archaeology, anthropology, or closely related field plus: o At least one year of full-time professional experience or equivalent specialized training in archaeological research, administration or management; o At least four months of supervised field and analytic experience in general North American archaeology, and o Demonstrated ability to carry research to completion. x In addition to these minimum qualifications, a professional in prehistoric archaeology shall have at least one year of full-time professional experience at a supervisory level in the study of archaeological resources of the prehistoric period. A professional in historic archaeology shall have at least one year of full-time professional experience at a supervisory level in the study of archaeological resources of the historic period.

In addition, the consultant must have: x Demonstrated experience in archaeology in the southwestern Pennsylvania and/or upper Ohio River Valley regions; x Demonstrated experience in urban contexts; x Demonstrated ability to identify and distinguish human remains from faunal material; x Familiarity with the SHPO’s Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Pennsylvania (SHPO 2017); and x Capacity to supply qualified staff and perform services in a timely manner. Proposal Content The proposal package must include: x Cover letter; x Statement of Qualifications;

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 93

APPENDICES

x Summary of Relevant Experience: Include at least three current and past projects where services were provided related to this Scope of Work. Provide one client reference for each project; x A statement explaining your availability and how you can ensure responsiveness to urgent needs; x Resumes of Key Personnel, and x Table of Hourly Rates. Evaluation Criteria x Demonstrated relevant experience; x Qualifications of key personnel; and x Capacity to supply qualified staff and perform services in a timely manner.

Research Questions The following research questions were developed based on what is currently known about the Point’s history and topics of interest identified in previous investigations. They are intended to help guide potential future archaeological research in the park with the goal of addressing all periods of occupation and use. Pre-Contact Period x Evidence of occupation dating back to the Middle Archaic time period was identified during A.D. Marble & Company’s work at Point State Park, as were resources dating to more recent Pre- Contact periods (A.D. Marble & Company 2009). How was the Point used in Pre-Contact time periods? (e.g., an encampment, resource procurement location, and/or production zone?) x Was occupation of the Point continuous through time or were there gaps? If there were gaps in occupation, why? x What is the significance of the Point to tribes with ancestral ties to the Pittsburgh area? x Is there a pronounced difference between Pre-Contact resources on the lower terrace (T0) compared to the higher terrace (T1)? x How have countless flooding episodes over time disrupted the stratigraphy at the Point? Is it possible to determine a chronological sequence for occupation? x What can Pre-Contact resources at the Point tell us about food procurement during the Pre- Contact period? x Is there evidence of short or long-distance trade in the Pre-Contact materials found at the Point? x Is there any indication of conflict during the Pre-Contact period at the Point? x Is there evidence of different uses associated with seasonality? Contact Period x What evidence remains of the settlements associated with both Fort Pitt and Fort Duquesne? x What can these settlements, which contained both European and Native American inhabitants, tell us about the interactions between these ethnicities during the Contact Period?

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 94

APPENDICES

x What does the archaeological record tell us about differences between British and French material culture? x How does the material culture of the forts compare with other fort sites from the same period? x Is there any remaining intact evidence of Fort Duquesne and its associated features, such as the hornwork?23 x Is there any remaining intact evidence of the burial ground associated with the forts? x Is there any remaining evidence of Contact Period conflict at the Point? x What can Contact Period resources at the Point tell us about food procurement during the Contact Period?24 Settlement Period x What were the eating habits of the residents of the Point? How did the eating habits of the different classes compare? x What evidence is there of known women’s occupations practiced at the Point, such as laundresses? x What is known about the religious diversity of the settlement period inhabitants? (e.g., both Jews and Catholics were known to have lived at the Point during this time). x How were buildings reused through time for residential use (e.g., the Block House and the Brewery)? x How did working class residents meet their needs on low wages? x How were subsequent waves of immigrants incorporated into life at the Point? x Is there evidence of specific ethnic associations, such as Irish and German identity, in the remnants of the settlement period? Industrial Period x How did residents who remained at the Point alongside an increasingly heavy industrial presence adjust to the new character of their surroundings? x How did technology associated with different industries (e.g., canning, ship building, foundry work) change through time? x How were buildings repurposed for industrial usage? x What was the chronology and locations of fill placed at the site for different industrial building episodes?

23 Hornwork: “a freestanding fortification with angular points or horns serving to enclose an area immediately adjacent to a fort and add an extra layer of defense” (Collins 2018). There was a hornwork associated with Fort Duquesne. 24 Recent research into this topic can be found in Kelly Linn’s “Diet by Design: Harvest Crops of the King’s Garden at Fort Pitt” (Linn 2017).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 95

APPENDICES

x Was there a change in industrial practices during shifts from river to rail traffic, and from a local market to a national market? x Is the evidence of byproducts from the various industries at the Point consistent with the documentation on known businesses?

Best Practices x Archaeology should be planned in such a way that the results will answer documented research questions x Interpretation should follow the reporting of results, to ensure that there is a public benefit to the data recovery. A particular effort should be made for interpretation of results to reach multiple audiences including, for example, the general interested public as well as the avocational and professional archaeological community.

Architectural and Historical Properties Standards for Methodology All investigations of architectural and historical properties25 should comply with the SHPO’s Guidelines for Architectural Investigations in Pennsylvania. The different levels of architectural and historical properties investigation, evaluation, and mitigation are outlined and general defined here; for additional details on methodology, see the SHPO’s guidelines (SHPO 2014)26.

Prior to undertaking any of these phases, consultation with the SHPO should occur. See Section 5.4 for an overview of the consultation process. Identification/Reconnaissance Survey This phase of investigation provides a general characterization of the resources within a project area, and focuses on the identification of potentially NRHP-eligible architectural and historical properties. Identification/reconnaissance surveys commonly include: x Development of a research design; x Documentary research to identify previously recorded resources and previous architectural and historical resources studies;

25 Architectural and historical properties are also referred to as “historic resources” within the SHPO’s 2014 guidelines. The SHPO defines a historic resource as “an above-ground resource that has something important to tell about our past and retains enough historic qualities to tell the story well” (SHPO 2014:5). The term “historic resource” may refer to a variety of historic property types as defined by the NPS, including buildings, structures, objects, and districts. 26 A citation is provided for the version of the SHPO Guidelines that was referenced in the preparation of this CRMP. The most recent version of Guidelines should always be consulted.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 96

APPENDICES

x Background research using historical maps and aerial photographs, county histories, county or local historical societies, county or municipal planning offices or archives, and other sources; x Development of a historical overview; x Fieldwork, including recording historical resources over 50 years old on standard or abbreviated Pennsylvania Historic Resources Survey Forms (HRSF), photographic documentation of properties, and mapping; and x Reporting.27 Evaluation/Intensive Survey This phase of survey provides a more comprehensive and in-depth look at resources within a particular area, and generates enough information to evaluate resources for listing in the NRHP or for their potential contribution to an existing historic district. Evaluation/Intensive surveys typically include: x Development of a research design; x Development of a historic context; x Property-specific background research; x Fieldwork, including more in-depth documentation of properties; x Evaluation of a resource’s historical significance and integrity; x Completion of a full Pennsylvania HRSF for each property; and x Reporting, including recommendations of NRHP eligibility. Mitigation If adverse effects to an NRHP-eligible or listed resource cannot be avoided, mitigation is undertaken. Types of mitigation can vary, but for architectural and historical resources, mitigation may include some kind of documentation of the resource that will be adversely impacted. A mitigation strategy must be developed in consultation with the SHPO, and adhere to the PHMC Bureau for Historic Preservation’s “Criteria for Determining Appropriate Mitigation,” found in the appendix of the SHPO’s Guidelines for Architectural Investigations in Pennsylvania (SHPO 2014:63).

If a project is required to comply with Section 106, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) specifying how adverse effects will be resolved will be developed and signed by the lead federal agency and the SHPO. Any mitigation in this context will be the responsibility of the lead federal agency.

27 The SHPO’s 2014 guidelines state that “architectural surveys must identify the existence of potential archaeological resources” by notating the location of above-ground ruins or the former location of above-ground resources; this documentation “should be provided in a separate submission from the architectural survey” (SHPO 2014:9).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 97

APPENDICES

Treatment of Historic Properties Treatment concerns specific types of work on a significant historic resource as defined by the SOI. This includes preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction. Detailed definitions of these treatments are available at https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm.

When project work entails alterations, additions, or repairs to an NRHP-eligible or listed resource, or new construction in an existing historic district, the SOI’s Standards for Rehabilitation should be adhered to; these Standards are available this link: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/rehabilitation- guidelines.pdf.

All architectural and historical properties investigations should be supervised by a Principal Investigator who meets the SOI’s Professional Qualification Standards for history or architectural history (Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61). These standards outline the minimum education and experience requirements and are widely used throughout the United States as minimum standards for architectural and historical properties Principal Investigators. The SOI’s Professional Qualification Standards are as follows: History The minimum professional qualifications in history are a graduate degree in history or closely related field; or a bachelor's degree in history or closely related field plus one of the following: x At least two years of full-time experience in research, writing, teaching, interpretation, or other demonstrable professional activity with an academic institution, historic organization or agency, museum, or other professional institution; or x Substantial contribution through research and publication to the body of scholarly knowledge in the field of history. Architectural History The minimum professional qualifications in architectural history are a graduate degree in architectural history, art history, historic preservation, or closely related field, with coursework in American architectural history, or a bachelor's degree in architectural history, art history, historic preservation or closely related field plus one of the following:

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 98

APPENDICES

x At least two years of full-time experience in research, writing, or teaching in American architectural history or restoration architecture with an academic institution, historical organization or agency, museum, or other professional institution; or x Substantial contribution through research and publication to the body of scholarly knowledge in the field of American architectural history.

Pre-Approved Architectural and Historical Consultants List and RFP To maximize efficiency and minimize delays, the DCNR should prepare a list of pre-approved architectural and historical properties consultants who can quickly and efficiently respond to cultural resources identification needs in the park. Consultant services may be solicited through issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) that outlines the specific education and experience requirements necessary for inclusion in the DCNR’s pre-approved consultant list. The DCNR may also use consultants from the Commonwealth-wide (DGS) contract list. A sample outline for an RFP for on-call consultants is included below. The SHPO is available as a resource throughout this process.

Draft RFP The DCNR is soliciting proposals from qualified consultants to provide architectural and historical properties services for Point State Park. Scope of Work Provide architectural and historical properties consulting services, including (but not limited to): x Identification/Reconnaissance surveys; x Evaluation/Intensive surveys; x Preparation of Pennsylvania Historic Resources Survey Forms (HRSF) forms; x Preparation of technical documentation of reconnaissance and intensive surveys; and/or x Mitigation and/or Treatment of architectural and historical properties.

Qualifications All studies carried out under this scope of work must be under the direct supervision of an individual who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for history or architectural history (Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 61): History x Graduate degree in history or closely related field; or a bachelor's degree in history or closely related field plus one of the following:

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 99

APPENDICES

o At least two years of full-time experience in research, writing, teaching, interpretation, or other demonstrable professional activity with an academic institution, historic organization or agency, museum, or other professional institution; or o Substantial contribution through research and publication to the body of scholarly knowledge in the field of history.

Architectural History x Graduate degree in architectural history, art history, historic preservation, or closely related field, with coursework in American architectural history, or a bachelor's degree in architectural history, art history, historic preservation or closely related field plus one of the following: o At least two years of full-time experience in research, writing, or teaching in American architectural history or restoration architecture with an academic institution, historical organization or agency, museum, or other professional institution; or o Substantial contribution through research and publication to the body of scholarly knowledge in the field of American architectural history.

In addition, the consultant must have: x Familiarity with the SHPO’s Guidelines for Architectural Investigations in Pennsylvania (SHPO 2014), and x Capacity to supply qualified staff and perform services in a timely manner. Proposal Content The proposal package must include: x Cover letter; x Brief history of the consulting firm; x Statement of Qualifications; x Summary of Relevant Experience: Include at least three current and past projects where services were provided related to this Scope of Work. Provide one client reference for each project; x Personnel assignments and individual work experience x A statement explaining your availability and how you can ensure responsiveness to urgent needs; x Suggestions submitted to enhance and/or amend the scope of work and additional details of the approach and methods to carry out the project. (Include if a project is specified in the project scope; do not include if RFP is to identify a list of pre-approved consultants). x Resumes of Key Personnel, and x Hourly Rates

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 100

APPENDICES

Evaluation Criteria x Demonstrated relevant experience; x Qualifications of key personnel; and x Capacity to supply qualified staff and perform services in a timely manner.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 101

APPENDICES

APPENDIX B: CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT UNITS

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 102

APPENDICES

Appendix B: Cultural Resources Management Units Purpose Statement This section provides an overview of the park’s historical significance; threats to cultural resources and treatments by resource type; and archaeological potential throughout the park, followed by descriptions of the Cultural Resources (CR) Management Units that inform the Exemptions Matrix in Chapter 5.

