CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT

FOR FORT HANCOCK

TREATMENT PLAN

GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA - SANDY HOOK UNIT
i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT 

FOR FORT HANCOCK

TREATMENT PLAN

GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

SANDY HOOK UNIT 

INTRODUCTION

__________________________________________________________ 

LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION GOALS AND PRINCIPLES 

__________________________________________________________ 

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT 

RECOMMENDATIONS

__________________________________________________________ 

KEY LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION PROJECTS

By Lisa Nowak, Historical Landscape Architect 

National Park Service 

Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation 

H. Eliot Foulds, Historical Landscape Architect, Team Leader 

National Park Service 

Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation 

National Park Service, Boston, Massachusetts, 2006 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

ii 

The Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation promotes the stewardship of 

significant landscapes through research, planning, and sustainable preservation 

maintenance. The Center accomplishes its mission in collaboration with a network of 

partners including national parks, universities, government agencies, and private 

nonprofit organizations. Techniques and principles of preservation practice are made 

available through training and publications. The Olmsted Center perpetuates the 

tradition of the Olmsted firms and Frederick Law Olmsted’s lifelong commitment to 

people, parks, and public spaces. 

Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation 

Boston National Historical Park 

Charlestown Navy Yard, Quarters C 

Boston, MA 02129 

(617) 241-6954 

www.nps.gov/oclp/ 

Cover Photo: September 1930 National Geographic aerial photo of Fort Hancock. 

Copy in Gateway NRA Museum Collection, Catalog #833. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES v 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix 

INTRODUCTION 1 

Purpose and Need 1

Historical Significance 2

Description of the Study Area 3

Methodology and Scope of Work 3

CHAPTER 1: LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION GOALS AND PRINCIPLES 

Introduction 9

Goals of Landscape Rehabilitation 9

Principles of Landscape Rehabilitation 10

CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Introduction 15

Spatial Relationships and Views 15

Topography 17

Land Use 18

Buildings and Structures 19

Circulation and Vehicular Parking 20

Vegetation 25 

Site Furnishings and Fixtures 38

Utilities 47

CHAPTER 3: KEY LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION PROJECTS 

Introduction 73

Site Parking 73

Street Tree Replacement 79

Street Lighting Replacement 79

Rehabilitation of Guardian Park 80 

 

REFERENCES 119 

APPENDICES 

A. Building and Foundation Planting Chart 121

B. Recommended Plant Lists for Fort Hancock 127

C. Turfgrass Management Recommendation 133

D. Lighting Study of Barracks Row 137
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

iv 
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES 

v

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Introduction 

1.1 Context map of the units of Gateway National Recreation Area. The 

 Sandy Hook unit is at the bottom of the image. GATE files. 

1.2 Sandy Hook Context Map. Fort Hancock is located on the north 

end of the peninsula, just south of the Sandy Hook Coast Guard 

Station. GATE files. 

1.3 The Fort Hancock study area boundary is outlined in blue. OCLP, 

 2004. 

1.4 2004 aerial photograph of Fort Hancock, Sandy Hook Unit of 

Gateway National Recreation Area. The study area is outlined in 

black. GATE file. 

Chapter 2 

2.1 The Parade Ground is bordered by Barracks buildings, pictured in 

 the background, and the structures of Officers Row, just outside of 

 the frame at image right. OCLP, 2004. 

2.2 Officers Row fronts onto a strip of open space along the water’s 

 edge, as shown here. The buildings back onto the Parade Ground, 

 one of the defining spaces of Fort Hancock. OCLP, 2004. 

2.3 Diagram of defining open spaces and views at Fort Hancock. Not to 

 scale. OCLP, 2004. 

2.4 Above ground utility boxes are located throughout the study area, 

 notably between the buildings of Officers Row, as pictured above. 

 OCLP, 2004. 

2.5 The building currently leased by the Audubon Society is typical of 

 the smaller single family homes at Fort Hancock. OCLP, 

 2004. 

2.6 The Sandy Hook lighthouse. OCLP, 2004. 

2.7 Vehicular and pedestrian circulation is highlighted in this diagram of 

 Fort Hancock. Existing roads, paths, and parking lots appear white, 

 while all other spaces including lawns and building footprints are 

 colored black. Not to scale. OCLP, 2004. 

2.8 Poured concrete sidewalks line the west side of Hartshorne Drive. 

 OCLP, 2004. 

2.9 Some walkways surrounding the homes of Officers Row are 

 flagstone, like the one pictured above. OCLP, 2004. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

vi 

2.10 The multi-use path travels between the water’s edge and Hartshorne 

 Drive. OCLP, 2004. 

2.11 Parking diagram highlighting existing parking lots and the changes 

 proposed in the Environmental Assessment. OCLP, 2005. 

2.12 Mature street trees line the curved edge of the Parade Ground. 

 OCLP, 2004. 

2.13 Several self-seeded trees have been allowed to mature along side the 

 front porches of Officers Row. OCLP, 2004. 

2.14 1930 aerial photo shows the inconsistent street tree coverage along 

Hartshorne Drive that was typical throughout the period of 

significance. September 1930, National Geographic aerial 

photograph of Fort Hancock. Copy in Gateway NRA Museum 

Collection, Catalogue #833. 

2.15 Hartshorne Drive street tree planting diagram. Not to scale. OCLP, 

 2004. 

2.16 Proposed Hartshorne Drive streetscape after replanting of street 

 trees and hedge, looking south. OCLP, 2005. 

2.17 Tree planting diagram. OCLP, 2005. 

2.18 Tree staking diagram. OCLP, 2005. 

2.19. Diagram of foundation planting areas at single family houses. 

 Graphic from the 1999 Fort Hancock Rehabilitation Guidelines. 

2.20 Overgrown vegetation dominates the Officers Club landscape. The 

 building can be seen through the trees in the background. OCLP, 

 2005. 

2.21 Proposed planting plan for the Officers Club. OCLP, 2005. 

2.22 A surviving concrete streetlight in the vicinity of Sergeants Row. 

 OCLP, 2005. 

2.23 The 16 foot spun aluminum streetlights along Hartshorne Drive. 

 OCLP, 2005. 

2.24 “Shoebox” style lights that exist at the MAST Campus and NOAA 

 Laboratory buildings. OCLP, 2005. 

2.25 Contemporary lights at the NOAA laboratories. GATE photo, 2005. 

2.26 Zone map for Fort Hancock streetlight replacement. Not to scale. 

OCLP, 2005. 

2.27 This shielded Hermosa luminaire from Bieber Lighting is 

 recommended to replace fixtures along Hartshorne Drive. An 

 unpainted, brushed aluminum finish will be specified for surface 

 color. 

2.28 Concrete streetlights at the Parade Ground, Athletic Field, and 

 Sergeants Row should be replaced by this 12’ cast concrete fixture 

 made by Skycast®. 
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES 

vii

2.29 Image of an alternative for the new streetlight. This is the OPC-YM 

 “Opticone” light made by Lumec®. 

2.30 Image of an alternative for the new streetlight. This is the OPC 

 “Opticone” light made by Lumec®. 

2.31 Image of an alternative for the new streetlight. This is the CAND6 

 “Candela” light made by Lumec®. 

2.32 Image of the preferred bollard. This is the BD8 bollard made by 

 Lumec®. 

2.33 This ‘world’s fair’ style bench is similar to ones found historically at 

 Fort Hancock. The wood and metal bench is made by Kenneth 

 Lynch and Sons. 

2.34 Several water fountains should be placed around the historic district, 

 near high visitor use areas. Use the dark green pictured above to 

 blend the fixture with similarly colored site fixtures on site. 

2.35 Standard bicycle racks should be placed near areas of high visitor 

 use, especially at the NPS visitor center and Ferry landing. 

2.36 A simple wood slat and metal picnic table that uses the same 

 materials as the park bench is recommended for Fort Hancock. 

 They should only be placed at Guardian Park. 

2.37 The historic Fort Hancock street signs were reddish brown with 

 black lettering. OCLP, 1994. 

2.38 This street sign from off-site shows the mounting hardware and 

 configuration of the recommended street signs for Fort Hancock. 

 OCLP, 2005. 

Chapter 3 

3.1 Proposed parking plan for Fort Hancock. OCLP, 2005 

3.2 Modified Chapel Lot, A- Preferred Alternative. OCLP, 2005. 

3.3 Modified Chapel Lot, B. OCLP, 2005. 

3.4 Modified Chapel Lot, C. OCLP, 2005. 

3.5 Modified Chapel Lot, D. OCLP, 2005. 

3.6 Modified Athletic Field Lot, A- Preferred Alternative. OCLP, 

 2005. 

