Chapter 5 - Cultural Resources Report

Chapter 5 - Cultural Resources Report - 1996

Back to the Cultural Resources Report Contents

EVALUATION OF SELECTED CULTURAL RESOURCES
AT FORT MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY:
CONTEXT FOR COLD WAR ERA,
REVISION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES DOCUMENTATION,
AND SURVEY OF EVANS AREA
AND SECTIONS OF CAMP CHARLES WOOD
by
Mary Beth Reed
Mark Swanson
NEW SOUTH ASSOCIATES
Stone Mountain, Georgia
Subcontractor for Geo-Marine, Inc.
and
Rebecca Procter
Marsha Prior

June 1996

MISCELLANEOUS REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS
NUMBER 125
Geo-Marine, Inc.
550 East Fifteenth Street
Plano, Texas evans logo

for
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Fort Worth District
819 Taylor Street
Fort Worth, Texas

CHAPTER 5
REVISED INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES

This chapter reports on an update of Fort Monmouth’s 1982 historic property survey that was conducted for areas affected by the BRAC action within two of the fort’s subinstallations, Camp Charles Wood area and the Evans area. The Camp Charles Wood area is located two miles west of the main post while the Evans area is located ten miles south of the main post on a 247-acre tract that contains frontage on the Shark River. The scope of work called for an inventory of Cold War-era buildings within the affected areas, the development of a Cold War context, and an update of the 1984 inventory to include recorded and unrecorded buildings, structures, equipment, and World War II temporaries. The existing Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation was to be updated and HABS Level IV cards were to be completed for any additional properties.

METHODS

The survey consisted of archival research and field survey. After obtaining a Building Information Schedule for the entire fort and maps showing the affected areas, a survey list was compiled of study buildings. Real Property records were collected for each building from the Directorate of Public Works, Master Planning and Real Property Branch. Standardized plans or “as builts” were also collected for each building type. Not all original plans were found within the base’s engineering file. If an “as built” was not located for a building type, a later plan was used in its stead to determine the integrity of a given building and to what extent it had been altered.

Archival research also included the collection of acquisition records, historic photographs, and historic maps showing Fort Monmouth’s growth since 1941. A search of the New Jersey state files was conducted for properties on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), in the process of being nominated to the NRHP, or on the New Jersey State Register within the study areas or adjoining the study areas to determine if they would be impacted by the proposed BRAC action. HABS inventory cards completed after a 1982 survey and reported in 1984 by Building Technology, Inc., were also gathered for the buildings within the project areas from the New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office. Finally, oral interviews were held informally, as the period and buildings under study played a large role in the lives of current and former Fort Monmouth employees.

In the field, each study building was described using the field data form and documented with 35-mm black-and-white photography. For those previously surveyed, a field check was made to assess any alterations or additions made since 1982. Eighteen buildings or building types had been inventoried previously at the Evans area; all of the study buildings at the Camp Charles Wood area within the BRAC closure area had been inventoried in 1982.

All previously surveyed buildings are documented on updated HABS Level IV forms. The information updated was primarily condition, historical data, rating, and significance. If any alterations had occurred, they were duly noted on the new form. The Scope of Work requested the use of HABS Level IV inventory cards for the current survey to complement the previous inventory. As these forms are no longer in use by the National Park Service, the form was duplicated by New South Associates. The survey documentation followed the Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) Inventory Guidelines published in June 1986. All forms are produced on archival paper and the set for each project area has an accompanying Master Card. Each group of negatives is stored with a contact sheet and photo log reproduced on archival paper.

This survey describes 39 buildings within the Camp Charles Wood area and 147 buildings, structures, and equipment/antennas at the Evans area. For the majority, each building was described on a separate card. However, if more than one example of a building type was identified, all buildings of that type were described on one form, but each was photographed and its location keyed to a base map. Thus one card was completed for the 12 Antenna Shelters at Evans area and photographs of each affixed to that card. An exception was the Sewage Treatment Plant, which is recorded on one card as a building group with seven components. All of the cards have been reproduced and attached as an appendix to this report (Appendix A).