The information in this section is included to 1) provide baseline information on the known and potential resources within each CR Management Unit, 2) support the guidance in the Exemptions Matrix, and 3) assist park staff and the SHPO during consultation and review of park activities that may impact cultural resources. Historical Significance of the Overall Park NRHP-Listed and NHL Forks of the Ohio Historic District The Forks of the Ohio Historic District comprises several resources at Point State Park. Specific contributing resources to the Forks of the Ohio Historic District are discussed within the individual CR Management Unit sections, below. The Historic District is significant in the areas of Military and Politics and Government, as a strategic location in France, England, and America’s struggles for control of North America (Mendinghall 1975:3). The period of significance for the Forks of the Ohio Historic District is 1754 to 1790 (Mendinghall 1975).

NRHP-Listed Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District The creation, design, and construction of Point State Park was an important part of the Pittsburgh Renaissance, an urban renewal effort that transformed the Point and the surrounding area from a place of languishing industry and traffic congestion to a celebration of Pittsburgh’s unique heritage and location at the forks of the three rivers (Figure 59). Ricketts et al. (2012) describe the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District as “a cohesive historic district of distinctly modern buildings and landscapes with a focal point park; it is the central image of Pittsburgh and of the Renaissance” (Ricketts et al. 2012:7-10). While Modernist28 in style, Point State Park’s design honors both the Point’s extensive and complex military history and its earlier history. This is accomplished through visual references to the angular bastions of the Point’s former forts as well as the organic shapes of the original shoreline of the Point and the native vegetation that once grew along its shores.

28 Modernist in this context refers to the Modern Movement in architecture. Ricketts et al. (2012) categorize the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District as Modern Movement/International Style in the NRHP nomination (Ricketts et al. 2012:2).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 103

APPENDICES

According to the Park Management Foundation Document, Point State Park is a modernist park design primarily created by landscape designer Ralph E. Griswold (1894-1981) and landscape architect Charles M. Stotz (1899-1985). The design includes the recreation of the Monongahela Bastion of Fort Pitt for the Fort Pitt Museum, the Portal Bridge, Pedestrian Bridge and Reflecting Pool, the Fountain, the use of native eighteenth century plants in the landscape, open mowed lawns, traceries of the forts and original shoreline, and curvilinear paved walkways. The park was designed to be a place for quiet reflection, as an escape from the oppression of Downtown Pittsburgh skyscrapers.

The park was redesigned (1999-2003) in preparation for the complete reconstruction of the park (2006-2013). Additions to the original design include more seating on the Allegheny Wharf, an amphitheater on the Monongahela Wharf, new native plantings, new park benches, light poles, directional signs, and a café. This redesign still fits in with the modernist style as it was based primarily on function, matching the redesign to the current uses and needs of the park. (DCNR 2015:10)

Figure 59. Point State Park Overview Facing West (Ricketts et al. 2012)

The Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District is significant in the areas of Community Planning and Development, Architecture, Military, and Politics and Government, as both emblematic and the culmination of the “dramatic transformation of […] Pittsburgh’s Golden Triangle” (Ricketts et al. 2012:8- 2). The period of significance for the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District is 1927 to 1974 (Ricketts et

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 104

APPENDICES

al. 2012). Specific contributing resources to the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District are discussed within the individual CR Management Unit sections, below. Treatment of Cultural Resources This section presents an overview of threats to cultural resources at the park and outlines appropriate treatments of the three broad categories of cultural resources: archaeological, architectural, and landscape resources. Because a single resource may encompass multiple management units, these threats and treatments are addressed by resource type for the park as a whole.

Archaeological Resources Threats As mentioned above, an adverse effect to a cultural resource is any effect that diminishes a resource’s ability to convey its historic significance. Archaeological sites are threatened by ground disturbance, including silviculture, utilities work, the use of heavy machinery, trail and pathway construction or improvements, the erection of sign posts, and metal detecting. Treatment All proposed below-ground work not included in the Exemptions Matrix must undergo review by the SHPO before it is undertaken. In addition, x Do not allow use of metal detectors, digging, or removal of surface artifacts; x Do not disclose archaeological site locations to the public; x Monitor the park for signs of erosion and unauthorized digging (looting); x Maintain sites in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI’s) Standards for Preservation; and x Consult with federally recognized tribes as appropriate regarding culturally significant sites.

Architectural Resources Threats Architectural resources are threatened by inappropriate alterations to their fabric or setting, including inappropriate alterations, physical destruction, change in setting or location, visual or audible intrusions, and neglect leading to deterioration. Such effects may be brought on by natural events, such as flooding; inappropriate repairs, additions, or renovations; lack of maintenance; and new construction. Treatment All proposed above-ground work not included in the Exemptions Matrix must undergo review by the SHPO before it is undertaken. In addition, treatment of architectural resources includes appropriate maintenance in accordance with the SOI’s Standards for Preservation and Standards for Rehabilitation,

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 105

APPENDICES

and monitoring for deterioration, vandalism, and other changes in condition. A treatment plan for built resources associated with the park’s two NRHP-listed historic districts should be developed in consultation with the SHPO.

Landscape Resources Threats Threats to the cultural and historic landscape at the park include obstruction of historic viewsheds, invasive vegetation, planting of vegetation not in keeping with the park’s historic landscape, instability and erosion, inappropriate construction, vandalism, flooding, and the use of unauthorized vehicles. Treatment All proposed above-ground work not included in the Exemptions Matrix must undergo review by the SHPO before it is undertaken. In addition, x Maintain historic viewsheds so that they remain unobstructed by intrusions, including vegetation; x Monitor the park’s landscape features for invasive vegetation, instability, vandalism, and inappropriate uses; x Maintain the landscape in accordance with SOI’s Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Landscapes, including maintenance of historic viewsheds, pathways, etc.; x Enforce the vehicle policy; and x Develop a landscape treatment plan in consultation with the SHPO. Archaeological Potential Throughout Point State Park The formational and developmental processes that led to the Point’s current form are discussed in Chapter 3. A short summary is reiterated here. Following the deposition of glacial materials over bedrock in a series of advances and retreats, the Point was carved out by massive rivers that formed during the most recent full glacial retreat 10,000 years ago. Contained within the Point are a higher, older terrace (identified by A.D. Marble & Company as T1) and a newer, lower terrace (identified by A.D. Marble & Company as T0) (A.D. Marble & Company 2009) (see Figure 19).

During the Pre-Contact Period, Native Americans utilized the Point; evidence of these activities is illustrated by the numerous Pre-Contact features and artifacts that have been found at Point State Park. During the Contact Period, the Point became a highly sought-after, and contested, defensive location for France, Great Britain, the colonists, and later, the Americans. As a result, the landform’s surface was changed yet again to accommodate at least four different forts constructed during the eighteenth century in quick succession, as well as associated properties such as a merchant’s village, gardens, and at least one burial ground.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 106

APPENDICES

When the last fort at the Point, Fort Pitt, was decommissioned in the 1780s, the former military lands quickly gave way to settlement for the burgeoning town of Pittsburgh. Soon, Fort Pitt was largely dismantled, with the materials being incorporated into the town-turned-city which rapidly grew up around it. In time, residential buildings gave way to commercial and industrial ventures. During this time, massive amounts of fill were brought in from different parts of the city to expand and stabilize the wharfs along the edges of the Point, as well as to raise and level portions of the Point for a railroad yard.

With the wane of industry in the aftermath of World War II, Pittsburgh, and the Point in particular, underwent a rebirth as part of the Pittsburgh Renaissance. Through Commonwealth, county, and local efforts, the Point was transformed from what some viewed as an industrial wasteland to a park replete with curvilinear paths, modern buildings and structures, and a reorganized traffic structure that provided a place of respite and reflection in the heart of the city. The formation of Point State Park involved grading29 throughout the park to level the Point’s surface, which involved cuts in some places and addition of fill in others. One of the most destructive actions to the remains of Fort Pitt was the construction of the Portal Bridge, which passed directly through the fort’s footprint, and necessitated the driving of piers down into the remaining foundations of the fort.

Even so, despite extensive ground disturbance in some areas of the park, archaeological resources have been uncovered in areas that were previously viewed as having little to no potential for intact resources due to previous ground disturbance and the presence of fill. For example, a sharpened 4-foot-long post and a 7.8-foot-long shaped timber associated with a Fort Pitt storehouse were uncovered in an electrical duct bank trench on the eastern edge of the Portal Bridge in CR Management Unit 8 in 2006, an area that had previously been considered as lacking potential for archaeological resources due to previous ground disturbance (A.D. Marble & Company 2009:67; Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003:31). Similarly, an 18-foot-long adze-cut tree trunk which appears to have served as a scaffold post or planking during the construction of Fort Pitt’s Music Bastion was found in an irrigation trench in 2006 in a previously disturbed area in CR Management Unit 10 (A.D. Marble & Company 2009:69). Again, this illustrates that while there has been heavy ground disturbance throughout the park, the high potential for significant finds exists.

Developmental processes at work at the Point, coupled with frequent flooding episodes, have resulted in a very complex soil stratigraphy that reflects soil and materials added, removed, and rearranged frequently throughout history. Despite massive construction, demolition, and grading undertaken from the late eighteenth through the mid-twentieth centuries, intact archaeological resources from all previous time

29 The subgrading of the Point was “based on a uniform 6 inch depth below finished grade for proposed surface construction, planted areas and lawns” (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003:27).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 107

APPENDICES

periods that have been represented at the Point, from the Pre-Contact through Industrial Periods, have been uncovered in recent archaeological investigations.

In addition, depths of potential archaeological resources vary considerably across the park. During archaeological investigations and geoprobe coring in 2005, A.D. Marble & Company established the potential for archaeological resources down to at least 20 feet below the ground surface in some locations. During the 2006-2007 archaeological investigation of Point State Park, A.D. Marble & Company located a Terminal Archaic projectile point on the ground surface of the Great Lawn near the Fort Duquesne Tracery. (A.D. Marble & Company 2006; A.D. Marble & Company 2009:34). These widely contrasting depths at which archaeological resources were found illustrates the great variation in potential depth at which archaeological resources may be present in certain parts of the park.

As a result, no location in the park can be considered to have no potential for subsurface archaeological resources. However, the ground disturbance via fill, soil removal and grading, and robust construction and demolition during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, has resulted in extensive ground disturbance throughout the Point. These are referenced more specifically within the descriptions of individual CR Management Units.

It is recommended that soil corings/geoprobing be conducted on a grid system throughout the park, with spacing and depth determined by a geomorphologist and an archaeologist with experience in an urban environment who meets the SOI’s Professional Qualification Standards. This will allow for a more complete and nuanced understanding of the nature and depth of fill, and potential for archaeological resources, in the park. CR Management Units The park has been divided into 12 CR Management Units to manage activities and inform consultation with SHPO (Figure 60).30 These CR Management Units have been defined based on physical commonalities, spatial boundaries, and uses by park staff and visitors. The NRHP-listed historic districts encompass multiple CR Management Units; similarly, a single cultural resource, such as an archaeological site, may span more than one CR Management Unit. For each CR Management Unit, the following information is provided: x a brief description of the area; x a statement of the historical significance of the identified resources within the area;

30 Although the Block House and associated grounds are owned by the Fort Pitt Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution, it has been designated a CR Management Unit because it is contained within the boundaries of Point State Park. However, recommendations are not provided for the CR Management Unit containing the Block House (CR Management Unit 5) because it is not owned by the DCNR.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 108

APPENDICES

x a list of character-defining features for above-ground resources that have established areas and periods of significance; and x a summary analysis of the archaeological potential of that area. The summary analysis of archaeological potential for each area is accompanied by one or more figures providing simplified representations of the stratigraphic formation of specific locations within that area.

Character-defining features are elements of a resource that convey its historical significance. The alteration, obscurement, or loss of character-defining features can negatively impact, or even destroy, a resource’s ability to convey its historic significance, which can in turn lead to the loss of the resource’s historic designation status (e.g., being listed in the NRHP and designated as an NHL). To protect the historic significance and integrity of the park’s cultural resources, it is vital that they are managed in such a way that their character-defining features are preserved.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 109

Point State Park Cultural Resources Management Plan Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

1. Fountain Plaza

2A. Allegheny Wharf

2B. Monongahela Wharf 2A 3A. Woodlands North 11A 3B. Woodlands South 4. Great Lawn 6 3A 6 5. Block House

6. Allegheny Overlook

7. Fort Pitt Museum and Adjacent Lawn/Paving 1 8A. Portal Bridge Outlet - Riverside

8B. Portal Bridge Inlet - City Side 4 10 9. Portal Bridge/Interstate Bridge 8A 9 8B 10. City Side Lawn 11A. City Side Woodlands North 5 11B. City Side Woodlands South

12. Flag Bastion and Parking Lot

3B 11B

2B 7

040Meters 12 1:2,000 0 100 Feet [

Management 8QLWV Overview

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community )igure Source: 106 Group Map Produced by 106 Group 7/18/2018

APPENDICES

CR Management Unit 1: Fountain Plaza Brief Description CR Management Unit 1 consists of a roughly oval-shaped area containing the Fountain Plaza and associated seating, steps, pump house, and public restrooms (Figure 60). The Fountain was originally constructed in 1972-1974 and renovated in 2013. The Fountain Plaza is located at approximately 715 feet above sea level.