3.7 Modified Athletic Field Lot, B. OCLP, 2005. 

3.8 Modified Athletic Field Lot, C. OCLP, 2005. 

3.9 New Coal Pit Lot, A- Preferred Alternative. OCLP, 2005. 

3.10 New Coal Pit Lot, B. OCLP, 2005. 

3.11 New Coal Pit Lot, C. OCLP, 2005. 

3.12 New Coal Yard Lot, A- Preferred Alternative. OCLP, 2005. 

3.13 New Coal Yard Lot, B. OCLP, 2005. 

3.14 New Coal Yard Lot, C. OCLP, 2005. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

viii 

3.15 Modified South Parade Lot, A- Preferred Alternative. OCLP, 

 2005. 

3.16 Modified South Parade Lot, B. OCLP, 2005. 

3.17 New Tent City Lot, A- Preferred Alternative. OCLP, 2005. 

3.18 New Tent City Lot, B. OCLP, 2005. 

3.19 Modified Fort Hancock Lot. OCLP, 2005. 

3.20 New Paddock Lot. OCLP, 2005. 

3.21 New Warehouse Lot. OCLP, 2005. 

3.22 New Tennis Lot, A- Preferred Alternative. OCLP, 2005. 

3.23 New Tennis Lot, B. OCLP, 2005. 

3.24 New Mess Hall Lots. OCLP, 2005. 

3.25 Modified Gas Station Intersection, A- Preferred Alternative. 

 OCLP, 2005. 

3.26 Modified Gas Station Intersection, B. OCLP, 2005. 

3.27 Modified Gas Station Intersection, C. OCLP, 2005. 

3.28 Modified Gas Station Intersection, D. OCLP, 2005. 

3.29 Proposed Street Tree and Streetlight Plan, Site Wide. OCLP, 2005. 

3.30 Proposed Street Tree and Streetlight Plan, Enlargement, South Area. 

 OCLP, 2005. 

3.31 Proposed Street Tree and Streetlight Plan, Enlargement, Middle 

 Area. OCLP, 2005 

3.32 Proposed Street Tree and Streetlight Plan, Enlargement, North Area. 

 OCLP, 2005. 

Appendices 

Appendix D: Lighting Study of Barracks Row, generated by Quattro Lighting, 

 Bois des Filion, Quebec 

LIST OF TABLES 

Appendix A: Building and Foundation Planting Chart 

Appendix B: Recommended Foundation Plant List for Fort Hancock 

Appendix C: Turfgrass Management Recommendations 

 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The Olmsted Center thanks the staff at the Sandy Hook Unit of Gateway 

National Recreation Area for their assistance and contributions to this 

report. Sandy Hook Superintendent Richard Wells served as an advocate for 

the project and gave input on issues large and small to help shape the report. 

Chief of Interpretation and Cultural Resources Lou Venuto was the main 

project contact, whose regular contributions in the form of informal 

conversations, staff comment coordination, and formal review comments, 

were instrumental to the completion of this project. Many other members of 

the Gateway park staff assisted the project team by participating in treatment 

plan meetings, commenting on draft reports, finding historical information in 

park archives, and sharing information about Sandy Hook's natural and 

cultural resources. We thank Sandy Hook Cultural Resource Specialist 

Michael Thomas, Sandy Hook Museum Curator Mary Rasa, Gateway Chief 

of Cultural Resource Management Kathy Foppes, Sandy Hook Chief Ranger 

Hollis G. Provins, Sandy Hook Park Ranger (Historian) Tom Hoffman, 

Sandy Hook Natural Resource Specialist Bruce Lane, and Gateway Chief 

Curator Felice Ciccione. 

Thanks are due to Robert Page, Director of the Olmsted Center for his 

interest and support throughout the project. The authors also thank Jeff 

Killion and Chris Stevens, historical landscape architects with the Olmsted 

Center, for their insightful comments during peer review. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

x 
INTRODUCTION

1 

INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE AND NEED 

The purpose of this cultural landscape treatment plan is to provide the National 

Park Service with guidelines for rehabilitating the cultural landscape of Fort 

Hancock based on the future use of the site, while preserving historic character. 

This report is an implementation tool that synthesizes documentary research 

from the 1997 “Historic Landscape Assessment for Fort Hancock” and the 1999 

“Cultural Landscape Report for the Proving Ground and Wartime Expansion 

Areas” along with numerous prior planning documents. 

For the past twenty-five years, the buildings and landscape features at Fort 

Hancock have deteriorated. Providing economically self-sustaining new uses for 

this extraordinary ensemble of resources has been determined by a lengthy and 

comprehensive planning process as the best way to ensure long-term 

preservation. However, with the opportunity for reuse, comes the need to 

articulate what are appropriate and inappropriate treatment choices. 

Several planning documents have preceded this report and provide guidance and 

support for the preferred treatment strategy, including the 1979 “Final 

Environmental Statement-General Management Plan” (General Management 

Plan), the 1990 “General Management Plan Amendment-Interpretive 

Prospectus” (General Management Plan Amendment), and “Development 

Concept Plan and Environmental Assessment: Adaptive Use of Fort Hancock 

and the Sandy Hook Proving Ground” (Environmental Assessment or EA), 

prepared in February 2002 and revised in July 2003. The Fort Hancock EA 

proposed adaptive use, or rehabilitation, actions were determined to have no 

significant impact on the historic and natural resources of the park in a “Finding 

of No Significant Impact” report, or FONSI, signed in July 2003. The 2003 Fort 

Hancock FONSI recommended the preparation of this cultural landscape 

treatment plan. 

The 1990 General Management Plan Amendment first proposed that Fort 

Hancock be managed through a public/private arrangement involving one or 

more partners. A range of new uses was identified in the amendment as 

appropriate for Fort Hancock including educational, hospitality, and residential 

uses, research centers, conference facilities, and professional offices.1

 

Significantly, although private groups are invited into the rehabilitation process 

and will manage some of the structures through long-term leases, the landscape 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

2 

and site infrastructure will remain the responsibility of the National Park Service 

and remain fully accessible to the public. 

 

All prior planning documents have identified rehabilitation as the preferred 

treatment approach for Fort Hancock from among the preservation treatments 

recognized by the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties. Of the four treatments - preservation, rehabilitation, 

restoration and reconstruction - rehabilitation is recognized as the most 

accommodating to change. This report does not recommend taking action to 

restore conditions at Fort Hancock to reflect a single period of time in its long 

history. Rather, the following recommendations use the directives of the 

rehabilitation treatment approach, where emphasis is placed on the preservation 

of surviving historic characteristics, features, and materials, and accommodating 

new uses through the addition of compatible new features and materials. 

HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE 

The federal reservation at Sandy Hook has played dual roles in United States 

military history; first, as the site of both the Army Ordnance Board's Proving 

Ground between 1874 and 1919, and second as Fort Hancock, the chief unit in 

the defense of New York Harbor for much of the time between 1898 through the 

Cold War, ending with the development and deployment of intercontinental 

ballistic missiles (ICBM) in the late 1960s.2

 The property was deactivated by the 

U.S. Army in 1974 and transferred to the National Park Service, becoming a unit 

of the new Gateway National Recreation Area. 

A National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form for Fort 

Hancock was completed and certified by the Keeper of the National Register in 

1979, indicating two separate periods of significance; the first for the Sandy Hook 

Proving Ground, 1874-1919, and the second for the theme of Coastal Defenses, 

1859-1950s. However, many features survive on site that post-date the 1950s, 

relating to later periods of the development of Nike missile technology. 

Correspondence between the National Park Service and the New Jersey State 

Historic Preservation Officer in 1996 relating to the park’s List of Classified 

Structures (LCS) explains that: “. . . because the Nike missile era identified in the 

NHL documentation continued almost to the date of transfer between the 

military and the NPS, December 31, 1974, the deactivation date for Fort 

Hancock, is used as the end date of the period of significance.”3

 Concurrence on 

this matter from the New Jersey State Historic Preservation Officer on January 2, 

1997 established 1974 as the end date of the period of significance. 
INTRODUCTION

3 

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA 

Fort Hancock is a historic district of the Sandy Hook Unit of Gateway National 

Recreation Area, which is comprised of several noncontiguous units located 

around New York Harbor in New York State and New Jersey (Figure 1.1). Fort 

Hancock is located on the northwest side of the Sandy Hook peninsula, facing 

Sandy Hook Bay, just south of the active U.S. Coast Guard Station (Figure 1.2). 

The project boundaries have been drawn to include the Fort Hancock Historic 

District, excluding the wartime expansion areas and proving ground east of the 

core fort landscape (Figures 1.3 and 1.4). 

Fort Hancock contains more than one hundred buildings, many of which date to 

the late 1800s and early 1900s, that share stylistic similarities, notably the 

distinctive yellow brick and Classical-Revival ornamentation. The structures are 

grouped to take advantage of views to Sandy Hook Bay on the western horizon 

and are centered around two key open spaces, the Parade Ground and Athletic 

Field. Numerous mature street trees line the narrow streets of the Fort, 

contributing to a campus-like appearance. Currently, the National Park Service 

and several park partners including the New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium, 

Brookdale Community College, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, among others, occupy several rehabilitated structures, while 

many buildings remain empty. 

METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE OF WORK 

The objective of this cultural landscape treatment plan is to provide treatment 

recommendations for this historic place that will preserve the integrity and 

character of the cultural landscape. To achieve this goal, this report is organized 

into three main chapters: 1) an examination of the principles of the rehabilitation 

treatment approach and how they relate to site specific issues, 2) discussion of 

existing conditions and feature level recommendations that address 

rehabilitation actions, organized according to broad characteristics and specific 

landscape features of the site, 3) descriptions of key landscape rehabilitation 

projects. 

The preparation of this landscape treatment plan has drawn upon the park's 

extensive archives, local historical organizations, the NPS Denver Service Center 

Technical Information Center, and the National Archives in Washington, D.C. 

Two previous cultural landscape research documents, the 1994 “Historic 

Landscape Assessment for Fort Hancock” that was revised in 1997 and the 1999 

“Cultural Landscape Report for Proving Ground and Wartime Expansion Areas 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

4 

at Sandy Hook,” also provided historical information that enriched the treatment 

plan. The level of investigation is considered "thorough" as defined by A Guide to 

Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Processes and Techniques. 

Documentation and evaluation of existing landscape conditions has been 

accomplished using narrative text, photographs, and graphic plans. Plan 

documentation is based on existing topographic surveys and base maps supplied 

by the park. Fort Hancock's structures are referenced to the park's building 

numbering system and the List of Classified Structures (LCS). However, 

documentation focuses primarily on existing conditions to the extent that they 

influence landscape treatment recommendations. Contemporary site functions, 

visitor services, interpretation, park operations, and maintenance issues are 

described as appropriate in the context of proposed landscape treatment. 

ENDNOTES 

1

 National Park Service, in association with Sandy Hook Partners, LLC, 

"Environmental Assessment: Adaptive Use of Fort Hancock and the Sandy Hook 

Proving Ground Historic District." United States Department of the Interior, 

Gateway National Recreation Area, New Jersey, July 2003, p 2-4, citing the 1990 

Amendment to the 1979 General Management Plan. 

2

 National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form. National Park 

Service, October 1979. 

3

 Savage to Pfoutz, 5 November 1996. From correspondence in reference to "List of 

Classified Structures," countersigned by Dorothy Guzzo, NJ SHPO, 2 January 1997. 

NPS, National Register Files, Northeast Region, Boston Office. 
INTRODUCTION

5

Figure 1.1. Context map of the units of Gateway National Recreation Area. The Sandy Hook unit is at the bottom of the image. GATE 

files. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

6

Figure 1.2. Sandy Hook Context Map. Fort Hancock is located on the north 

end of the peninsula, just south of the Sandy Hook Coast Guard Station. 

GATE files. 
INTRODUCTION

7

Figure 1.3. Study Area for the Cultural Landscape Treatment Plan for Fort Hancock, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area. The study area is outlined in a dashed black line. Image courtesy of Gateway National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit. 

21

36

49

53 80

119

14

114

5

144

120

130 132

5 12

124

156

131

108

104

260

259

102

60

74

25

40 52 47

41

75

73

72 71

30

29

64

66

70

22

23

M.A.S.T.

24

Marine Academy of

Science & Technology

BATTERY

GUNNISON

BATTERY

GRANGER

MORTAR

BATTERY

NORTH POND

BATTERY

PECK

OBSERVATION

DECK

OBSERVATION

DECK

HARTSHORNE DRIVE

CANFIELD ROAD

ATLANTIC DRIVE

EVIRDCITNALTA

ORXONK AD

ATLANTIC DR. 

SANDY HOOK

LIGHTHOUSE

NIKE MISSILE

GUARDIAN

PARK

James J. Howard

Marine Sciences Laboratory

PARADE GROUND

FLAG POLE

NPS PARK

HEADQUARTERS

ATLANTIC OCEAN

NINE GUN BATTERY

NORTH BEACH

GUNNISON BEACH

PROVING

GROUND

I Lot

G Lot

K Lot

M Lot

 J Lot

BATTERY

POTTER

57

56

55

2

27

26

5 6 7 8 9 10

11

12

15 16 17

18

13

335

14

4 3

51

56

43 33 23

HUDS EVIRDNO

S. BRAGG DR.

KILPATRICK RD.

KESSLER ROAD

MERCER RD. 76

77

MAGRUDER RD.

GUNNISON RD.

RODMAN GUN

305

KEARNEY RD.

ENTRANCE TO

U.S.COAST GUARD

SANDY HOOK STATION

[ NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC ]

U.S.C.G. PIERS

FERRY LANDING

(seasonal)

SANDY HOOK BAY

28

85

N

UH DSON RD.

MAST WAY

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERIC A

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Sandy Hook

Gateway National Recreation Area

Fort Hancock

 v2.00.12.05

American Littoral Society ..............18Brookdale Community College .....53Clean Ocean Action ........................18Fort Hancock Museum ...................28History House ...................................1James J. Howard MarineSciences Laboratory .......................74Lighthouse Keepers Barn ..............85Lighthouse Keepers Quarters .......84MAST Administration ..................305NPS Maintenance Offi ces ............130NPS Park Headquarters ..................58NPS Park Ranger Offi ces ................32National Oceanic & AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA) .................74NJ Marine Sciences Consortium ....22Post Chapel (Auditorium) ..............35Post Theater ...................................67Rutgers University, Institute ofMarine & Coastal Sciences .............74Sandy Hook Bird Observatory ......20 (NJ Audubon Society)Sandy Hook Child Care Center ....335 Sandy Hook Education Center ....102Sandy Hook Foundation ..................1Sandy Hook Partners .....................26

Parking LotSites open to public - hours & seasons varyWalking TrailMulti-Use Pathway(no motorized vehicles) Restrooms: Guardian Park restroom open all year. Others open seasonally.NOTE: Gun batteries and historic structurescan be hazardous. Do not enter closed areas.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

8

Figure 1.4. 2004 aerial photograph of Fort Hancock, Sandy Hook Unit of Gateway National Recreation Area. The study area is 

outlined in black. GATE files. 
CHAPTER 1: LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION GOALS AND PRINCIPLES 

9 

CHAPTER 1: 

LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION GOALS AND PRINCIPLES 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter seeks to tie the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

rehabilitation to site-specific issues at Fort Hancock to better illustrate how 

rehabilitation guidelines will direct future change. The goal in rehabilitating the 

Fort Hancock landscape is to preserve historic characteristics and features and 

also to recapture the vitality and sense of community that once characterized the 

former military post. 

Several elements of the Fort Hancock landscape are easily identifiable as defining 

aspects of the site’s historic character. They include the campus-like, small scale 

feeling created by narrow streets, mature street trees with intertwined canopies, 

uniform architectural styles and building setbacks, and well-defined central open 

spaces. Also significant to the overall character is the simplicity in which the 

landscape is ornamented; foundation plantings are understated, no free-standing 

formal gardens exist, and visual clutter is kept to a minimum. All of this reflects 

the historic utilitarian use of the site as a military base. Military hierarchy is 

visible through the placement of officers' quarters along choice bay frontage, 

located across the Parade Ground from the barracks buildings housing the 

soldiers under their command. 

Habitation of the property is far reduced from historic levels and because of this 

the buildings and grounds at Fort Hancock have been in decline since the U.S. 

Army vacated the property in 1974. The National Park Service has not received 

the funding or staff required to maintain these facilities at levels typical of the 

armed forces, therefore conditions at Fort Hancock no longer reflect the 

intensity of maintenance common to active military sites. 

GOALS OF LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION 

The following goals have been identified for the rehabilitation process, for both 

landscapes surrounding leased structures as well as the larger landscape and 

infrastructure remaining under the management of the National Park Service. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

10 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

• Preserve the character of Fort Hancock's designed landscape; 

• Reverse the deterioration present in the resources, including the 

replacement of missing street trees, foundation plantings, and 

rehabilitation of turf; 

• Protect archeological resources; 

• Balance cultural and natural resource values in making choices required 

to facilitate new uses. 

PUBLIC SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY 

• Provide a safe and accessible park environment for visitors and partners; 

• Repair Fort Hancock's deteriorated system of street trees and site 

lighting while achieving a safe environment, adding minimal new 

lighting designed with timers, motion-sensors, and light shields to 

minimize light pollution; 

• Repair or replace in-kind deteriorated paved surfaces, avoiding the 

replacement of existing commonplace surfaces with new designs or 

treatments that are currently more fashionable; 

• Implement traffic calming measures such as raised sidewalks to promote 

safety and accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists. 

COMMUNITY SUPPORT AND INVOLVEMENT 

• Review, revise and implement landscape rehabilitation choices in an 

inclusive way that fosters community support and goodwill; 

• Comply with regulatory requirements for consultation required by the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966; 

• Correct deteriorated site conditions detracting from a positive visitor 

experience, or hindering the public's understanding of Fort Hancock's 

historical significance. 

PRINCIPLES OF LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION 

Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible 

use for a property through repairs, alterations, and additions while preserving 

those portions or features that convey its historical, cultural, or architectural 

values.1

 According to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties, elements of rehabilitation provide that: 
CHAPTER 1: LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION GOALS AND PRINCIPLES 

11 

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires 

minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial 

relationships. 