PREVIOUS INVENTORY AND EVALUATIVE CRITERIA

Building Technology, Inc., conducted the 1982 historic property survey, authored by Buchanan and Johnson (1984). They provide an excellent overview of the history and architecture found at Fort Monmouth for the years up to 1946. Using the eligibility criteria for nomination to the NRHP, Buchanan and Johnson (1984) evaluated 77 properties on the installation overall. The significance of each building or property was based on integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and had to meet one or more of the following criteria listed in 36 CFR § 60:

A. an association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
B. an association with the lives of persons significant in the nation’s past;
C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Buchanan and Johnson (1984) also rated each building using the historic property categories defined in Technical Manual (TM) 5-801-1. These historic property categories are not currently used. The categories are:

Category 1 - properties of major importance,
Category 2 - properties of importance,
Category 3 - properties of minor importance,
Category 4 - properties of little or no importance, and
Category 5 - properties detrimental to the significance of adjacent historic properties.

Buchanan and Johnson (1984) further defined their evaluation using four additional criteria: (1) degree of importance as a work of architectural, engineering, or industrial design or process; (2) degree of rarity as a remaining example of a once widely used architectural, engineering, or industrial design or process; (3) degree of integrity or completeness; and (4) degree of association with an important person, program, or event. These guidelines were used in tandem with the historic property categories to determine the appropriate level for each property. Age was not critical to their assessment, because buildings less than 50 years of age were inventoried, and properties rated as Category 1, 2, and 3 were also evaluated for condition and possible future adverse impacts.

Given their evaluation procedures, Buchanan and Johnson submitted HABS/HAER inventory cards for 77 historic properties found at the installation overall, and completed a NRHP District nomination for the original permanent post, constructed in the 1920s and 1930s at Fort Monmouth (Buchanan and Johnson 1984:3-4). This nomination was not accepted by the State of New Jersey’s Office of New Jersey Heritage within the Department of Environmental Protection because the nomination form needed additional information associating the district with significant people and events (Zerbe 1989).

The 1984 inventory described and assessed Capehart housing at Camp Charles Wood and Unit Chapel, Building 2275. Both building types were discussed as Category 4 properties or properties of little or no importance. The Capehart housing units were described as a single building type on Building 2467 Inventory Card. This description also covered the current study buildings, namely, Buildings 2261-2271, 2274, 2276, 2281-2285, 2287, 2289, and 2461-2478. The 1984 survey concluded that these buildings, constructed in 1958-1960, were not historically, architecturally, or technologically significant. The Unit Chapel, Building 2275, was also evaluated as having no specific architectural, historical, or technological significance.

Buchanan and Johnson (1984:7) classified 18 buildings within the Evans area of Fort Monmouth as Category 3 or 4 properties, properties of minor, little or no importance, as defined in Army Regulation 420-40. As such, the buildings were subjected to HABS Level IV documentation (Buchanan and Johnson 1984:i-ii, 88). In terms of significance as defined by their criteria and that of the NRHP, these buildings were cited as contributing to an understanding of the activities at the Evans area during World War II, but they did not have any specific architectural, historical, or technological significance. Buildings associated with the Marconi era in Wall Township that predated the installation were considered of minor importance and a further statement of significance was not discussed.

CURRENT ASSESSMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE

This study evaluated each building on the basis of its eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP as individual properties or as contributing members to a historic district or districts. The criteria used to establish a property’s eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP have been defined above. While each building was also assigned a numerical historic category in keeping with the former study, these assignments have no validity. The use of the historical numerical category system is no longer considered acceptable as it allows gradations of significance to be arbitrarily assigned to properties and implies that lesser preservation measures may be acceptable should a building be recommended as “contributing.” The evaluation of significance for each property was formulated solely in terms of the National Register criteria for this study.

The current assessments of significance are dramatically different than those discussed 11 years ago, particularly for the buildings at the Evans area due to a number of factors. Foremost, this study deals with select areas within Fort Monmouth rather than the whole; this change in strategy provides a stronger research focus. Next, the historic context for the study buildings from their time of construction through the Cold War period summarizes information that was not available 11 years ago and gives a stronger emphasis to the post World War II development or Cold War significance of Fort Monmouth. The current research, integrating oral historical information, establishes the Evans area as one of the nation’s premier wartime radar production and research and development facilities during World War II. The historic context also details important research in radar and component technology that was carried out at Evans through 1960. The establishment of the Evans area and its subsequent contributions to communications research are of unquestionable significance at the national and state level. The radar developed and produced at the Evans area had an enormous impact on our country’s ability to wage war successfully, and later research had significant ramifications for the development of component parts that would become integral to modern communication systems.