The iconic Fountain consists of a large pool, approximately 195 feet in diameter, from which a central jet rises over 100 feet above the pool’s surface, surrounded by three lower “peacock tail” arcing jets that symbolize the three rivers bordering the Point (Figure 61, Figure 62). An inner ring within the outer granite ring of the pool creates a waterfall “infinity edge” around the border of the pool (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:11). A series of steps and terraces rises from the Fountain Plaza to the east, eventually reaching the elevation of the Great Lawn (Figure 63). It is at this higher level that the pump house and public restroom buildings are located. The layout of CR Management Unit 1 is symmetrical on an east-west axis, with the buildings containing the pump house and the restrooms facing one another on either side of the entrance to the Great Lawn (CR Management Unit 4, discussed below) from the Fountain Plaza steps.

The pathways, steps, terraces, and surrounding surface of the Fountain Plaza surface are comprised of hardscaping, including gray and blue granite and bluestone, and multi-colored blockstone in creams, browns, and grays (Figure 63). The granite and bluestone have smooth surfacing, while the blockstone is more roughly textured. The colors of the materials (blue, gray, brown, and cream) reflect the gradations of hues in the surrounding rivers. Metal handrails along the steps have a smooth finish and a simplified design consisting of straight lines and arcing curves. The steps, which are flanked by large rectangular flat-topped partitions of bluestone, have a simplified geometric profile of right angles, complementing the square and rectangular shapes of the stone paving and partitions. In 2013, the Fountain Plaza was raised approximately 9.5 inches and a second floor was added to the pump house to contain additional electrical and mechanical equipment (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:14).

The two buildings in CR Management Unit 1 are both two-story rectangular buildings that rest on concrete foundations. The buildings are constructed of brick and clad in smooth cream-colored stone blocks, and are accessed by single-leaf metal pedestrian doors. The buildings have hooded metal lights near the pedestrian entranceways. The first story of each building has a flat roof with beveled stone coping at the top. The second story of each building is recessed on all four elevations. The second story of each building has a hipped roof with a flat ridgeline that is covered in red standing-seam metal. Single- leaf metal pedestrian doors provide access to the roof of the first story.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 111

APPENDICES

Figure 61. Fountain, Facing Northeast (Ricketts et al. 2012)

Figure 62. Fountain, Facing West (106 Group)

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 112

APPENDICES

Figure 63. Steps from Fountain Plaza to Great Lawn, Facing South (106 Group)

Historical Significance The Fountain is listed as a contributing resource to the NRHP-listed Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District (Ricketts et al. 2012). While not specifically counted as contributing resources within the NRHP nomination, 31 the Fountain Plaza (with its associated steps and terraces), and the pump house and restroom buildings are considered part of the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District’s historic landscape, and therefore, contributing to the significance of the Historic District.

31 In the NRHP nomination for the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District, Ricketts et al. note that in addition to the counted contributing resources to the district, “there are several uncounted landscape features within the historic district, including the surrounding boulevards and small-scale resources and landscape elements within Point State Park” (Ricketts et al. 2012:7-1). The SHPO considers a resource contributing to an NRHP-listed historic district if the resource conforms to the theme and period of significance for that district. The official NRHP status of these resources has not yet been formally determined by the NPS.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 113

APPENDICES

Character-Defining Features x Modernist-style buildings, structures, objects, and landscaping x Fountain at apex of the Point set in large-diameter circular pool with 100’-high central jet of water surrounded by three smaller jets of water x Open expanses of hardscaping in smooth-textured gray and blue granite and bluestone, and round-textured multi-colored blockstone in creams, browns, and grays surrounding the fountain x Rectangular, Modernist-style buildings on the perimeter of the plaza x Flat first story building roofs and recessed second stories with hipped roofs covered with red standing-seam metal x Smooth cream-colored stone block cladding on buildings x Low-rise bluestone steps flanked by rectangular bluestone partitions x Modernist-style metal railings Archaeological Potential &RQWHQW5HPRYHG8QGHUVXEVHFWLRQFRIWKH6WDWH+LVWRU\&RGH 7LWOH ³7KHFRPPLVVLRQ >3+0&@VKDOOKDYHDQGPDLQWDLQSURSULHWDU\ULJKWVRYHUWKHPDSVDQGVXUYH\VLQGLFDWLQJWKHORFDWLRQRI DUFKDHRORJLFDOUHVRXUFHVRUDUFKDHRORJLFDOILHOGLQYHVWLJDWLRQVWKDWKDYHEHHQLQYHQWRULHGRUVXUYH\HG 7KHVHPDSVDQGVXUYH\VDUHH[FOXGHGIURPWKHSURYLVLRQVRIWKHDFWRI-XQH 3/1R UHIHUUHGWRDVWKH5LJKWWR.QRZ/DZ´

CR Management Unit 2: Allegheny and Monongahela Wharfs Brief Description CR Management Unit 2 is divided into two parts: the Allegheny Wharf (2A), and the Monongahela (“Mon”) Wharf (2B) (Figure 60). The wharfs are two long, linear areas running along the north and south edges of the park, adjacent to the river. The wharfs were built up with fill during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and then leveled and covered with hardscaped walkways as part of the construction of Point State Park in the 1950s and 1960s. Similar to CR Management Unit 1, the wharfs are hardscaped smooth-textured bluestone and roughly-textured blockstone in blue, gray, and cream colors (Figure 64,

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 114 APPENDICES

Figure 65). They feature “dual level paved promenades with terraced stone seating” (Ricketts et al. 2012:7-9). The upper promenade is paved while the lower promenade is bluestone and blockstone. The upper promenade is lined with light standards consisting of cylindrical metal poles topped by flat oval metal disc visors. Streamlined metal benches with Modernist profiles and trees are interspersed along the line of light standards (Figure 66). Both wharfs connect to the main body of the park through stone stairways and sloped paved pathways (Figure 67). Tree plantings are interspersed at regular intervals along the park side of the walkways, which are part of the Three Rivers Heritage Trail, that span the wharfs. Renovation to the wharfs in the 2000s included the construction of additional seating on the Allegheny Wharf and the construction of an amphitheater along the Monongahela Wharf (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:13). The amphitheater features the same smooth- finished metal handrails as the Fountain Plaza, and the stone steps of the amphitheater are flanked by cream-colored smooth stone block partitions, which in turn are flanked by rough-textured large multi- colored blockstone landscaping.

Figure 64. Monongahela Wharf, Facing Northwest (106 Group)

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 115 APPENDICES

Figure 65. Allegheny Wharf, Facing Southwest (106 Group)

Figure 66. Allegheny Wharf, Facing West (Ricketts et al. 2012)

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 116 APPENDICES

Figure 67. Stairway from Allegheny Wharf to Three Rivers Heritage Trail, Facing Southeast (Ricketts et al. 2012) Historical Significance While not specifically counted as contributing resources to the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District in the NRHP nomination, the wharfs are considered part of the Historic District’s historic landscape, and therefore, contributing to the significance of the Historic District.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 117 APPENDICES

Archaeological Potential &RQWHQW5HPRYHG8QGHUVXEVHFWLRQFRIWKH6WDWH+LVWRU\&RGH 7LWOH ³7KHFRPPLVVLRQ >3+0&@VKDOOKDYHDQGPDLQWDLQSURSULHWDU\ULJKWVRYHUWKHPDSVDQGVXUYH\VLQGLFDWLQJWKHORFDWLRQRI DUFKDHRORJLFDOUHVRXUFHVRUDUFKDHRORJLFDOILHOGLQYHVWLJDWLRQVWKDWKDYHEHHQLQYHQWRULHGRUVXUYH\HG 7KHVHPDSVDQGVXUYH\VDUHH[FOXGHGIURPWKHSURYLVLRQVRIWKHDFWRI-XQH 3/1R UHIHUUHGWRDVWKH5LJKWWR.QRZ/DZ´

CR Management Unit 3: Woodlands North and South Brief Description CR Management Unit 3 is divided into two parts: Woodlands North (3A) and Woodlands South (3B) (Figure 60). The woodlands are two irregularly shaped, curved areas to the north and south of the Great Lawn (CR Management Unit 4, discussed below). Visitors are led through and around the woodlands via paved, curving pathways (Figure 68, Figure 69). The woodlands together comprise over two acres. The woodlands were formed by removing the fill covering the Point at the time of the park’s initial construction, which contained “[l]itter, rubbish, crockery, glass, sewer pipes, shoes, ashes, slag, cement, and tarpaper,” and bringing in topsoil, which was placed in mounded planting beds edged by natural stones (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:13). The decision was made during park construction to plant only species of vegetation that would have been native to the Point during the mid- eighteenth century. At present, the woodlands contain native trees, shrubs, groundcover, and wildflowers (Figure 70). They “provide habitat for local wildlife and act as an urban oasis for park visitors [and] … also provide an important link to local history” (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:13). Curvilinear paved paths guide visitors through the landscape. As the Point State Park Foundation Document notes, “Using historically accurate plants is a defining feature of the original 1953 landscape design for the park” (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:13).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 118

APPENDICES

Figure 68. Woodlands North, Facing West (Ricketts et al. 2012)

Figure 69. Woodlands South, Facing East (106 Group)

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 119

APPENDICES

Figure 70. Woodlands North, Facing East (Ricketts et al. 2012) Historical Significance While not specifically counted as contributing resources to the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District in the NRHP nomination, the woodland areas are considered part of the Historic District’s historic landscape, and therefore, contributing to the significance of the Historic District (Ricketts et al. 2012).

Archaeological resources that conform to the theme and period of significance for an NRHP-listed historic district, and that possess integrity, are considered contributing to that district. Archaeological resources that 1) date to a time period outside of that of an NRHP-listed district, 2) are at least 50 years of age, and 3) possess integrity, should be considered potentially eligible pending evaluation by a qualified archaeologist. Character-Defining Features x Curved, mounded planting beds planted with trees and plants that were native to the Point in the eighteenth century x Curvilinear paved walkways encircling the planting beds x Stone edging along planting beds x Modernist-style metal light standards Archaeological Potential &RQWHQW5HPRYHG8QGHUVXEVHFWLRQFRIWKH6WDWH+LVWRU\&RGH 7LWOH ³7KHFRPPLVVLRQ >3+0&@VKDOOKDYHDQGPDLQWDLQSURSULHWDU\ULJKWVRYHUWKHPDSVDQGVXUYH\VLQGLFDWLQJWKHORFDWLRQRI DUFKDHRORJLFDOUHVRXUFHVRUDUFKDHRORJLFDOILHOGLQYHVWLJDWLRQVWKDWKDYHEHHQLQYHQWRULHGRUVXUYH\HG 7KHVHPDSVDQGVXUYH\VDUHH[FOXGHGIURPWKHSURYLVLRQVRIWKHDFWRI-XQH 3/1R UHIHUUHGWRDVWKH5LJKWWR.QRZ/DZ´

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 120

CONTENT

REMOVED

CR Management Unit 4: Great Lawn Brief Description CR Management Unit 4 consists of the Great Lawn, an expanse of green space and lawn that is generally rectangular with curvilinear sides, oriented east-west, and bordered by Woodlands North and South to the north and south, the Fountain Plaza to the west, and the approach to the Portal Bridge on the east (Figure 60). Set into the Great Lawn are stone paving traceries of the approximate outlines of Fort Duquesne and the eighteenth-century shoreline of the Point prior to the introduction of fill in later centuries (Figure 75, Figure 76). A bronze medallion is located at the center of the Fort Duquesne tracery. Visitors are led around the perimeter of the Great Lawn by undulating concrete pathways (Figure 77). The Great Lawn, a “key element of the [M]odernist design of the park,” provides an unimpeded viewshed from the Portal Bridge to the intersection of the three rivers, “honor[ing] the historical significance of the location” (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:13).

Figure 75. Tracery of Fort Duquesne on the Great Lawn (106 Group)

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 127 APPENDICES

Figure 76. Great Lawn, Facing East (106 Group)

Figure 77. Great Lawn, Facing East (Ricketts et al. 2012) Historical Significance While not specifically counted as a contributing resource to the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District in the NRHP nomination, the Great Lawn and associated traceries are considered part of the Historic District’s historic landscape and, therefore, contributing to the significance of the Historic District (Ricketts et al. 2012).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 128 APPENDICES

The NRHP-listed Forks of the Ohio Historic District, which is an NHL, lists the Fort Duquesne tracery as one of the resources in the NRHP nomination; the contributing status is not specified (Mendinghall 1975:8).