At Fort Hancock: the application of this standard recommends that the former 

military base will continue to be used and managed primarily as a cultural 

resource. As is the case in active military bases, this would suggest a mix of public 

and private new uses with the National Park Service continuing to control access 

and use. In the case of officers' quarters that were once private dwellings with 

yards, there is an opportunity to continue private or semi-private uses. Open 

spaces such as the Parade Ground, Athletic Field, and Sandy Hook bay frontage 

serve as key organizational elements of the site plan and would be protected from 

new site construction or other encroachments in order to support continued 

public enjoyment of the historic site. Buildings and landscapes that were once 

service-oriented, such as workshops and warehouses, may be given new 

functions supportive of both private and public use of the entire site. 

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal 

of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that 

characterize a property will be avoided. 

At Fort Hancock: the application of this standard recommends against changing 

the site plan of the property. Major realignment and widening of roads would be 

not be permitted, and construction of new buildings on public open spaces 

would not be recommended. The Fort Hancock EA explored the possibility of 

only two new structures on site, that of a National Park Service maintenance 

facility or garage/warehouse for maintenance operations within the current 

maintenance area, and a structure at the site of the former Post Hospital near 

Guardian Park. If built, these new buildings should be designed to reflect the 

scale and proportions of the former buildings, with geometry and details 

designed for compatibility with the historic architectural ensemble. Replacement 

of shade trees would be limited to the edges of the historic post's roadways, as 

was the case historically, while the species of trees planted may be modified to 

address contemporary concerns for natural resource issues and sustainability. 

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. 

Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding 

conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be 

undertaken. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

12 

At Fort Hancock: the application of this standard aims to preserve authenticity 

and recommends against adding undocumented elements and features to the 

landscape in order to create a "historic look." Replacements of missing historic 

features should be in-kind replacements, as they appeared at the end of the 

period of significance, or 1974. Choosing to replace features from an earlier 

period in Fort Hancock's long history, such as streetlights from the 1920s, based 

on an aesthetic preference is not recommended. 

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right 

shall be retained and preserved. 

At Fort Hancock: the application of this standard recommends that changes 

made to the landscape after the end of its initial period of development c. 1905 

that have acquired a significance in their own right should be preserved. The 

current period of significance ends in 1974 and landscape characteristics and 

features present during World War II and the Cold War should be preserved. 

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples 

of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 

At Fort Hancock: the application of this standard is related to #2 above. This 

includes the preservation of site details reflecting domestic habitation, such as 

outdoor clotheslines, trash can enclosures, and school bus stops. Serviceable 

everyday materials such as asphalt roadways and concrete sidewalks, where they 

currently exist, need not and should not be replaced with something more 

fashionable or appealing. Monocultural stands of street trees that survive, such 

as the London planetrees along the west side of Barracks Row, should be 

preserved by replacing failing specimens in-kind. Where harsh growing 

conditions have not permitted the establishment and survival of an even-aged 

street tree monoculture, such as the case along Hartshorne Drive, a more 

practical and durable mix of species may be introduced. 

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the 

severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new 

feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. 

Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical 

evidence. 

At Fort Hancock: the application of this standard indicates that repairs are 

preferable to replacement, and that the replacement of missing features intended 

to evoke a historic period must be undertaken only following rigorous 
CHAPTER 1: LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION GOALS AND PRINCIPLES 

13 

scholarship. At Fort Hancock, two distinct examples of historic street lighting 

exist, though most of the standing fixtures are in poor condition. Missing or 

deteriorated examples of these two streetlights will be replaced with fixtures that 

share design similarities with the historic lights. In-kind replacement is 

recommended to present a seamless appearance of the historic scene. 

Replacements should resemble historic fixtures in form, material, and design but 

may differ slightly based on cost considerations and commercial availability. 

This principle can also be related to displays of militaria around the fort 

landscape. Adequate documentation exists to justify the re-introduction of 

selected missing features. Historic Fort Hancock armaments or appropriate 

replacements may be placed in designated areas that have high interpretive value. 

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken, using the 

gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not 

be used. 

At Fort Hancock: the application of this standard suggests that pruning and 

treatment of existing plantings should be undertaken by a trained horticulturist 

with experience working at historic properties. 

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources 

must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 

At Fort Hancock: the application of this standard recommends that ground 

disturbing activities be reviewed by a trained archeologist as part of compliance 

with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 

9. New additions, exterior alteration, or related new construction will not destroy 

historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. 

The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the 

historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the 

integrity of the property and its environment. 

At Fort Hancock: the application of this standard recommends that the scale 

and zoning of any proposed rehabilitation of vacant building sites reflect the 

historic scale, massing, and zoning issues reflected in the original site plan. An 

example of applying this standard relates to a possible infill of the hospital site, 

the post hospital having been destroyed in a fire in 1985. A new building 

constructed on this site should reflect the approximate footprint, and general 

massing of the former building, while it would be appropriate for the structure to 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

14 

reflect its own time in the articulation of the facades and the execution of 

architectural details. This would successfully distinguish a new structure from 

the surviving historic buildings. 

10. New additional and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in 

such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the 

historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 

At Fort Hancock: the application of this standard indicates that new 

construction be designed to be reversible, that is, removal in the future would not 

destroy historic buildings, landscape characteristics, or features. New site 

features such as directional and orienting signage, benches, water fountains, and 

bicycle racks will become necessary for the adaptive use of the fort. These will be 

located in the landscape in a manner that will not harm historic fabric or interfere 

with the presentation of the historic character of Fort Hancock. 

ENDNOTES 

1

 Excerpted from: U.S. Department of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes. National Park Service. Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships. 

Heritage Preservation Services, Washington, D.C. 1996. 
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

15

CHAPTER 2: 

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this chapter is to present informed landscape treatment 

recommendations that preserve Fort Hancock’s historic character and guide 

rehabilitation efforts. Earlier reports that address the treatment of Fort Hancock, 

including the Fort Hancock EA and the 1999 "Fort Hancock Rehabilitation 

Guidelines" (hereafter referred to as the 1999 Rehabilitation Guidelines) are 

referenced and supplemented in the recommendations. 

The following material is organized according to seven important characteristics 

of the landscape. The characteristics are used to divide the landscape into its 

component parts in order to clearly communicate both condition and relevant 

preservation issues. These characteristics include spatial relationships and views, 

topography, land use, buildings and structures, circulation, vegetation, and site 

furnishings and fixtures. Landscape treatment recommendations follow the 

assessment of existing conditions. 

The level of detail for any given recommendation varies according to its 

preservation implications. For example, recommendations for circulation, 

vegetation, and site furnishings and fixtures are presented at a feature level due to 

concerns about the rehabilitation of street trees, foundation plantings, hedges, 

parking lots, benches, and street lights. Fort Hancock EA directives relating to 

these landscape characteristics are reiterated in this report to provide clear 

direction for rehabilitation. Conversely, treatment recommendations for spatial 

relationships, views, topography, and land use are presented at a broader scale. 

Though many specific rehabilitation guidelines apply to buildings and structures, 

this report defers to other architectural guidelines for treatment and discusses the 

buildings and structures broadly. 

SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND VIEWS 

Fort Hancock's site plan evolved from the desire to reflect military order and the 

need to establish zones for work and zones for residential activities. 

Implementation of the site plan involved conforming to existing site conditions, 

which included the infrastructure serving the U.S. Life-Saving Service, the Army's 

unfinished Civil War-era Third System fortifications, and the Sandy Hook 

Proving Ground and its associated dock facility, railroad lines, and buildings. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

16 

The new fort was laid out west of the Sandy Hook Lighthouse and south of the 

other existing features. 

Historically, as today, the large, central open space of the Parade Ground serves 

as one of the most distinct and recognizable features of the historic district 

(Figure 2.1). Much of the Parade Ground is defined by the architecture of 

Officers Row, the linear row of senior officers’ quarters that back onto the Parade 

Ground and face Sandy Hook Bay (Figure 2.2). Within Officers Row, the most 

senior officers' housing, Row House Twelve, occupies the center of the row of 

buildings with officers of lesser rank flanking it in descending order. Sitting 

several hundred yards east of Officers Row across the Parade Ground are the 

large barracks buildings, or Barracks Row, purposefully constructed to place the 

enlisted men in view of the officers. Another broad open space, the Athletic 

Field, is found north of the Parade Ground, separated by Hudson Road. Junior 

officers' quarters along Hartshorne Drive define the west side of the Athletic 

Field. 

Outside the Parade Ground and Athletic Field, the spatial organization is more 

random, yet is marked by other distinct neighborhoods. A group of noncommissioned officers’ quarters known as Sergeants Row is located east of the 

Athletic Field, forming a cluster of similarly scaled and designed buildings that 

are now used for park housing. Another distinct cluster of buildings located east 

of the large barracks buildings between the Parade Ground and Magruder Road, 

called Barracks Row, is the Marine Academy of Science and Technology (MAST) 

campus. The campus was created from several rehabilitated, one-story, 

concrete-block, World War II-era buildings. 