In addition, more data have been gathered on the Marconi era in Wall Township and the pre-military beginnings of the Evans area as an early communications center and its associations with significant leaders within the formative period of modern communications. The history of modern communications is strongly tied to the history and growth of the State of New Jersey in the twentieth century. Given this, it is considered a research focus by the New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office, and historic properties that contribute significant information to our knowledge about the history of communications in the state are carefully stewarded by that office. The 1914 Marconi wireless station buildings in Wall Township, composed of at least six buildings that were incorporated into the Evans area in 1941, are significant resources at the national and state level. The buildings associated with this station are intact and they contain information about the development of international communications as the use of Marconi’s invention amplified beyond its maritime uses.

INVENTORY UPDATE AND RESULTS

This survey was conducted at the two subinstallations affected by the BRAC closure: Camp Charles Wood area and the Evans area, and the results are presented accordingly.

Literature Search

A search of the National Register files at the New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office indicated that there are no properties related to the Camp Charles Wood area currently on the National Register or State Register. National Register resources include: The Tinton Falls Historic District, an old mill, and two prehistoric archeological sites, 28-Mo-134 and 28-Mo-135, that are within one mile of Camp Charles Wood. These are not adjacent or geographically close to the area affected by the BRAC closure and thus would not be impacted by the proposed action.

Within the Evans area, there are two properties listed on the State Register. The Marconi Building and Hotel in Wall Township were listed on December 30, 1975, and the Project Diana site was listed on January 6, 1976. Each of these is discussed in detail below with the other Evans area historic resources. The Ailgor-Barkalow Homestead, Remsen Mill, Kisner’s Mill, the Shark River Golf Course, and Clubhouse and Support Building are historic properties currently listed on either the State Register or the NRHP, and are within one mile of the Evans area. All of the above, except the Ailgor-Barkalow Homestead, lie far to the north of the installation on the other side of Highway 18 and would not be impacted by the BRAC closure.

The Ailgor-Barkalow Homestead, which is on both the NRHP and State Register, is situated approximately .38 miles south of the main building area at Evans. It is currently located in an open, undeveloped area on Belmar Boulevard, and is bordered by subdivisions to the east and west, and the Testing and Training Area to the north. The landscape remains somewhat rural to the south of the historic homestead. The training area is an open field and any development within the area could have an adverse visual impact on this resource. The type and intensity of that impact should be assessed in terms of the proposed reuse of the property. If the Evans area is developed into a county recreational facility/park as is currently contemplated, this impact would be favorable, particularly if the historic homestead could possibly be incorporated into any interpretative displays of the history of the area.

Camp Charles Wood Area Inventory

Thirty-eight Capehart family housing units situated in a residential setting and a Unit Chapel were inventoried within the Camp Charles Wood area (Table 2). These eight- and four-family housing units are sited parallel to landscaped streets or in some cases grouped around an interior courtyard used for parking (Figure 15). They are large, rectangular frame buildings finished with clapboard siding and brick veneer, and covered by shallow gable roofs.

None of these buildings is considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP because they do not meet the criteria required for nomination. The Capehart housing buildings are drawn from a standardized plan that was used extensively within the American military, and funded under a permanent housing construction program mandated by the Capehart Housing Act of 1955 (Buchanan and Johnson 1984:75). The Camp Charles Wood examples were built between 1958 and 1960 on the site of two World War II cantonment areas (Figure 16). Therefore, they are not over 50 years of age, their design and construction are not considered unique, and they have no known association with individuals or events significant to the development of the Camp Charles Wood area.

Building 2275, a Unit Chapel, is a remodeled building that was constructed in 1942 according to a standardized plan (see Figure 16). Its architecture is modest and similar in design to temporary unit chapels of the same period but it is currently considered a permanent building. It was built to serve the inhabitants of the World War II cantonment areas which once surrounded it. These cantonments were demolished for the construction of the Capehart family housing area; therefore, the chapel has lost its historic context. The chapel is not considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP on the basis of its architecture or historic setting, and it has no known specific association with individuals or events significant to the development of the Camp Charles Wood area.

Back to the InfoAge Homepage

Back to the Cultural Resources Report Contents