Archaeological resources that conform to the theme and period of significance for an NRHP-listed historic district, and that possess integrity, are considered contributing to that district. Archaeological resources that 1) date to a time period outside of that of an NRHP-listed district, 2) are at least 50 years of age, and 3) possess integrity, should be considered potentially eligible pending evaluation by a qualified archaeologist. Character-Defining Features x Large, open expanse of maintained grassy lawn with curved borders providing an unobscured viewshed from Commonwealth Place through the Portal Bridge to the apex of the Point and the intersection of the three rivers x Stone traceries of the outlines of Fort Duquesne and the eighteenth-century Point shoreline x Curvilinear concrete pathways encircling the Great Lawn x Modernist-style metal light standards and benches Archaeological Potential &RQWHQW5HPRYHG8QGHUVXEVHFWLRQFRIWKH6WDWH+LVWRU\&RGH 7LWOH ³7KHFRPPLVVLRQ >3+0&@VKDOOKDYHDQGPDLQWDLQSURSULHWDU\ULJKWVRYHUWKHPDSVDQGVXUYH\VLQGLFDWLQJWKHORFDWLRQ RIDUFKDHRORJLFDOUHVRXUFHVRUDUFKDHRORJLFDOILHOGLQYHVWLJDWLRQVWKDWKDYHEHHQLQYHQWRULHGRU VXUYH\HG7KHVHPDSVDQGVXUYH\VDUHH[FOXGHGIURPWKHSURYLVLRQVRIWKHDFWRI-XQH 3/1R UHIHUUHGWRDVWKH5LJKWWR.QRZ/DZ´

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 129 APPENDICES

CR Management Unit 5: Block House Brief Description CR Management Unit 5 consists of the Fort Pitt Block House and the irregular-shaped adjacent yard, which is enclosed by a metal fence bordered by concrete sidewalks (Figure 60). Built in 1764 under the order of Colonel Henry Bouquet, the Block House is a pentagonal two-story building constructed of brick and resting on a stone foundation (Figure 81). The hipped roof is built of timbers and covered in wood shingles. Fenestration consists of loop holes to be used for defensive firing, and a single-leaf wood pedestrian door on the southeast elevation. The grounds surrounding the Block House are maintained as a grassy lawn and contain a flagpole, decorative plantings, concrete pathways, light standards of the same design as elsewhere in the park, and a stone and metal memorial.

CR Management Unit 5 is owned and operated by the Fort Pitt Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution. It is included here because it is within the boundaries of Point State Park and to provide contextual information regarding the surrounding CR Management Units.

Figure 81. Fort Pitt Block House, Facing West (Ricketts et al. 2012) Historical Significance The Block House is a contributing feature to the NRHP-listed Forks of the Ohio Historic District, which is also an NHL (Mendinghall 1975:8). The Block House is the only extant structure remaining from the British Colonial Fort Pitt, and the oldest authenticated structure in Western Pennsylvania (Fort Pitt Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution 2018).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 134 APPENDICES

Archaeological resources that conform to the theme and period of significance for an NRHP-listed historic district, and that possess integrity, are considered contributing to that district. Archaeological resources that 1) date to a time period outside of that of an NRHP-listed district, 2) are at least 50 years of age, and 3) possess integrity, should be considered potentially eligible pending evaluation by a qualified archaeologist. Character-Defining Features x Two-story pentagonal redoubt with brick walls in English bond x Stone foundation x Loopholes cut into timber coursing x Iron tie plates x Hipped roof covered with wood shingles x Engraved stone tablet above doorway x Wood door with hand-forged iron hardware x Maintained landscaping of lawn and ornamental plantings surrounding structure x Iron fencing around structure and surrounding lawn Archaeological Potential &RQWHQW5HPRYHG8QGHUVXEVHFWLRQFRIWKH6WDWH+LVWRU\&RGH 7LWOH ³7KHFRPPLVVLRQ >3+0&@VKDOOKDYHDQGPDLQWDLQSURSULHWDU\ULJKWVRYHUWKHPDSVDQGVXUYH\VLQGLFDWLQJWKHORFDWLRQ RIDUFKDHRORJLFDOUHVRXUFHVRUDUFKDHRORJLFDOILHOGLQYHVWLJDWLRQVWKDWKDYHEHHQLQYHQWRULHGRU VXUYH\HG7KHVHPDSVDQGVXUYH\VDUHH[FOXGHGIURPWKHSURYLVLRQVRIWKHDFWRI-XQH 3/1R UHIHUUHGWRDVWKH5LJKWWR.QRZ/DZ´

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 135

CONTENT

REMOVED

CR Management Unit 6: Allegheny Overlook Brief Description CR Management Unit 6 consists of the Allegheny Overlook, a contoured hill in the north-central portion of the park (Figure 60). The Allegheny Overlook is accessed from the south by a paved pathway from the western side of the Portal Bridge, and from the north by a pedestrian bridge adjacent to the Fort Duquesne Bridge and stairways leading from the dual promenades of the Allegheny Wharf. The Allegheny Overlook features a flat, grassy expanse at the top of the hill, which is encircled by a curving pathway. Trees and metal benches line the inner edge of the pathway to the north and west, offering a viewshed of the Allegheny and Ohio Rivers. The northern and western edges of the Allegheny Overlook are bounded by a stone retaining wall (Figure 84, Figure 85).

Figure 84. Panorama of the Allegheny Overlook, Facing Southeast (106 Group)

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 138 APPENDICES

Figure 85. The Allegheny Overlook, Facing Northeast (106 Group) Historical Significance While not specifically counted as a contributing resource to the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District in the NRHP nomination, the Allegheny Overlook is considered part of the Historic District’s historic landscape, and therefore contributing to the significance of the Historic District (Ricketts et al. 2012).

Character-Defining Features x Contoured hill topped by a flat, grassy expanse x Curved, paved pathway x Evenly-spaced trees around grassy expanse x Modernist-style metal benches x Stone retaining wall Archaeological Potential &RQWHQW5HPRYHG8QGHUVXEVHFWLRQFRIWKH6WDWH+LVWRU\&RGH 7LWOH ³7KHFRPPLVVLRQ>3+0&@VKDOO KDYHDQGPDLQWDLQSURSULHWDU\ULJKWVRYHUWKHPDSVDQGVXUYH\VLQGLFDWLQJWKHORFDWLRQRIDUFKDHRORJLFDOUHVRXUFHV RUDUFKDHRORJLFDOILHOGLQYHVWLJDWLRQVWKDWKDYHEHHQLQYHQWRULHGRUVXUYH\HG7KHVHPDSVDQGVXUYH\VDUHH[FOXGHG IURPWKHSURYLVLRQVRIWKHDFWRI-XQH 3/1R UHIHUUHGWRDVWKH5LJKWWR.QRZ/DZ´

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 139 APPENDICES

$POUFOU3FNPWFE6OEFSf TVCTFDUJPODPGUIF4UBUF)JTUPSZ$PEF 5JUMF i5IFDPNNJTTJPO<1).$> TIBMMIBWFBOENBJOUBJOQSPQSJFUBSZSJHIUTPWFSUIFNBQTBOETVSWFZTJOEJDBUJOHUIFMPDBUJPOPGBSDIBFPMPHJDBM SFTPVSDFTPSBSDIBFPMPHJDBMGJFMEJOWFTUJHBUJPOTUIBUIBWFCFFOJOWFOUPSJFEPSTVSWFZFE5IFTFNBQTBOETVSWFZT BSFFYDMVEFEGSPNUIFQSPWJTJPOTPGUIFBDUPG+VOF 1- /P SFGFSSFEUPBTUIF3JHIUUP,OPX -BXw

CR Management Unit 7: Fort Pitt Museum and Adjacent Lawn/Paving Brief Description CR Management Unit 7 is roughly circular in shape and consists of the Fort Pitt Museum and the adjacent grounds (Figure 60). The Fort Pitt Museum, constructed in 1969, was designed by Charles Morse Stotz. It is a diamond-shaped building with a projecting entrance located between the southern end of the Portal Bridge and the reconstructed brick Monongahela Bastion. The building is faced in brick and rests on a concrete foundation. There is a Modernist-style concrete and glass entrance (Figure 86, Figure 87). A second story was added to the building in 2001 (Ricketts et al. 2012:7-8, 7-9). The Fort Pitt Museum is owned by the PHMC and operated by the Senator John Heinz History Center.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 140 APPENDICES

Figure 86. The Fort Pitt Museum, Facing Southwest (106 Group)

Figure 87. The Fort Pitt Museum, Facing South (106 Group) Historical Significance The Fort Pitt Museum is a contributing resource to the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District (Ricketts et al. 2012). In addition to being an important part of the park’s Modernist built environment, the museum houses exhibits on the complex and rich history of the Point and provides services for visitors.

While not specifically counted as a contributing resource to the NRHP-listed and NHL Forks of the Ohio Historic District, the reconstructed Monongahela Bastion is considered a contributing resource to the district (Mendinghall 1975).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 141 APPENDICES

Archaeological resources that conform to the theme and period of significance for an NRHP-listed historic district, and that possess integrity, are considered contributing to that district. Archaeological resources that 1) date to a time period outside of that of an NRHP-listed district, 2) are at least 50 years of age, and 3) possess integrity, should be considered potentially eligible pending evaluation by a qualified archaeologist. Character-Defining Features x Modernist-style diamond-shaped brick building with projecting, irregularly-shaped entrance x Brick and stone walls x Building set within reconstructed brick walls of Monongahela Bastion x Stepped, slanted clerestory windows x Steel and glass transoms, sidelights, and entrance doors encircled by a concrete surround x Hipped metal roof x Concrete sidewalks x Maintained open grassy lawn lined with Modernist-style metal light standards and some ornamental plantings around the side and rear of building Archaeological Potential &RQWHQW5HPRYHG8QGHUVXEVHFWLRQFRIWKH6WDWH+LVWRU\&RGH 7LWOH ³7KHFRPPLVVLRQ >3+0&@VKDOOKDYHDQGPDLQWDLQSURSULHWDU\ULJKWVRYHUWKHPDSVDQGVXUYH\VLQGLFDWLQJWKHORFDWLRQ RIDUFKDHRORJLFDOUHVRXUFHVRUDUFKDHRORJLFDOILHOGLQYHVWLJDWLRQVWKDWKDYHEHHQLQYHQWRULHGRU VXUYH\HG7KHVHPDSVDQGVXUYH\VDUHH[FOXGHGIURPWKHSURYLVLRQVRIWKHDFWRI-XQH 3/1R UHIHUUHGWRDVWKH5LJKWWR.QRZ/DZ´

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 142

CONTENT

REMOVED

CR Management Unit 8: Portal Bridge Outlet and Inlet Brief Description CR Management Unit 8 is divided into two parts: the Portal Bridge Outlet (8A), on the west side of the Portal Bridge, and the Portal Bridge Inlet (8B), on the east side of the Portal Bridge (Figure 60). Both the Portal Bridge Outlet and the Portal Bridge Inlet are roughly rectangular, concrete pads with smooth stone edging Figure 89, Figure 90). They serve as the entrance and exit to the Portal Bridge, inviting visitors to pass over the Pedestrian Bridge and Reflecting Pool beneath the Portal Bridge to experience the Riverside and City Sides of Point State Park. Most of Point State Park visitors enter the Portal Bridge via the Portal Bridge Inlet on the City Side of the park, drawn by the magnificent view of the iconic Fountain, and the rivers beyond.

Figure 89. Portal Bridge Outlet, Facing Southeast (106 Group)

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 145 APPENDICES

Figure 90. Portal Bridge Inlet, Facing Southwest (106 Group) Historical Significance While not specifically counted as contributing resources to the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District in the NRHP nomination, the Portal Bridge Inlet and Outlet are considered part of the Historic District’s historic landscape, and, therefore, contributing to the significance of the Historic District (Ricketts et al. 2012).