A collection of former service buildings, including the bakery, stables, and 

firehouse, is located northeast of the Athletic Field. Their functions dictated 

their location within the military base, being somewhat isolated from the officers’ 

quarters and the Parade Ground. All of these sub-areas ring the main open 

spaces and historic center of activity, generally following a pattern of less densely 

spaced, more loosely organized roads and structures the further they are located 

from Hartshorne Drive. Unprogrammed open spaces of mowed grass or native 

vegetation are prevalent at the district's perimeter. 

 

Views of the bay are the most striking aspect of Fort Hancock's site plan (Figure 

2.3). Buildings along Hartshorne Drive, including Officers Row, the chapel, and 

the theatre, feature sweeping views of the water between the gaps in the officers’ 

quarters. As all trees on site were placed along roads and paths, not interspersed 

within open lawns, views from Barracks Row are channeled toward the water. 
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

17

Views elsewhere on site are more limited because of the various buildings, yet 

framed views to the water are still available because of the flat terrain and 

relatively open landscape. 

SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND VIEWS – TREATMENT 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The spatial relationships between buildings, open spaces, natural areas, and 

Sandy Hook Bay are central to the historic character of Fort Hancock. The clean 

lines and uncluttered details of the Fort Hancock landscape that typify the spare, 

simple, and utilitarian character of the landscape should be preserved. Any 

rehabilitation of the area should not change the fundamental relationships 

between key features and characteristics, including the organization of buildings 

around the Parade Ground and Athletic Fields, the buildings of Officers Row and 

the water's edge, and the close alignment of Barracks buildings and supporting 

structures like the mess halls and laundry. 

Views from Fort Hancock to Sandy Hook Bay should be considered and 

protected in every rehabilitation decision. Important views of Sandy Hook Bay 

seen from Officers Row and the Barracks Row should not be impeded by the 

placement of visual intrusions such as above ground utilities or plantings. It is 

recommended to avoid placing plant material, site furnishings, or utilities in 

between the homes of Officers Row in order to keep view corridors open (Figure 

2.4). Elsewhere on site, the simple planting design of open lawn and street trees 

should be retained to leave views to the bay unencumbered. 

TOPOGRAPHY 

Fort Hancock and Sandy Hook Proving Ground project into Sandy Hook Bay at 

only a few feet above sea level. The entire area can be characterized as nearly flat, 

with gentle grade changes that are all but imperceptible to the casual observer. 

Some sand dunes line the east shore of the peninsula, outside the study area of 

this report. 

TOPOGRAPHY -- TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 

As an important feature of the cultural landscape, the level topography of Fort 

Hancock should be retained. Any new construction in the Fort Hancock historic 

district should respect the existing topography and avoid, for example, the 

construction of artificial berms or drastic grade changes. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

18 

LAND USE 

Fort Hancock is used by institutional and educational groups today, although 

with low intensity compared with historic levels. Approximately one hundred 

buildings are found in the Fort Hancock area, some of which are used by the 

National Park Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium, Brookdale Community College, and 

the Marine Academy of Science and Technology. 

Fort Hancock is used by recreational visitors, some of which arrive via the Sandy 

Hook Multi-Use Pathway, a popular paved path that runs the length of the 

peninsula for walking, bicycling, and roller-blading. The path currently 

terminates at the ferry landing, but the park has plans to extend it through Fort 

Hancock to the north beaches located east of the study area. A sizable number of 

seasonal visitors, many of whom frequent Sandy Hook’s northwest beaches, 

arrive via the ferry landing. Many casual and repeat visitors use the fort area as 

well as over 25,000 school children who attend educational programs sponsored 

by the National Park Service and its partners. 

LAND USE -- TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 

The rehabilitation program proposed for Fort Hancock will introduce several 

new uses, yet all will be compatible with existing land use and the mission of the 

park. The National Park Service will retain responsibility for all primary public 

open spaces such as the Parade Ground, the Athletic Field, and the bay frontage. 

The site will host recreational, educational, hospitality, not-for-profit, and office 

uses that preserve the cultural and natural resources of Fort Hancock. Activities 

that do not complement the park's mandate, such as manufacturing or industrial 

uses, will not be permitted. 

 

Schematically, visitor services, including interpretation, education, and 

recreation, are projected to increase significantly in the future. A new park-wide 

visitor center is scheduled to open in Barracks Building 25 in 2011. This, along 

with visitation to the Keepers Quarters Museum, Sandy Hook Lighthouse, and 

educational activities offered in Barracks Row and the MAST Campus will bring 

numerous day-use visitors to the core area of Fort Hancock. National Park 

Service activities including staff housing and maintenance will remain centered in 

the non-commissioned officers’ neighborhood and in areas north and east of the 

Athletic Field, respectively. 
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

19

BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES 

Approximately one hundred buildings are found within the study area, most of 

which were built before 1910. The buildings are made from a distinctive yellow 

brick that visually unifies the district. This homogeneity is enhanced by a 

uniform blue-green color selection for all painted trim throughout the study area, 

identified as Federal Standard Color #34058 in the 2001 “Sandy Hook Historic 

Structures Paint Plan” (Figure 2.10). Though built over several decades and for a 

variety of purposes, many structures contain elements representative of the 

Classical Revival era. The large, single-family buildings of Officers Row, with 

slight variations, are replicas of one another. These are among the most 

distinctive buildings on site, partly because of their architectural merits and partly 

as a cohesive architectural ensemble that survives as originally designed. Several 

large barracks buildings stand at the east side of the Parade Ground. These 

buildings contrast in scale with smaller houses for non-commissioned officers, 

now used for park housing, just outside the Athletic Field area. Many of the 

structures share similar architectural elements such as front porches, building 

materials, and finishes that provide consistency despite significant variations in 

scale and design. 

Many structures were built during times of intense military activity, notably 

during World War I and II, only to be removed after the end of conflict. Few of 

these war-time wood frame structures remain at Fort Hancock, but those that do 

are visually distinct from their older masonry counterparts. Most are two-story, 

white painted, wood clapboard buildings with rectangular footprints. Distinct 

examples of the remaining World War II buildings are the concrete block 

structures that make up the MAST Campus. 

 

Buildings that once serviced the busy military community are located throughout 

Fort Hancock. Some date to the turn of the century, like the stable and mess 

halls, while others are more modern, including the small gas station, theatre, and 

chapel. Overwhelmingly, they are constructed of the distinctive yellow brick that 

characterizes the historic district. 

The oldest functioning lighthouse in the United States is located at Fort Hancock, 

northeast of the Parade Ground (Figure 2.11). Maintained by the National Park 

Service, the lighthouse is a tall, tapered octagonal stone building with a white 

painted exterior. Several fortifications, both earthen and masonry, exist in the 

Fort Hancock and Sandy Hook Proving Ground district, yet are located outside 

of the study area of this report. 

 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

20 

BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES -- TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 

Character defining features of all Fort Hancock buildings must be preserved. All 

rehabilitation work must comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for 

the Treatment of Historic Properties and be in compliance with current 

accessibility and building codes. Specific rehabilitation guidance for Fort 

Hancock's ensemble of buildings and structures falls outside of the scope of this 

landscape treatment plan. Please refer to the Fort Hancock EA and the 1999 

Rehabilitation Guidelines for further information. 

CIRCULATION AND VEHICULAR PARKING 

Fort Hancock features a complex network of roads and sidewalks (Figure 2.5). 

Hartshorne Drive and Magruder Road encircle the core area of Fort Hancock, 

serving as the primary vehicular roads for the historic district and the active U.S. 

Coast Guard Station. As it runs through Fort Hancock, Hartshorne Drive is a 

nineteen and a half foot wide road with bluestone curbing that parallels Sandy 

Hook Bay. Magruder Road is a slightly wider road with concrete curbing that 

splits from Hartshorne Drive at Guardian Park and travels around the east side of 

Barracks Row. Hudson Road divides the area's main open spaces, the Parade 

Ground and Athletic Field, connecting resources east of Fort Hancock, including 

the Mortar Battery, Gunnison Beach, and North Beach, to Hartshorne Drive. 

A series of secondary roads are laid out with little overarching design other than 

to connect the buildings of the core area. Kessler Road runs east of Officers Row, 

abutting the Parade Ground and Athletic Field. Other secondary roads such as 

Kearney, Mercer, and McNair roads connect park housing and former service 

buildings north of the Parade Ground. Gunnison Road serves the MAST 

campus, intersecting perpendicularly with Magruder Road east of the Parade 

Ground. Though the roads of Fort Hancock were once an asphalt base with a 

chipped stone top coat, all are now bituminous concrete. 

There are currently 708 spaces at Fort Hancock, including 132 identified for 

National Park Service use, 130 identified for partner use and 568 designated for 

the public.1

 Vehicular parking occurs in numerous small to medium sized lots 

spread throughout the study area. Many buildings have several parking spaces 

located along side them, for example Officers Row buildings have two spaces 

each, the NOAA labs have their own lots, and the Bachelor Officers Quarters and 

Post Headquarters share a lot just north of the buildings. Parking for the 

barracks and MAST campus occurs in a lot on the east side of Magruder Road. 
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

21

Pedestrian circulation is currently well defined surrounding the Parade Ground 

and Barracks Row. The buildings are connected by a brick, semi-circular 

sidewalk that mirrors the arc of the Parade Ground. Another key pedestrian 

route is the concrete sidewalk that runs along the east side of Hartshorne Drive. 

Walkways connecting the Officers Row buildings to Hartshorne Drive are made 

of a variety of materials including concrete, brick, and bluestone (Figure 2.6 and 

2.7). A concrete sidewalk bisects the Parade Ground, connecting the Barracks 

buildings with Hartshorne Drive. Segments of Hudson and Kearney Roads have 

concrete sidewalks along one side of the street. Kessler, Magruder, Gunnison, 

Mercer, and McNair Roads do not host a large volume of pedestrian traffic and 

lack sidewalks. 

Shuttle bus service runs between the ferry landing near the Post Chapel and the 

eastern ocean-front beaches during the summer weekends. Busses also transport 

school children to educational sessions with various partner organizations, 

dropping them off in the South Parade parking lot. Between fifteen and twenty 

busses transport MAST students to school on weekdays during the school year. 

In 2004, the National Park Service completed a major phase of a Multi-Use Path 

for bicycles, walkers, joggers, and roller-bladers that runs the length of the 

peninsula, connecting various beaches and points of interest. This paved, twelvefoot wide path enters the Fort Hancock area near Guardian Park and travels 

between the bay shore and Hartshorne Drive (Figure 2.8). Currently, it 

terminates near the chapel and ferry landing, awaiting funding to complete the 

project that will extend the trail to Gunnison and North Beaches. 

CIRCULATION AND VEHICULAR PARKING -- FEATURE LEVEL 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The 2003 Fort Hancock EA, prepared in anticipation of the proposed historic 

leasing program, defines parameters for modifications to vehicular circulation 

and parking. Locations and numbers of parking spaces in this report are based 

on conceptual figures generated in the Fort Hancock EA and the subsequent 

2003 Fort Hancock FONSI. However, the following recommendations 

concerning individual parking lots are schematic and subordinate to the 

overarching goal of keeping parking at Fort Hancock at or below 1378 spaces. 

As directed in the Fort Hancock EA, the total number of spaces at Sandy Hook is 

capped at 5,036. While the number of spaces at Fort Hancock will increase with 

the adaptive use program, from 708 to 1378, the increased number will be 

reallocated from other areas at Sandy Hook, notably the eventual removal of 650 

spaces from K Lot located northeast of Fort Hancock, to retain the figure of 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

22 

5,036 park-wide parking spaces (Figure 2.9). Recreational park users and beachgoers will be invited to use parking on the east side of Fort Hancock on weekends 

to compensate for the decreased beach parking created by K Lot’s removal. 

Only one exception to the 2003 Fort Hancock EA is made in the following 

recommendations, that of retaining parking spaces at the Chapel Lot. However, 

the proposed retention of Chapel parking spaces is offset by reducing proposed 

parking elsewhere in Fort Hancock so that the total number of parking spaces 

does not exceed the 1,378 spaces specified in the Fort Hancock EA. 

As stated in the Fort Hancock EA, all new or expanded parking areas will be 

located on previously disturbed sites. Fort Hancock's current eighteen lots will 

be increased to twenty-four and be well dispersed throughout the historic district 

in order to provide convenient parking to the leased buildings. The following 

specific directives appear in the Fort Hancock EA and are followed by more 

detailed recommendations. 

Fort Hancock EA Directive: 

All new and redesigned lots would be constructed to prevent pollution from 

petroleum product runoff through the use of best practice drainage structures or 

porous pavement.2

Recommendation: Specialized storm water catch basins that trap oils and salt 

from surface runoff will be employed and drainage will be properly treated 

before being discharged. Portions of parking lots may be left without bituminous 

pavement, making use of stabilized turf techniques to reduce the amount of 

storm water runoff. Solutions could include installing reinforced soil with a high 

percentage of crushed aggregate or an engineered product such as Grasspave®, a 

plastic mat inserted in the soil to provide stability while allowing runoff to 

percolate and a grass surface to be maintained. 

Fort Hancock EA Directive: 

All buildings would have adjacent universally accessible parking spaces.3

Recommendation: As Fort Hancock parking is to be provided in several lots 

dispersed throughout the area, there are many opportunities to provide 

accessible parking spaces. Where a parking lot is not within a reasonable distance 

to the building, specially designated accessible parking spaces will be provided. 

This may take the form of small capacity lots adjacent to buildings. Along 

Officers Row, two parking spaces will be provided at the rear of each structure, 

accessed via Kessler Road. 
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

23

Fort Hancock EA Directive: 

On-street parking will not be permitted, nor will any streets be widened to 

accommodate any increase in vehicle circulation.4

Recommendation: The width of roads at Fort Hancock is a defining element of 

this primary circulation route. The scale and configuration of the roads adds to 

the historic campus setting of the post. Currently, the roads in the heart of Fort 

Hancock range between eighteen and twenty-five feet in width, which is 

representative of historic conditions. Many roads are lined with mature street 

trees that contribute to the feeling of enclosure, provide shade, and have a 

psychological effect in reducing vehicular speeds. Roads on the perimeter of the 

area have less definition, are mostly found without street trees and curbs, and 

tend to be slightly wider. 

In the rehabilitation of Fort Hancock, no streets should be widened beyond their 

current width, most notably Hartshorne Drive. The segment of Hartshorne 

Drive that parallels Officers Row serves as the Main Street for this historic 

military community. Widening this important roadway to accommodate 

projected increases in traffic volume is not recommended. The narrow width of 

the road, lined with bluestone curbing, may serve the same purpose in reducing 

vehicular speeds as traffic calming strategies and devices. A wider cross-section 

would encourage greater vehicular speeds and would compromise the integrity 

of the road's historic materials and character. 

Traffic calming measures such as raised pedestrian crosswalks at key 

intersections and narrowing roadway entrances at minor service roads may be 

utilized to reduce vehicular speeds and promote a safe and pleasant pedestrian 

environment. 

Fort Hancock EA Directive: 

The intersection of Kearney Road and South Bragg Drive would be reconfigured for 

safety. The island would be removed and South Bragg Drive at Building 36 would be 

shifted to the south.5

 

Recommendation: Currently, the intersection of South Bragg Drive and 

Kearney Road is confusing and potentially dangerous. Several components of 

the intersection are problematic, namely the greater than ninety degree angle on 

the southeast corner which encourages high speeds and the extraneous road 

segment in front of the Mule Barn. As Hartshorne Drive can be accessed from 

South Bragg Drive and Kearney Road via the road segment on the south side of 

the Rodman Gun, the short Kearney Road extension is an unnecessary and 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

24 

complicating element. It is recommended that the Kearney Road extension in 

front of the Mule Barn be closed to through traffic, yet retain its historic asphalt 

pavement. It is also recommended that the South Bragg Drive and Kearney Road 

intersection be realigned into a ninety degree angle. See the Recommended 

Landscape Rehabilitation Projects section of this report for a proposed site plan 

and more discussion of this issue. 

Fort Hancock EA Directive: 

Buses would use the Fort Hancock Lot, the South Parade Ground Lot and the Chapel 

Lot for drop-off and would then move to the south end of Knox Road, North Beach, 

or Gunnison Beach lots for parking and staging.6

Recommendation: As use of Fort Hancock increases, bus service will increase as 

well. Currently, buses shuttle visitors between the existing ferry landing and park 

beaches as well as transport students to and from Fort Hancock for educational 

sessions. In the future, projected uses may bring more school groups, 

conferences, and recreational users via bus. It is recommended that buses drop 

off passengers at the parking lots listed above where modifications will be made 

to address visitor safety and bus maneuverability. After drop-off, buses will be 

required to proceed to the larger outlying lots to park where more space is 

available. 

Though the Fort Hancock EA lists Knox Road as potential location for bus 

parking, the park has made plans to convert the southern portion of the road into 

the Multi-Use Path, removing it from consideration as bus parking. The beach 

parking lots or proposed outlying Fort Hancock lots may be used for bus parking 

instead. 

Fort Hancock EA Directive: 

Crosswalks between buildings and parking lots would be improved for safety.7

Recommendation: As historic buildings are reoccupied at Fort Hancock, 

pedestrian activity will increase. The proposed campus-like setting will generate 

much more foot traffic as tenants and visitors walk between buildings, open 

spaces, parking lots, and the water's edge. Personal safety is paramount and 

crosswalks will be created and/or improved to clearly delineate where 

pedestrians will venture into vehicular paths. Raised crosswalks may be used at 

high traffic intersections to slow vehicular speeds and create safe pedestrian 

crossings. The Multi-Use Path, used by walkers, joggers, bikers, and rollerbladers among others, will be extended from its current terminus near the 
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

25

Chapel. Where the Multi-Use Path crosses roads, likely Hartshorne Drive and 

Kearney Road, a sufficiently wide crosswalk will be clearly marked. 