While not specifically counted as a contributing resource to NRHP-listed and NHL Forks of the Ohio Historic District, the reconstructed Monongahela Bastion is considered a contributing resource to the district (Mendinghall 1975).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 146

CONTENT

REMOVED

CR Management Unit 9: Portal Bridge/Interstate Bridge Brief Description CR Management Unit 9 is an elongated rectangular area traversing the park from south to north (Figure 60). CR Management Unit 9 consists of the Portal Bridge (Figure 96) and its associated features, designed in 1954 by Charles Morse Stotz in consultation with Gordon Bunshaft of Skidmore Owings & Merrill and Eugene Freyssinet, a French structural engineer. The bridge, which was completed in 1964, carries eight lanes of traffic over Point State Park, and is described as “an excellent example of modernist design principles (primarily International Style)” in the Park Management Foundation Document (DCNR 2015:12). The bridge is owned and maintained by PennDOT (DCNR 2015:12). The Foundation Document includes the followed detailed description: The Portal Bridge is a flat concrete rib arch with a span of 182 feet, a clearance height of less than 23 feet and a clear, wide view to the park, fountain, rivers and hills to the west. The portal has an interior hollow shell with three curved vaults, each 160 feet long, arching across and between four heavily reinforced ribs 40 feet apart, the ribs taking part in the overall arch support action. Four underground post-tensioned concrete tiers help support the above-ground structure. The exposed ribs of the three arches show the underlying structure exactly, giving the structure the sense of “honesty” that modernist architecture strives for. As an arch becomes flatter, it requires more support and stronger materials. The use of new technological advances in pre-stressed reinforced rods in concrete allowed for the flat arch construction (DNCR 2015:12).

In the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District NRHP Nomination, the Portal Bridge is described as an “an elegant flattened arch bridge … with its three ribbed arches of pre-stressed and post-tensioned concrete”; the bridge “maintains a throughway for traffic while providing visually dramatic access from the eastern city-side lawn of Point State Park to the western confluence-side and the Point” (Ricketts et al. 2012:7-8) (Figure 96Figure 96. Portal Bridge Facing East (106 Group)).

Pedestrians are drawn through the Portal Bridge via a smaller flattened arch Pedestrian Bridge which runs perpendicular to, and underneath, the Portal Bridge. The Pedestrian Bridge brings pedestrians over a rectangular Reflecting Pool beneath the arch of the Portal Bridge (Figure 97, Figure 98, Figure 99). The Pedestrian Bridge and the Reflecting Pool are owned and maintained by the DCNR. The bottom of the Reflecting Pool is mosaiced in fish scale patterns of river stones, while the surface of the pool reflects the smooth arcing ribs of the underside of the Portal Bridge and the scalloped scones beneath each ribbed arch (Figure 97, Figure 98, and Figure 99). At night, the Portal Bridge is illuminated with overhead down- lights while the scalloped sconces beneath the bridge illuminate the arch ribs, highlighting the structure’s design while providing a welcoming thoroughfare for pedestrians (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:12).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 153 APPENDICES

Figure 96. Portal Bridge Facing East (106 Group)

Figure 97. Pedestrian Bridge and Reflecting Pool Facing West (106 Group)

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 154 APPENDICES

Figure 98. Portal Bridge and Reflecting Pool Facing Southeast (106 Group)

Figure 99. Pedestrian Bridge and Reflecting Pool Facing Northeast (Ricketts et al. 2012)

Historical Significance The Portal Bridge is a contributing resource to the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District. While not specifically counted as contributing resources to the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District in the NRHP nomination, the Pedestrian Bridge and Reflecting Pool are considered part of the Historic District’s

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 155 APPENDICES historic landscape, and therefore contributing to the significance of the Historic District (Ricketts et al. 2012).

Archaeological resources that conform to the theme and period of significance for an NRHP-listed historic district, and that possess integrity, are considered contributing to that district. Archaeological resources that 1) date to a time period outside of that of an NRHP-listed district, 2) are at least 50 years of age, and 3) possess integrity, should be considered potentially eligible pending evaluation by a qualified archaeologist. Character-Defining Features x Unobscured viewshed through Portal Bridge focusing City Side viewer’s gaze on the apex of the Point x Flat concrete rib arch Portal Bridge of cream-colored concrete with three elongated vaults and exposed ribs x Stone mosaic-lined, water-filled Reflecting Pool providing visual coax through Portal x Narrow, elongated, low arch Pedestrian Bridge of cream-colored concrete with metal birails running beneath and perpendicular to the Portal Bridge x Small, cylindrical metal pendant lights in two rows on the underside of the Portal Bridge illuminating the Pedestrian Bridge x Cream-colored, scalloped sconce lights highlighting the vaults and ribs of the Portal Bridge Archaeological Potential &RQWHQW5HPRYHG8QGHUVXEVHFWLRQFRIWKH6WDWH+LVWRU\&RGH 7LWOH ³7KHFRPPLVVLRQ >3+0&@VKDOOKDYHDQGPDLQWDLQSURSULHWDU\ULJKWVRYHUWKHPDSVDQGVXUYH\VLQGLFDWLQJWKHORFDWLRQRI DUFKDHRORJLFDOUHVRXUFHVRUDUFKDHRORJLFDOILHOGLQYHVWLJDWLRQVWKDWKDYHEHHQLQYHQWRULHGRUVXUYH\HG 7KHVHPDSVDQGVXUYH\VDUHH[FOXGHGIURPWKHSURYLVLRQVRIWKHDFWRI-XQH 3/1R UHIHUUHGWRDVWKH5LJKWWR.QRZ/DZ´

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 156

CONTENT

REMOVED

Pit L 9 Pit M Pit V Pit X

Pit S [ 1:7,527 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Source: 106 Group; Bliss 1944 Produced by 106 Group 7/18/2018 Point State Park Management 8QLW 9 Cultural Resources Management Plan Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Figure APPENDICES

CR Management Unit 10: City Side Lawn Brief Description CR Management Unit 10 (City Side Lawn) is a roughly circular area on the east-central side of Point State Park. It is bordered by CR Management Units 11A and 11B to the north and south, CR Management Unit 8B to the west, and Commonwealth Place to the east (Figure 60). CR Management Unit 10 is a wide expanse of grassy lawn bordered by curvilinear concrete sidewalks that route visitors from the city to the Portal Bridge Inlet (Figure 101, Figure 102). Inset into the grassy lawn is a stone tracery outlining the footprint of the Music Bastion; the tracery, constructed as part of the 2001-2013 park renovations, replaced an earlier trench outlining the footprint of the Music Bastion (Ricketts et al. 2012:7-9). The City Side Lawn, more than any other part of Point State Park, receives heavy use as a major outdoor event venue. As a result, “significant renovations have been made to the city-side of the park to accommodate events including irrigated turf area, electrical and water hookups for vendors, and a stage area with electrical transformer” (Park Management Foundation Document [DCNR 2015]:14).

Figure 101. City Side Lawn Facing Northwest (106 Group)

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 159 APPENDICES

Figure 102. City Side Lawn Facing East (106 Group) Historical Significance While not specifically counted as a contributing resource to the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District in the NRHP nomination, the City Side Lawn is considered part of the Historic District’s historic landscape, and therefore contributing to the significance of the Historic District (Ricketts et al. 2012).

The NRHP-listed Forks of the Ohio Historic District, which is an NHL, identifies the lower remnants of the Music Bastion as one of the resources in the NRHP nomination (Mendinghall 1975:8).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 160 APPENDICES

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 161

CONTENT

REMOVED

CR Management Unit 11: City Side Woodlands North and South Brief Description CR Management Unit 11 consists of two roughly U-shaped parts: City Side Woodlands North (11A), and City Side Woodlands South (11B), on either side of the City Side Lawn (Figure 60). Like their counterparts on the Riverside of the park, the City Side Woodlands were formed by removing the fill covering the Point at the time of the park’s initial construction and bringing in topsoil, which was placed in mounded planting beds, into which native trees, shrubs, and groundcover have been planted (Figure 104). Visitors are guided past the City Side Woodlands via curvilinear concrete sidewalks on their way to the Portal Bridge Inlet from the city (Figure 105, Figure 106). In 2007, a small kiosk called the Café was constructed along the northern boundary of City Side Woodlands South. The northern part of City Side Woodlands North encompasses an area that is bounded by the 10th Street Bypass where it makes a 180- degree turn to join with Fort Duquesne Boulevard; this area is referred to by park staff as the Traffic Island.

Figure 104. Looking from City Side Woodlands South towards City Side Woodlands North (106 Group)

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 164

APPENDICES

Figure 105. City Side Woodlands South Facing Southeast (106 Group)

Figure 106. City Side Woodlands North Facing Northeast (106 Group) Historical Significance While not specifically counted as contributing resources to the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District in the NRHP nomination, the City Side Woodlands North and South are considered part of the Historic District’s historic landscape, and, therefore, contributing to the significance of the Historic District (Ricketts et al. 2012).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 165

APPENDICES resources that 1) date to a time period outside of that of an NRHP-listed district, 2) are at least 50 years of age, and 3) possess integrity, should be considered potentially eligible pending evaluation by a qualified archaeologist. Character-Defining Features x Curved, mounded low hills planted with trees that were native to the Point in the eighteenth century and grass x Curvilinear concrete sidewalks Archaeological Potential &RQWHQW5HPRYHG8QGHUVXEVHFWLRQFRIWKH6WDWH+LVWRU\&RGH 7LWOH ³7KHFRPPLVVLRQ >3+0&@VKDOOKDYHDQGPDLQWDLQSURSULHWDU\ULJKWVRYHUWKHPDSVDQGVXUYH\VLQGLFDWLQJWKHORFDWLRQRI DUFKDHRORJLFDOUHVRXUFHVRUDUFKDHRORJLFDOILHOGLQYHVWLJDWLRQVWKDWKDYHEHHQLQYHQWRULHGRUVXUYH\HG 7KHVHPDSVDQGVXUYH\VDUHH[FOXGHGIURPWKHSURYLVLRQVRIWKHDFWRI-XQH 3/1R UHIHUUHGWRDVWKH5LJKWWR.QRZ/DZ´

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 166

CONTENT

REMOVED

CR Management Unit 12: Flag Bastion and Parking Lot Brief Description CR Management Unit 12 is a roughly triangular-shaped area in the far northeastern corner of Point State Park (Figure 60). This area is separated by the remainder of the park by the Portal Bridge to the west, and unnamed roads connecting Interstate 279 to Liberty Avenue to the north of the area. CR Management Unit 12 is bounded to the east by Commonwealth Place, and to the south by an unnamed loop connecting Commonwealth Place to Interstate 279. Within CR Management Unit 12 is a 180-car parking lot (Boulos Parking Lot) in the southern third of the area, a V-shaped reconstruction of the Flag Bastion in the northwest third of the area, and a rectangular vegetated slope planted with trees, ground cover, and grass in the northeast third of the area (Figure 109, Figure 110). Upon parking in the parking lot, visitors can reach Point State Park and the Fort Pitt Museum by traveling beneath the Interstate 279 bridges, and passing by a maintenance building to enter the museum through a back entrance. Visitors can then continue onto a raised pathway that will lead them to the Portal Bridge Outlet adjacent to the museum entrance, or walk northwest to reach the Three Rivers Heritage Trail (Figure 111).

Figure 109. Flag Bastion and Parking Lot Facing Northeast (106 Group)

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 169 APPENDICES

Figure 110. Flag Bastion Facing North (106 Group)

Figure 111. Pathway between Parking Lot and Fort Pitt Museum Facing Northwest (106 Group) Historical Significance While not specifically counted as a contributing resource to the Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District in the NRHP nomination, the maintenance building and reconstructed Flag Bastion are considered part of the Historic District’s historic landscape, and therefore contributing to the significance of the Historic District (Ricketts et al. 2012: 7-8, 7-9).

While not specifically listed within the NRHP-listed Forks of the Ohio Historic District, which is an NHL, the reconstructed Flag Bastion is considered a contributing resource to the district (Mendinghall 1975:8).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 170 APPENDICES

Archaeological resources that conform to the theme and period of significance for an NRHP-listed historic district, and that possess integrity, are considered contributing to that district. Archaeological resources that 1) date to a time period outside of that of an NRHP-listed district, 2) are at least 50 years of age, and 3) possess integrity, should be considered potentially eligible pending evaluation by a qualified archaeologist. Character-Defining Features x Reconstructed, in-filled Flag Bastion with brick walls and grass surface x Hardscaping, including curvilinear concrete sidewalks, concrete steps, and concrete pavers x Concrete retaining walls and bridge support walls x Metal light standards x Sloped hill planted with grass, trees, and ground cover Archaeological Potential &RQWHQW5HPRYHG8QGHUVXEVHFWLRQFRIWKH6WDWH+LVWRU\&RGH 7LWOH ³7KHFRPPLVVLRQ >3+0&@VKDOOKDYHDQGPDLQWDLQSURSULHWDU\ULJKWVRYHUWKHPDSVDQGVXUYH\VLQGLFDWLQJWKHORFDWLRQRI DUFKDHRORJLFDOUHVRXUFHVRUDUFKDHRORJLFDOILHOGLQYHVWLJDWLRQVWKDWKDYHEHHQLQYHQWRULHGRUVXUYH\HG 7KHVHPDSVDQGVXUYH\VDUHH[FOXGHGIURPWKHSURYLVLRQVRIWKHDFWRI-XQH 3/1R UHIHUUHGWRDVWKH5LJKWWR.QRZ/DZ´

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 171

CONTENT

REMOVED

APPENDIX C: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 178

APPENDICES

Appendix C: Stakeholder Consultation Purpose Statement The purpose of this appendix is to identify potential key participants and stakeholders to engage as part of the project planning process at the park. Consultation with the SHPO is addressed in Section 5.4, above. The intent of consultation is the identification and protection of significant cultural resources.