Fort Hancock EA Directive: 

Existing historic walkways would be maintained. Additional walkways to 

accommodate new circulation patterns created by the adaptive use activities will be 

added where needed for safety. These will be primarily to connect new parking 

areas with existing walkways.8

Recommendation: Modifications to walkway surfaces to promote an aesthetic 

bias, such as replacing an existing historic concrete walkway with a more 

appealing or fashionable brick surface will not be permitted. The introduction of 

new walkways will be judicious and only where needed to supplement the 

existing pedestrian circulation system. New walkways should mirror the pattern, 

scale, and material of surrounding walkways. In most cases, new segments of 

pedestrian walkway will be of concrete and the same concrete-aggregate mix 

should be used site-wide. Historic walkways should not be removed unless they 

are in disrepair, and when that is the case, are to be replaced in-kind. This will 

perpetuate a diversity of sidewalk paving material within the area, which is 

representative of the lengthy period of significance. 

VEGETATION 

The surviving plant palette at Fort Hancock is similar to what was found 

historically, that of a simple and straightforward planting scheme tailored for 

both seaside growing conditions and to evoke military order. Fort Hancock 

currently includes a variety of plant materials and types, ranging from areas of 

native grass and low-growing shrubs that receive little care or management, to 

clipped lawn, domestic plantings, and street trees. Reduced maintenance 

following deactivation of the army base, coupled with natural cycles of growth 

and decay has left much of Fort Hancock's plantings in fair to poor condition. 

Within the core of Fort Hancock, the most significant plantings are the trees 

lining the streets and central open spaces (Figure 2.12). Many impressive 

London planetrees (Platanus x acerifolia) line Kearney, Magruder, and Kessler 

Roads, as well as the pedestrian path west of the barracks buildings. Many of 

these mature shade trees date to the original construction of Fort Hancock (1898 

to 1905) and due to the use of a single species, have helped unify the area into a 

visually cohesive landscape. Some of the London planetrees have died and not 

been replaced, breaking the continuous canopy. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

26 

Along the bay side of Officers Row, white poplar trees (Populus alba) once lined 

both sides of Hartshorne Drive. Heavy winds and salt spray from the bay create 

an adverse environment for all but the hardiest of species and only a few poplars 

remain. 

Few trees grow beyond the immediate margins of roadways, a notable exception 

being the remnants of a circle of mature Austrian pines (Pinus nigra) ringing the 

Parade Ground flagstaff. A few self-sown or "volunteer" trees grow next the 

buildings on Officers Row but no other trees dot the landscape - a historic 

pattern that has persisted since the initial development of Fort Hancock (Figure 

2.13). The only place where trees have historically been permitted to grow as 

specimens within an open lawn is the grounds of the Officers Club at the 

northeast end of the study area. 

While domestic foundation plantings were once a common element around 

single family residential buildings, which were planted and cared for 

independently by the residents of the structures, little remains today other than a 

few tenacious iris, daylilies, and garden phlox. The exceptions are small gardens 

surrounding the foundation of the house rented by the Audubon Society and 

around the former dwellings of non-commissioned officers now occupied by 

park personnel. Cut grass abuts the foundations of all other buildings. 

Large amounts of turf are maintained at Fort Hancock. The Parade Ground and 

Athletic Fields represent the largest expanses of cut grass, but smaller turf areas 

surrounding individual buildings, and smaller open spaces together comprise 

several acres. The quality of the turf at Fort Hancock, like so many of the park's 

landscape features, has suffered from limited maintenance. National Park 

Service maintenance staff mows regularly, but the turf is of poor quality and in 

need of reseeding, weed control and fertilization. 

The National Park Service, in cooperation with the New Jersey Audubon Society, 

promotes the use of native vegetation. This report relies on a definition of native 

plants already established by natural resource specialists in the 1997 "Flora of 

Gateway National Recreation Area." Plants are considered native if they are 

"natively occurring in the Gateway area (e.g. a native coastal plain species of Long 

Island, Staten Island or Sandy Hook)."9

 The emphasis on native plants has 

improved wildlife habitat and increased the amount of vegetation allowed to 

grow unmanaged, mostly on the periphery of Fort Hancock. Plants found in 

these rapidly naturalizing areas include a mix of native and non-native species 

including beach plum (Prunus maritime), saltspray rose (Rosa rugosa), staghorn 
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

27

sumac (Rhus typhina), poison ivy (Rhus radicans), Russian olive (Elaeagnus 

angustifolia), northern bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica), eastern red cedar 

(Juniperus virginiana), and common juniper, (Juniperus communis) among others. 

VEGETATION -- FEATURE LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS 

The following vegetation recommendations are grouped into four general 

categories: Street Trees, Foundation Plantings, Specimen Plantings, and Turf 

Rehabilitation. Guiding principles for the design and layout of each category are 

presented in this segment along with lists of acceptable plants to be used in each 

application. 

STREET TREES 

Though a military base is typically characterized by a strong sense of order and 

even perhaps uniformity, this was imperfectly manifest in the planting of white 

poplars along Hartshorne Drive. If there ever was a sense of continuity in the 

street tree plantings along Hartshorne Drive, it was short-lived. Careful 

examination of historical aerial photographs shows that the street trees along 

Hartshorne Drive were in a constant state of change due to the harsh climate 

conditions. It appears that there was never a time when a stable and continuous 

canopy of trees lined both sides of the road. In the early 1900s, white poplars 

were evenly spaced along Hartshorne Drive, and London planetrees lined the 

backside of Officers Row. Yet as early as the 1920s, photographs document 

incomplete street tree coverage on Hartshorne Drive. Yet, the London 

planetrees at the eastern perimeter of Fort Hancock, lining the east side of the 

Parade Ground, Kearney, and Hudson Roads fared better given their more 

sheltered locations. Tree replacement efforts occurred throughout the period of 

significance with variable results. The most consistent presence of trees on 

Hartshorne Drive appears to have existed toward the center of Officers Row, 

centered at the residence of the Commanding Officer, where the most 

maintenance was likely directed. 

Hartshorne Drive Street Tree Recommendation 

Fort Hancock EA Directive: 

White poplar (Populus alba) would NOT be replaced in-kind. It would be replaced 

by a combination of: sugar hackberry (Celtis laevigata, var. "All Seasons"), common 

hackberry (Celtis laevigata x occidentalis, var. "Magnifica"), London planetree 

(Platanus x acerifolia, var. "Columbia," or "Liberty"), American elm (Ulmus 

americana, var. "Valley Forge," or "Homestead," and sycamore maple (Acer 

pseudoplatanus).10 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

28 

Recommendation: The Secretary’s of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment 

of Historic Properties recommends replacing historic features in-kind when they 

become damaged or deteriorated. Yet, the standards also recognize that 

conditions may exist that preclude replacement-in-kind, as is the case along 

Hartshorne Drive. As directed by the Fort Hancock EA, a substitute species is 

recommended because of white poplar’s invasive tendencies, short life span, and 

typically weak wood. Given the harsh growing conditions along Hartshorne 

Drive and the potential for devastating loss of the planting if a pest infestation 

occurs, replanting a single species is not recommended. 

Hartshorne Drive should be planted with a mix of street trees comprised of 

extremely hardy deciduous species. A mixed planting will help guard against the 

sudden death of all the trees should a pest or disease target a single species. In 

addition, planting a mixture of species can be viewed as a long-term field trial to 

select the best trees for the site. As the weaker specimens inevitably die, the 

success of the hardiest trees will be obvious. The proposed mix of trees will have 

an aesthetic effect unlike the intended uniformity of the original planting of 

white poplars, yet will be similar to the uneven row of trees that matured 

throughout the period of significance (Figure 2.14). A mixture of the following 

three species is recommended to reestablish the Hartshorne Drive street trees.11 

Sycamore Maples (Acer pseudoplatanus) have 3-6", 5 lobed, dark green, 

leathery leaves and grayish bark with reddish brown and orange tones that 

commonly flakes to expose the inner orange brown bark. The species is 

hardy from planting zone 4 through 7. In favorable conditions these trees 

may grow to a height of 40-60.' Sycamore maples are not commonly used 

landscape trees and do not exemplify superior form, seasonal color, or 

specimen tree qualities, but they are recommended for their hardiness in the 

face of extreme conditions. These exotics withstand sustained salt-laden 

winds in exposed coastal areas and are a good choice for street tree 

replacement along Hartshorne Drive. 

Common Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) is a native tree, growing between 

40'-60' tall, and known for its tolerance of many types of adverse conditions. 

Hackberries are not distinctive looking trees but their hardiness makes up for 

their unremarkable appearance. Their leaves are 2-5" long, ovate in shape 

and a dull green color. Hackberry bark is a brownish grey with small knoblike projections. They will grow in wet or dry areas; withstand full sun, wind, 

and sandy soils. Hackberries grow prolifically throughout Fort Hancock 

with proven success. 