The specific participants and stakeholders who should be engaged for a particular project depends on the scope of the project. Most activities at Point State Park do not involve federal funding, approval, or permitting; in these instances, federal laws concerning cultural resources, such as NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA, do not apply. However, depending on the activity and its potential effects to cultural resources, state laws and local ordinances may apply. The most common type of agency consultation in which the DCNR will engage for Point State Park projects is consultation with the SHPO; therefore, an overview of the consultation process with the SHPO is included below.

While there is no requirement for tribal or community participation under the State History Code, it is in the best interests of the agency to involve key partners and stakeholders, especially for large projects and those that may affect historic properties and cultural resources. Appendix D provides additional information on tribal engagement. Table 7 (below) identifies potential key participants and stakeholders and their roles.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 179

APPENDICES

Table 7. Key Participants and Stakeholders Entity Role State Agencies The DCNR is responsible for submitting proposed projects on DCNR property that may affect cultural resources to the SHPO for review and DCNR comment. The DCNR, as the property owner of Point State Park, is responsible for initiating and leading consultation under the State History Code with the SHPO and other stakeholders. PHMC, Bureau of Sites and Museums, as property owner of the Fort Pitt Museum, may request to be consulted on projects that involve the park. In PHMC addition, the PHMC State Museum Division of Archaeology curates artifacts and materials collected from state-owned land. The SHPO provides cultural resources review and comment for both state and federal projects. The SHPO also provides permitting for SHPO (within PHMC) archaeological work on state-owned land, including State Parks, Forests, and Gamelands. Tribes Catawba Indian Nation For best practices, tribes should be included in the review process for all state projects when Native American resources are involved. This list Delaware Nation of Oklahoma includes all federally recognized tribes who have identified Allegheny Delaware Tribe of Indians County, Pennsylvania as a current and ancestral area of interest (NPS Eastern Shawnee Tribe of 2018c). Oklahoma Seneca-Cayuga Nation For federal projects, the lead federal agency is required to consult with Osage Nation federally recognized Indian tribes that may attach religious and cultural significance to a historic property (ACHP 2005).

Seneca Nation of Indians For additional information pertaining to tribal consultation, see PennDOT’s Cultural Resources Management website (PennDOT 2018c) and Appendix D Tribal Engagement, below. Municipal Government(s) City of Pittsburgh (CLG, For best practices, the City of Pittsburgh should be consulted in the HRC) review process for all appropriate projects. As a CLG, the City of Pittsburgh is a by-rights consulting party in federal projects.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 180

APPENDICES

Entity Role Federal Agencies For federal projects, the lead federal agency is responsible for considering Lead Federal Agency the effects of their actions on historic properties. They are responsible for initiating consultation and leading the Section 106 process. The ACHP is an independent federal agency responsible for oversight of the Section 106 process that may become involved if there is the potential for controversy or policy issues. ACHP

Organizations and Institutions Fort Pitt Society of the As property owner of the Fort Pitt Block House, the Fort Pitt Society of Daughters of the American the Daughters of the American Revolution should be consulted for Revolution appropriate projects. Community Stakeholders Senator John Heinz History Center Allegheny Conference on Community Development Riverlife Rivers of Steel/Riverquest For state projects, community stakeholders should be consulted as Preservation Pittsburgh appropriate. Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation For federal projects that require compliance with Section 106, community (PHLF) stakeholders would be engaged as consulting parties. Young Preservationists Association of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania Archaeology Council Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 181

APPENDICES

APPENDIX D: TRIBAL ENGAGEMENT

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 182

APPENDICES

Appendix D: Tribal Engagement

The importance of appropriate consultation and tribal engagement cannot be over-emphasized. Native American tribes historically lived throughout the region of present-day Pittsburgh and Allegheny County before being relocated. This section provides contact information for potential tribal partners/participants in tribal consultation.

It is recommended that the DCNR develop an agency-wide tribal engagement plan. This should include ongoing relationship-building with tribes and annual meetings with tribes as outlined in PennDOT’s process for tribal engagement (see PennDOT’s Pennsylvania Tribal Consultation Handbook at https://www.paep.org/wp-content/uploads/PUB-592-Tribal-Consultation-Appendix.pdf). Additional recommendations have been provided in a separate document, entitled “Proposed DCNR Tribal Engagement Strategy.”

This appendix should be updated once a tribal engagement plan is developed. Point State Park Points of Contact Six Tribal Nations have been identified as having an ancestral interest in Allegheny County (Table 8). This list was generated from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Tribal Directory Assessment Tool, which is used by NPS’s NAGPRA program, and should be used as a starting point for identifying interested tribal participants (https://egis.hud.gov/TDAT/).43 Additional information regarding tribes with an interest in Pennsylvania can be found in PennDOT’s Tribal Consultation Handbook (link provided above).

Tribal contact information should be updated regularly; THPO contact information can be found at this NPS webpage: https://grantsdev.cr.nps.gov/THPO_Review/index.cfm.

Table 8. Tribal Nation Points of Contact Tribal Nation THPOs, Directors of Cultural Departments Tribes with Interest in Allegheny County identified in HUD Database Catawba Indian Nation Dr. Wenonah G. Haire 996 Avenue of Nations 1536 Tom Steven Road Rock Hill, SC 29730 Rock Hill, SC 29730 (803) 366-4792 (803) 328-2427 ext. 224 www.catawbaindian.net [email protected]

43 In addition to the U.S. HUD Tribal Directory Tool, DCNR should also consult the National Association of Tribal Historical Preservation Officers (http://nathpo.org/wp/) and NAGPRA (https://www.nps.gov/nagpra/) sites for identifying potentially interested tribes and points of contacts.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 183

APPENDICES

Tribal Nation THPOs, Directors of Cultural Departments Delaware Nation, Oklahoma Kimberly Penrod PO Box 825 PO Box 825 Anadarko, OK 73005 Anadarko, OK 73005 www.delawarenation.com (405) 247-8903 [email protected] Delaware Tribe of Indians Dr. Brice Obermeyer 5100 Tuxedo Boulevard Historic Preservation Bartlesville, OK 74006 1 Kellog Circle (918) 337-6590 Emporia, KS 66801 www.delawaretribe.org (918) 337-6590 [email protected]

Susan Bachor Preservation Representative (East Coast) PO Box 64 Pocono Lake, PA 18347f (610) 761-7452 [email protected] Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Robin Dushane PO Box 350 PO Box 350 Seneca, MO 64865 Seneca, MO 64865 (918) 666-2435 (918) 666-2535 www.estoo-nsn.gov [email protected] Osage Nation Dr. Andrea Hunter PO Box 779 627 Grandview Avenue Pawhuska, OK 74056 Pawhuska, OK 74056 (918) 287-5555 (918) 287-5328 www.osagenation-nsn.gov [email protected] Seneca-Cayuga Nation William Tarrant PO Box 45322 PO Box 45322 Grove, OK 74345 Grove, OK 74345 (918) 542-5521 (918) 787-9449 www.sctribe.com [email protected]

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 184

APPENDICES

Tribal Nation THPOs, Directors of Cultural Departments Other Tribe(s) with an Interest in Allegheny County Seneca Nation of Indians Jay Toth 90 Ohi:Yoho Way Salamanca, NY 14779 (716) 945-1790 ext. 3580 [email protected]

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 185

APPENDICES

APPENDIX E: CURATION

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 186

APPENDICES

Appendix E: Curation Plan

Over the past 80 years, several archaeological investigations have taken place at Point State Park, the majority of which have resulted in the collection of artifacts from the park. The act of excavating an archaeological site, depending on how much of the site is excavated, can destroy the very site it reveals. Because of this, in addition to proper planning and permitting prior to excavation, and thorough and careful documentation of the excavation throughout, it is imperative that the artifacts and materials collected from archaeological resources are property analyzed, documented, stored, and curated for future generations so that the information they contain is not lost.

Collections of archaeological materials housed in repositories are often returned to again and again by researchers through the decades, who apply new technologies and new questions in their analysis, yielding new data from old artifacts. Fortunately, of the artifacts that have been collected from Point State Park over the years, the majority have been accessioned into well-established repositories that make their collections available to researchers. Purpose Statement This Appendix provides an outline of the steps which should be undertaken to ensure artifacts excavated or collected44 from Point State Park are properly curated. In addition, a list of previous excavations (arranged by the publications associated with the excavations) and the locations where the artifacts from those excavations are housed is included as a reference.

The guidance presented below is from the State Museum of Pennsylvania, Section of Archaeology’s Curation Guidelines: Preparing Archaeological Collections for Submission to the State Museum of Pennsylvania (PHMC 2006). This document provides comprehensive guidance for the curation process and should be reviewed in detail in addition to the information outlined below. Outline of the Curation Process What Should Be Curated The Department of the Interior defines a collection as “material remains that are excavated or removed during a survey, excavation or other study of a prehistoric or historic resource, and associated records that are prepared or assembled in connection with the survey, excavation or other study” (36CFR79.4(a) quoted in PHMC 2006:1). In general, at Point State Park, human-made or human-modified items older than 50 years old should be considered for curation. In particular, artifacts associated with the periods of significance for the NRHP-listed Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District and/or the NRHP-listed Forks of the Ohio Historic District should be curated, as should any Pre-Contact artifacts.

44 A Pre-Contact projectile point was collected from the surface of the Great Lawn in 2009 (A.D. Marble & Company 2009a).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 187

APPENDICES

The PHMC provides a list of artifact types that may not qualify for curation, including surface-collected roadside debris, severely corroded unidentifiable metal, asphalt, and concrete from surface, plow zone, and fill layer contexts (PHMC 2006:13). However, even artifacts that will not be curated “must be appropriately analyzed, cataloged, and noted as such on artifact inventory sheets” (PHMC 2006:13). In addition, the intention to discard all other artifact types aside from those specified by PHMC must be discussed with the State Museum of Pennsylvania Section of Archaeology staff (PHMC 2006:13).

Where Should It Be Curated In the Curation Guidelines, PHMC states that “the State Museum of Pennsylvania is the Commonwealth's official repository for archaeological compliance collections and reserves the right of first refusal” (PHMC 2006:2). If the Section of Archaeology elects not to curate collections from an investigation, an alternate repository should be identified. In some instances, the Section of Archaeology may agree to have another institution serve as its designee. In that case, a written request from the institution that is applying to serve as the designee must be submitted to the Section of Archaeology. If an alternate institution is designated by the Section of Archaeology, the designee institution may require that collections are prepared according to its curation standards rather than those of the Section of Archaeology (PHMC 2006:2).

When Should the Curation Process Begin Archaeological collections must be submitted immediately for curation to the Section of Archaeology following the SHPO’s45 approval of the final project report. All artifacts must be delivered by hand (PHMC 2006:3). The exception is if an additional phase of excavation has been contracted to the same archaeologist who excavated the collection. In the latter case, “the archaeologist must immediately submit ownership documentation, an artifact inventory, and photographic catalogs for completed investigations to the Section of Archaeology” (PHMC 2006:3). If a different archaeologist will be undertaking the additional phase of excavation, an arrangement can be made to loan the artifacts from the first phase of the excavation to the archaeologist for analysis.

How Should It Be Curated The Curation Guidelines provide detailed instructions on how to prepare archaeological materials for curation at the Section of Archaeology. The Section of Archaeology reviews collections prior to curation to ensure they have been prepared to current standards: “Submitted collections that do not conform to these Guidelines will be returned for remedial processing and the project sponsor will be notified of deficiencies” (emphasis in original) (PHMC 2006:1). Correct preparation at the outset is essential for efficient, cost-effective artifact processing. The curation standards that are in effect during the time when the project phase (Phase I, II, or Data Recovery) was first reviewed by the SHPO are the ones that should be followed (PHMC 2006:1). An overview of the process for preparing artifacts is outlined below.

45 Previously the Bureau of Historic Preservation (BHP)

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 188

APPENDICES

Convey Ownership Collections must be submitted with documentation conveying ownership to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. For work “conducted on Commonwealth of Pennsylvania property administered by an agency other than the PHMC [e.g., the DCNR], a Letter of Transfer, written on state agency letterhead, is required” (PHMC 2006:4). Artifact Processing and Storage Artifacts must be properly organized, cleaned, and cataloged. In addition, artifacts must be properly stored in archival containers and packaged for submission with associated records and an inventory. Detailed instructions for how to do so are provided in the Curation Guidelines (PHMC 2006). A list of archival material suppliers can be found beginning on page 35 of the Curation Guidelines, as along with a sample box lot inventory packing list and collection submission checklist (PHMC 2006). Separate instructions for photographic collections, including directions for acceptable formats, processing, documentation, a sample photograph catalog sheet, etc., are also provided in the Curation Guidelines. Human Remains Human remains require special handling, treatment, and storage. Following inventory and analysis,46 human remains should be “submitted to The State Museum in a format consistent with that used by the Museum for its Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) submission to the Department of the Interior. If a collection contains human remains, contact Section of Archaeology staff for sample data collection forms prior to analysis” (emphasis in original) (PHMC 2006:26). Any human remains that have not yet been properly inventoried and stored should be inventoried immediately, and the Section of Archaeology should be contacted to discuss appropriate next steps. Cost of Curation The cost for curation is a one-time fee of $350.00 per cubic foot (cu. ft.): “Project documentation, collections smaller than 1 cu. ft., and oversized artifacts are also assessed at the minimum rate of $350.00” (PHMC 2006:1). The Curation Guidelines note, “For the purpose of curation fee assessment, phases of a project (viz., Phase I, II or Data Recovery) are considered to be separate environmental review projects” (PHMC 2006:31). Locations of Artifacts Collected from Point State Park This section provides a list of previous excavations (arranged by the publications in which results of the excavations are reported) and the locations where the artifacts from these excavations are housed (Table 9).

The main repositories that house collections from Point State Park are: x Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Section of Anthropology

46 Any analysis to be conducted on human remains should receive prior approval by the Section of Archaeology, as well as Native American tribes, as appropriate.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 189

APPENDICES

x Senator John Heinz History Center, Fort Pitt Museum x PHMC, State Museum of Pennsylvania, Section of Archaeology x The Fort Pitt Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution

Because the excavations conducted by Bliss in the early 1940s and Hayes, Swauger, and Lang in the 1950s and 1960s were salvage excavations that lacked refined artifact retrieval methodology such as soil screening, and aimed at collecting only artifacts dating to the eighteenth century or earlier, artifact collections were very minimal from these investigations (Bliss 1944; Hayes 1954; Swauger 1959; Swauger 1960; Swauger and Lang 1967). Later excavations were not conducted under the threat of imminent demolition or construction, and utilized more refined techniques; as a result, they had a much higher success rate with artifact retrieval and identification of features, and therefore the collections are more extensive.

Any uncatalogued materials housed at the DCNR should be inventoried as soon as possible, and the Section of Archaeology should be contacted to discuss appropriate next steps.

Table 9. Repositories for Collections Excavated at Point State Park47

Publication Author Report Title Repository Date 1944 Wesley L. Report of the Point Park Commission of Carnegie Museum of Natural Bliss Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. On file at the History, Section of Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Anthropology Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1954 Arthur M. Fort Pitt Excavations. Carnegie Museum Carnegie Museum of Natural Hayes Archaeological Newsletter, No. 8, pp.8-12. On History, Section of file at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Anthropology Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1959 James L. Historic Archaeology at Fort Pitt, 1953. Annals Carnegie Museum of Natural Swauger of Carnegie Museum 35:247-274. On file at the History, Section of Carnegie Library, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Anthropology and the Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania (including the Fort Pitt Museum48)

47 Information in this table is pending confirmation from multiple repositories. 48 In 2003, Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. visited the Fort Pitt Museum repository with the curator, and noted that, while there were seventeen pages of documentation on objects collected during the 1953 excavation, “none of these objects could be found at the Fort Pitt Museum” (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2003:20).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 190

APPENDICES

Publication Author Report Title Repository Date 1960 James L. Excavations at the Flag Bastion of Fort Pitt, Carnegie Museum of Natural Swauger 1958-1959. Pennsylvania Archaeologist History, Section of 30:111-117. On file at the Carnegie Museum of Anthropology (field notes Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. and drawings; no artifacts were collected). 1967 James L. Excavations at the Music Bastion of Fort Pitt, Carnegie Museum and the Swauger and 1964-1965. Annals of Carnegie Museum Fort Pitt Museum Richard W. 39(2):33-67. On file at the Carnegie Museum of Lang Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2005 Michael Archaeological Excavations in the Fort Pitt Fort Pitt Society of the Baker Jr., Blockhouse, City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny Daughters of the American Inc. County, Pennsylvania. On file at the Carnegie Revolution Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2006 A.D. Marble Geoarchaeological and Geophysical Survey: State Museum of & Company Sites of Fort Duquesne and Fort Pitt, Point Pennsylvania, Section of State Park, City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny Archaeology County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. On file at the SHPO, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 2009 A.D. Marble Archaeological Investigations at Point State State Museum of & Company Park, City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Section of Pennsylvania. Prepared for the Pennsylvania Archaeology Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. On file at the SHPO, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 2011 James B. Report on the Archaeological Monitoring of the Fort Pitt Society of the Richardson, Removal and Excavation for a New Flag Pole Daughters of the American III at the Fort Pitt Blockhouse, May 2011. On file Revolution at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2013 Christine Phase I Archaeological Survey, Fort Pitt Block Fort Pitt Society of the Davis House, City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Daughters of the American Consultants, PA. On file at the SHPO, Harrisburg, Revolution Inc. Pennsylvania.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 191

APPENDICES

Repository Contact Information For further information on the materials housed at these repositories, contact information is provided below: Carnegie Museum of Natural History, The State Museum of Pennsylvania, Section of Anthropology Section of Archaeology Edward O’Neil Research Center 300 North Street 5800 Baum Boulevard Harrisburg, PA 17120 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 Phone: (717) 787-6778 Phone: (412) 665-2608 Fort Pitt Society of the Daughters of the Fort Pitt Museum49 American Revolution of Allegheny 601 Commonwealth Pl. County Pittsburgh, PA 15222 601 Commonwealth Place, Building C Phone: (412) 281-9284 Pittsburgh, PA 15222. Phone: (412) 471-1764 Senator John Heinz History Center Library & Archives, Heinz History Center 1212 Smallman St. Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 454-6364 Email: [email protected]

49 Although the Fort Pitt Museum is owned and operated by the Senator John Heinz History Center, the contact information for the Fort Pitt Museum is provided here in addition to that of the Senator John Heinz History Center.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 192

APPENDICES

APPENDIX F: PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 193

APPENDICES

Appendix F: Public Archaeology Purpose Statement Because of Point State Park’s high profile and significance within the City of Pittsburgh, statewide, and nationally among both the public and the historic preservation community, public interest in cultural resources investigation at the park is inevitable. At a minimum, it is recommended that a Public Interest Communications Plan be prepared for cultural resources investigations at the park that will be visible to the public to help meet the needs of the public’s desire for information while managing the flow of information and ensuring resource protection. Depending on the nature of the cultural resources investigation being undertaken, it may be desirable to include a public archaeology component as part of either research archaeology or compliance archaeology work. Guidance for these two components is presented below. Public Interest Communications Guidance Goals The goals of the Public Interest Communications Plan include: x Manage the overall messaging to the public to reduce confusion and misinformation, and protect sensitive information; x Prepare DCNR staff for potential media and public inquiries during the cultural resources investigation; and x Increase awareness locally about the project.

Steps Recommended implementation steps are: 1. Ensure the project meets all compliance requirements (state as well as federal and local, when appropriate). Consultation with the SHPO regarding the cultural resources investigation should already be in process by this time. 2. Engage interested parties and potential partners (see the section on Potential Partners below, and Appendix C Consultation). 3. Identify specific staff member(s) who will serve as the public/media contacts for inquiries about the project and determine messaging. 4. Provide the cultural resources consultant with direction on messaging in response to onsite inquiries, and where further questions should be directed.

Suggested General Messaging x We know there are archaeological sites in this area. x We are identifying and recording information. x We are ensuring the letter and spirit of state laws [federal; local as appropriate] are being applied. x After the fieldwork is complete, there will be opportunities to learn about what has been found.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 194

APPENDICES

Specific locational information for cultural resources and information on traditional cultural properties/resources should not be provided publicly. Public Archaeology Component of Projects Public archaeology is a broad concept involving connecting the public to archaeological findings, but can be understood here to refer to the invitation of public participation in archaeological work, to increase local knowledge of and interest in cultural resources at the park. There are many considerations involved in this process to ensure appropriate protection and documentation of resources while facilitating public education and enjoyment in a safe and productive manner.

The Phase I archaeological excavations conducted in the Block House yard in 2013 by Christine Davis Consultants, Inc., in preparation for the construction of a garden and monument included a public archaeology component. The public archaeology component consisted of conducting the excavation during a summer weekend in August to maximize access to park visitors, and allowing visitors to assist archaeologists with soil screening. During the two-day excavation, over 1,000 visitors stopped at the Block House, “and many more observed the excavation from the fence line” (Christine Davis Consultants, Inc. 2013:28).

In addition to allowing the public to assist with screening excavated soil, public archaeology programming may include basic training on excavation techniques and data recordation methods for different target audiences, such as students, and/or public presentations and demonstrations during the excavation process. Due to the high visibility of Point State Park, any archaeological investigation at the park may have a public component, whether planned or inadvertent, so having a protocol to address public questions, concerns, and interest will aid in ensuring the work is a success.

In 1977, recalling the archaeology conducted at Point State Park over the previous two decades by the Carnegie Museum, archaeologist James L. Swauger noted: The work also proved there is nothing like conducting archeological excavations in a downtown metropolitan area for stirring public interest in history. On every fine day we were besieged by people out for lunch-hour strolls who wanted to know what we were doing. We adopted a policy of eating either earlier than noon or later than one in the afternoon in order to be available to answer queries from lunch-hour viewers. A gratifying number of these people were repeaters and obviously had done some preparation on their own between visits in order better to understand us and our work. There was no doubt that the fact that old Fort Pitt was being laid bare to their eyes was interesting and stimulating to many people who had hardly thought about the fort and Pittsburgh's genesis before (Swauger 1977:191).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 195

APPENDICES

Potential Partners Public archaeology offers a wide range of educational opportunities for park staff, volunteers from the local community, and students of all ages. To ensure that projects are done in a way that maximizes both information retrieval and public value, the appropriate agencies should be consulted in the project planning stage. This includes the SHPO and the State Museum of Pennsylvania Section of Archaeology. The SHPO will in turn notify the relevant PHMC staff, including the CEO, Public Information Officer (PIO), and local PHMC commissioners, as well as the Fort Pitt Museum staff.

The State Museum of Pennsylvania Section of Archaeology also participates in the national Project Archaeology organization. Project Archaeology “is an educational organization dedicated to teaching scientific and historical inquiry, cultural understanding, and the importance of protecting our nation’s rich cultural resources” (Project Archaeology 2018). The organization is comprised of “archaeologists, educators, and concerned citizens working to make archaeology education accessible to students and teachers nationwide through high-quality educational materials and professional development” (Project Archaeology 2018). Organizations such as these offer pathways to connecting with local students.

In addition, local groups such as the Senator John Heinz History Center, Preservation Pittsburgh, PHLF, the Young Preservationists Association of Pittsburgh, the Pennsylvania Archaeology Council, regional universities and the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology can all serve as potential partners.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 196

APPENDICES

APPENDIX G: UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERIES PLAN

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 197

APPENDICES

Appendix G: Cultural Resources Unanticipated Discoveries Plan Purpose Statement This Unanticipated Discoveries Plan (UDP) provides general procedures that may be followed in the event of an unanticipated discovery of cultural resources. It is intended for use solely in the event of unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources, and should not be considered a substitute for required identification, evaluation, or mitigation of cultural resources (see Section 5.2.3). This UDP can apply to all projects, but to expedite responses to discoveries, an addendum should be added to the UDP for each specific project that includes contact information for all relevant project personnel.

The most likely types of cultural resources that could be inadvertently discovered during ground- disturbing activities are archaeological resources. Types of archaeological resources that could be encountered include: x Artifacts used by Native Americans, such as Pre-Contact or Contact Period pottery; stone, wood, or bone tools; and items such as beads. x Artifacts from after the arrival of Europeans (but greater than 50 years old), such as glass bottles, metal hardware, and ceramic tableware. x Archaeological features are signs that indicate past human activity yet cannot be removed from a site. For example, a hearth (fire pit) where someone camped, historic foundation remains, or a hole from a post used to build a stockade.

All identification, evaluation, and treatment of archaeological resources recommended in the unanticipated discoveries procedures below should comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI’s) Standards (48 FR 44716, as amended and annotated; https://www.nps.gov/history/local- law/arch_stnds_0.htm) and the SHPO’s current Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Pennsylvania and should be completed by an archaeologist who meets the consultant qualification requirements in Appendix A (“qualified archaeologist”). For procedures to be followed in the event that human remains are inadvertently discovered, please see Appendix H. Unanticipated Discoveries Procedures In the event that archaeological resources are unexpectedly discovered during ground disturbing activities: x All work within 50 feet of the discovery should immediately cease and the discovery should be left in place and not disturbed. Temporary protective measures should be implemented (e.g. fencing). The type of temporary protective measures and length of stoppage will be dependent on the nature of the discovery. Protective measures should be sufficient to protect the resource and allow safe investigation of the discovery and any known or potential cultural materials associated with the discovery, without unnecessary hindrance to construction. Work may continue on other

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 198

APPENDICES

parts of the project site (outside of the 50-foot radius) while the discovery is evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. x The DCNR should notify the SHPO and the lead state or federal agency (if applicable) of the discovery within 24 hours. The significance of the discovery should then be evaluated for NRHP eligibility by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the SHPO, the lead state or federal agency, and/or Native American tribes, as appropriate. x If the discovery is determined to lack potential eligibility for listing in the NRHP, the discovery will be briefly documented. Following documentation, ground-disturbing activities within 50 feet of the discovery may proceed. x If the discovery is determined to be potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP, or have a potential to contribute to an existing NRHP-eligible or listed district, the DCNR should seek to avoid impacts to the integrity of the historic or cultural resource. This should be done in consultation with the SHPO, the lead state or federal agency, and/or Native American tribes, as appropriate. Avoidance of adverse effects to the historically significant resource is always recommended as a best practice. If avoidance is not feasible, the DCNR should seek to identify an approach that will minimize adverse effects to the resource. x If affecting the resource’s integrity cannot be avoided, the DCNR should consult with the SHPO, the lead state or federal agency, and/or Native American tribes, as appropriate, to determine an appropriate mitigation strategy. For example, an archaeological site may undergo intensive excavation, analysis, and reporting to capture as much information potential from the site as possible and make it available for further research. x Once mitigation of the discovery is complete, ground-disturbing activities within 50 feet of the discovery may continue.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 199

APPENDICES

APPENDIX H: HUMAN REMAINS TREATMENT PLAN

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 200

APPENDICES

Appendix H: Human Remains Treatment Plan Purpose Statement This Human Remains Treatment Plan provides best practices and general procedures for the unanticipated discovery of human remains and burial sites, as well as the treatment of human remains that are already in existing collections.

All treatment of human remains and burial sites within Point State Park must comply with state laws governing burials, including Title 9: Burial Grounds of the Statutes of Pennsylvania and the Historic Burial Places Preservation Act. Please see Section 2.2 of the CRMP for more details on these laws. In addition, the SHPO Policy on the Treatment of Human Remains should be followed (SHPO 2017:58). This policy defines burial sites as “any natural or prepared physical location below, on, or above the surface of the earth into which, as part of a death rite or ceremony of a culture, human remains have been deposited whether marked or unmarked” (SHPO 2017:58). Artifacts or features that may be associated with burial sites or human remains should be treated in the same manner as human remains. Unanticipated Discoveries of Human Remains and Burial Sites In the event that potential burial sites or human remains are encountered:

x All work within 50 feet of the discovery should immediately cease and the discovery should be left in place and not disturbed. Temporary protective measures (e.g. fencing) should be implemented. The type of temporary protective measures and length of stoppage will be dependent on the nature of the discovery. Protective measures should be sufficient to protect the resource and allow safe investigation of the discovery and any known or potential cultural materials associated with the discovery, without unnecessary hindrance to construction. Work may continue on other parts of the project site (outside of the 50-foot radius) while the discovery is evaluated. x The Allegheny County Medical Examiner should be contacted. If the site/remains are determined to represent a crime scene and/or are less than 50 years in age, their further treatment will fall under the jurisdiction of the Medical Examiner. Excavation within 50 feet of the discovery will not resume until a notice to proceed is given by the Medical Examiner. x If the Medical Examiner determines that the remains are not associated with a crime scene and are “of a historic or prehistoric nature,” the SHPO and the lead state or federal agency, if applicable, should be immediately notified (SHPO 2017:59).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 201

APPENDICES

x The SHPO will follow the Policy on the Treatment of Human Remains (Appendix E of Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Pennsylvania [SHPO 2017:58-60]) and will notify potential lineal descendants or culturally affiliated groups. SHPO will then consider the concerns and recommendations of lineal descendants and culturally affiliated groups and develop a treatment plan for the remains. x At all times, the human remains must be treated with the utmost dignity and respect. Photographs should not be taken of any remains or the immediate setting in which they were found unless directed to do so by authorized personnel. Other Human Remains Protocols Existing Human Remains in Collections DCNR should inventory all previous human remains found in the park and consult with SHPO regarding proper curation. If the remains are determined to be Native American, consultation should occur with Native American tribes with an ancestral connection to the Point area to discuss appropriate treatment of the remains. For additional guidance on the treatment of human remains that have been previously excavated or collected but not yet formally curated, see Appendix E.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 202

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I: CURRENT PARK GUIDELINES AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 203

APPENDICES

Appendix I: Current Park Guidelines and Policies Recommendations Purpose Statement Existing state guidelines and policies related to special events, management activities, recreation, and future maintenance and/or construction that potentially could affect the management of cultural resources at Point State Park include: x Point State Park Special Event Guidelines (Special Event Guidelines) and associated Application and Risk Management Plan, as amended; x Title 17 Rules and Regulations of Pennsylvania State Parks (Title 17); and x The Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Bureau of State Parks Permit for Research and/or Collection of State Park Resources (Research and Collection Permit).

The Point State Park Special Event Guidelines and Title 17 include provisions for the protection of cultural resources, while the Research and Collection Permit does not. The following section provides recommendations for the addition of guidelines and policies to the above documents to improve and enhance the existing guidelines and policies as they apply to cultural resources management in Point State Park. Point State Park Special Event Guidelines The Point State Park Special Event Guidelines include provisions for the protection of cultural resources by restricting ground disturbance (pages 3, 7), vehicle traffic by weight and area, and fastening of materials to cultural resources (pages 4, 7); preserving access and sightlines to historically significant park resources (pages 7); and limiting placement of potentially damaging objects on hardened surfaces (page 8).

Recommendations In addition to these guidelines, it is recommended that the following guidelines are added: x No artifacts or historical materials may be disturbed or collected from the surface or below the ground surface of Point State Park without written DCNR approval. If any historically-significant objects or materials are identified, they should be left in place and reported to park staff, under penalty of law. x No ground disturbance of any kind, including digging, movement of soil or surface fill, or ground penetration is allowed at Point State Park without prior written approval from the DCNR.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 204

APPENDICES

x No plantings should be removed, moved, or altered without prior written approval from the DCNR. x No physically or chemically-abrasive materials or solvents that may harm park surfaces or finishes should be introduced to Point State Park. If such a material or chemical is needed for a special event, approval must be sought by the DCNR ahead of time, and the material or chemical must be kept away from park surfaces and finishes at all times to avoid damage to park cultural resources. x No park objects or structures should be moved, removed, damaged, altered, or defaced without prior written approval from the DCNR. x Currently, one of the guidelines states “Approval shall be obtained to fasten any rope, sign, banner, flyer or other object on any structure within the PARK, including but not limited to trees, light poles, and benches” (page 7). The words “building, object, or” should be added in front of “structure…” A few of the above recommended additions are based on regulations in Title 17, but they should also be included within the Special Events Guidelines in addition to Title 17 to reinforce protection of the park’s cultural resources. Title 17 Rules and Regulations of Pennsylvania State Parks Title 17, Part I, Subpart B, Chapter 11 presents rules and regulations for Pennsylvania State Parks. Addressed in the current document are restrictions regarding topics such as traffic and parking, state park schedules and closures, miscellaneous activities, fires, natural resources, pets, events, waste, weapons and hunting, recreational activities, swimming, camping, boating, and whitewater boating. The only rule specifically pertaining to cultural resources states that “Removing or disturbing an historical or archeological artifact, relic or object” is “prohibited without written permission of the Department” (§11.209 Miscellaneous activities.)

Although cultural resources are not specifically referenced under Miscellaneous Activities, “Engaging in construction or excavation” and “Moving, removing, damaging or defacing a Department sign, structure, facility or equipment” are also “prohibited without written permission of the Department” (§11.209 Miscellaneous activities.) Finally, because Point State Park’s built environment is part of the NRHP-listed Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District, the landscape features, including planting beds, need to be protected to preserve the Historic District’s integrity. As a result, regulations such as the prohibition of “Cutting, picking, digging, damaging or removing, in whole or in part, a living or dead tree, shrub or plant”; “Damaging, defacing, cutting or removing rock, shale, sand, clay, soil or other mineral product, natural object or material”; and “Planting a seed, tree, shrub or plant” help protect the park’s landscaped environment. These latter recommendations aid in directly protecting cultural resources in addition to natural resources and park facilities; other rules and regulations in Title 17 also help to indirectly protect

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 205

APPENDICES

cultural resources, such as the prohibition of activities “of a nature or duration that it cannot be accommodated without causing injury or damage to park resources” (§11.213 Organized events; public assemblies; distribution of printed matter).

In addition to the prohibitions which help to directly protect cultural resources in Pennsylvania State Parks, there are four special provisions in the rules and regulations for Point State Park: 1) “Memorials. Memorials may be erected with written permission of the Department to honor those persons and events which symbolize the spirit of the American pioneer and the significance of frontier forts prior to the year 1800. 2) Portal Arch Bridge. Congregating or loitering on the Portal Arch Bridge is prohibited. 3) Decorative pools. Swimming, wading or fishing in the reflecting pool or the fountain pool is prohibited. 4) Recreational equipment. Use of roller skates, skateboards, scooters, bicycles or other wheeled recreational equipment is prohibited, except where posted as being permitted or except with written permission of the Department” (§11.221. Special provisions for Point State Park).

Recommendations A separate section should be created within Title 17, Part I, Subpart B, Chapter 11 pertaining to cultural resources, as a corollary to the §11.211 Natural resources section. Within this section should be included the rule prohibiting “Removing or disturbing an historical or archeological artifact, relic or object”, currently under §11.209 Miscellaneous activities. It is recommended that the following prohibitions without written permission from the DCNR are adapted from other sections and included under the cultural resources section as well: x Engaging in any kind of ground disturbance, including digging, movement of soil or surface fill, ground penetration below four inches, construction, or excavation in or near an archaeological site, cemetery, and/or within a historic district; x Moving, removing, damaging or defacing park objects such as signs, buildings, and structures within a historic district; x Cutting, picking, digging, damaging or removing, in whole or in part, a living or dead tree, shrub or plant within a historic district; x Damaging, defacing, cutting or removing rock, shale, sand, clay, soil or other mineral product, natural object or material within a historic district; and x Planting a seed, tree, shrub or plant within a historic district.

In addition to the aforementioned regulations currently in Title 17, additional recommended prohibited activities without written permission from the DCNR include:

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 206

APPENDICES

x Gravestone rubbings; x Climbing or scaling historic park objects, buildings, and structures; and x Entrance into historic buildings and structures that are not open to the public.

Finally, the section on special provisions for Point State Park should specifically reference the park’s historical sensitivity and refer readers to the cultural resources regulations suggested above. Metal Detecting Currently, metal detecting is permitted at many state parks, though some parks with the “potential for the recovery of valuable historical objects … may have part or all of their area closed to metal detecting” (DCNR 2018d). Permission must be obtained from the park manager prior to metal detecting in a park. Individuals who are metal detecting are restricted to using only screwdrivers, ice picks, and other similar narrow pronged devices” to turn over or dig into ground areas covered by turf, vegetation, shrubs, or trees” (DCNR 2018d). Individuals who metal detect in a state park must report items which are found and will be removed from the park (DCNR 2018d).

Recommendations Due to the archaeological sensitivity of Point State Park and its NHL status, metal detecting that is not part of a SHPO-approved archaeological investigation should be prohibited. DCNR BSP Research and Collection Permit The DCNR requires a permit for research and/or collection of State Park resources. The permit application is focused on the collection of natural resources (e.g., “species to be collected; method of collection/capture”).

Recommendations It is recommended that the DCNR develop a separate permit application for research and/or collection of State Park cultural resources. Park Maintenance and Use Plan In addition to the aforementioned recommendations for additions to existing guidelines and policies, it is recommended that a Maintenance and Use Plan be developed for Point State Park. The Maintenance and Use Plan should outline maintenance and use activities at the park, as well as address potential future repairs/construction work at the park. The activities identified in the Maintenance and Use Plan should then be incorporated into the Exemptions Matrix in Appendix C in consultation with SHPO, to determine which activities require SHPO review before they are undertaken.

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 207

APPENDICES

Other Management Strategies As identified in the Park Management Foundation Document, the following strategies and plans are under development: x Flood Management Strategy, and x Standards for Greening Your Event (DCNR 2015:14).

Cultural Resources Management Plan

Point State Park 208