 
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

29

London Planetrees (Platanus x acerifolia) have proved to be successful at 

Fort Hancock, witnessed by the numerous mature specimens located 

throughout the area. They are large trees, reaching seventy to one hundred 

feet tall with a sixty-five to eighty foot spread. London planetrees are most 

known for their handsome mottled bark, whose layers show light green, tan, 

and cream colors. The leaves are a dark olive green and are non known for 

colorful fall foliage. They are a versatile tree that is known to tolerate a 

number of environmental stressors. London planetrees are not native. 

New trees should be located parallel to the corners of the buildings, not 

immediately in front of, or directly between structures, to avoid blocking views 

from the Parade Ground and from the front porches of Officers Row (Figures 

2.15 and 2.16). Trees should be centered in the planting strip between the road 

and sidewalk on the east side of Hartshorne Drive and three feet from the curb 

on the west side. 

Site-Wide Street and Tree Recommendations 

Fort Hancock EA Directive: 

Missing historic trees would be replaced in-kind (with some exceptions), and in their 

historic location.12 

Recommendation: Outside of the challenging conditions of Hartshorne Drive, 

historic monocultural plantings of London planetrees survive as an important 

character-defining feature of the landscape and should be replaced in-kind. The 

London plane tree's distinctive mottled, green, grey, tan, and white bark, high 

canopy, broad spreading habit, and broad, medium green leaves is a striking 

street or specimen tree that is well adapted to urban conditions and has proved 

its hardiness at Fort Hancock. Cultivars 'Liberty' and 'Metzam' (MetroshadeTM) 

show resistance to anthracnose, a common disease that causes twig dieback and 

defoliation in both sycamores and London planetrees. 'Metzam' may be 

preferred because of its typical 70' height, where 'Liberty' reaches 50'. 

Implementation Recommendations for Street Tree Plantings:

Typically, young trees have a higher rate of success than older trees when 

transplanted. However, a larger tree makes a more immediate impact on the 

landscape and has the perception of greater value. Therefore, it is recommended 

that mid-sized trees, being approximately one and a half inches in caliper, ten to 

twelve feet in height, and with a minimum root ball of twenty inches in diameter, 

be planted at Fort Hancock.13 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

30 

Trees should be planted in a wide and shallow hole, so the root flare of the 

planted tree is slightly above grade. Cover the excavated area with a two to three 

inch layer of mulch to prevent damage from mowing equipment and to retain soil 

moisture. Stake the new trees with two one-inch wooden stakes and secure them 

with twine and wide straps of burlap where they come in contact with the trunk 

(Figures 2.17 and 2.18). Trees should receive one inch of water per week for the 

first year to ensure optimum growth. Street trees should be planted three feet 

back from the curb or road edge, or otherwise in the center of a roadside planting 

strip. 

 

See the street tree planting plan in the following chapter of this report for specific 

species and placement information (Figure 3.29). 

Tree Gifting Program 

In cooperation with a friends group, the park may consider beginning a program 

to purchase and endow the long term care of individual trees at Fort Hancock. 

Adopt-A-Tree programs have been successful in numerous city park systems, 

cemeteries, and private properties. The advantage of such a program is having 

independent funding devoted exclusively to the purchase and care of trees. 

A partnership between the National Park Service and a friends group is the most 

effective way to administer a successful tree endowment program. As the 

National Park Service is free to accept monetary donations earmarked for 

specific functions, the agency is not legally permitted to hold interest-bearing 

accounts for such programs, hence removing the possibility of generating future 

income for the tree program. A not-for-profit or independent organization allied 

with the National Park Service has no such restrictions and may invest donation 

money to generate interest and create an endowment. 

FOUNDATION PLANTINGS 

Historically, the hierarchy of the Fort Hancock environment was reflected in the 

planting plans around buildings of different land use. Officers Quarters and 

single family residences often featured small gardens around the perimeter of the 

buildings while barracks buildings, mess halls and other public buildings were 

adorned with simple foundation hedges. Service buildings had no foundation 

plantings. The ornamental borders at the foundations of single family residences 

contained a variety of plant material, both herbaceous and woody, depending on 

the preferences and gardening skill of the occupant. Plant material was kept 

close to the buildings and below the height of the front porch railings. Typical of 

a military landscape, photographic documentation shows the individual gardens 

as well maintained. 
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

31

For the purpose of this report, recommendations for foundation plantings at Fort 

Hancock fall under three categories that correspond to historic use: residential, 

public, and service. Residential buildings include all single-family residential 

structures including Officers Row and non-commissioned officer’s housing. 

Public buildings include those historically used for public purposes at the base, 

like the YMCA, theater, headquarters building, and post office. Also included in 

this category are the barracks buildings because of their historically similar 

landscape treatment as the public buildings. Service buildings are those that were 

historically used to maintain the operations of the military base like the stables, 

mule barn, mess halls, fire house, gas station, and bakery. Each building at Fort 

Hancock has been assigned one of the three categories that dictate the structure’s 

landscape treatment. See Appendix A for a list of Fort Hancock buildings and 

their corresponding foundation planting category. 

Foundation Planting Recommendations: 

Site-Wide 

Any existing invasive species identified by the federal government or the State of 

New Jersey as having the potential to cross-pollinate or spread naturally beyond 

the Fort boundary should be removed. However, this recommendation does not 

apply to non-invasive non-native species that already exist on site, such as 

historic privets or daylilies that pose no threat of spreading beyond their present 

locations. 

Residential Buildings 

New occupants of historically residential buildings are encouraged to plant beds 

around their perimeters. The width of all planting beds will be limited to a 

maximum of four feet from the foundation. All plant material should be kept 

below the railing of the front porches, with the exception of taller shrubs at the 

corners of the building. The plant palette surrounding the buildings may be 

exclusively shrubs -- individual specimens or a hedge; a mixture of shrubs and 

herbaceous material -- perennials, annuals, and vines, or be exclusively 

herbaceous material. 

Tenants of Officers Row buildings will be required to install and maintain 

planting beds on their west sides, facing Hartshorne drive. Planting beds along 

other facades are optional (Figure 2.19). Plantings on the primary (west) facades 

of Officers Row should be composed primarily of woody shrubs to provide yearround visual interest, but may be edged with a variety of perennials or annuals. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

32 

A plant list has been generated to guide residential building tenants in their plant 

selection. None of the recommended plants are known to be invasive or noxious 

according to state and federal standards. Not all of the plants suggested were 

known to have existed historically at Fort Hancock but all are common 

landscape plants that were used regionally during the historic period and exhibit 

adaptability to seaside conditions. See Appendix B for lists of recommended 

shrubs, perennials, vines, and annuals to be planted at historically residential 

buildings. 

Public Buildings 

Public buildings should maintain a simple plan of foundation shrubs without 

creating the look of domesticity. A single species hedge is recommended for each 

structure, though the plant types may vary between buildings. Foundation 

shrubs should not be sheared into individual shapes, but allowed to mature into a 

continuous mass and pruned in order to keep growth within bounds. Plant 

heights should be kept below the bottom of the first floor windows. Where there 

are elevated porches, such as is the case with the Enlisted Men's Barracks, 

plantings should be kept below the exterior porch railings. 

In the barracks/mess hall complex, drawn to include the eight buildings located 

along the crescent shaped east side of the Parade Ground, foundation plantings 

are required along the buildings' west facades. Other public buildings should 

contain plantings along the sides that serve as their main entrances. See 

Appendix B for a list of foundation plantings for public buildings 

Service Buildings 

Service buildings will be devoid of foundation plantings and surrounded by lawn 

or groundcover, as they were historically. Any groundcover from the list 

generated for single family residences may be used around service buildings if it 

will thrive in the chosen building's microclimate. 

 

An exception to the recommendation above is the treatment of plantings at the 

MAST campus. The school will retain the current plantings yet will transition to 

the park's recommended plant list as plants require replacement. Current plants 

are permitted to remain, as most are appropriate to the Fort Hancock setting. 

SPECIMEN PLANTINGS 

Hedge on West Side of Hartshorne Drive 

The historic hedge on the west side of Hartshorne Drive should be reestablished. 

A sheered privet hedge once lined the west side of Hartshorne Drive, planted 

between the White poplar street trees. As the street trees blew over during heavy 
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

33

storms, many of the shrubs uprooted, leaving an incomplete line of vegetation 

along Hartshorne Drive. If the roadside hedge is to be restored, a hardier species 

than privet may be a more practical choice, as the hedge will be subject to high 

winds, salt spray from the bay, and salt thrown from winter snow plowing. 

Furthermore, rather than planting the shrubs in line with the street trees as was 

historically done, it is recommended that the two-foot high hedge be offset 8-10' 

west of the trees. This modified planting layout will provide a buffer between 

Hartshorne Drive and the Multi-Use Path that traverses the area between the 

seawall and the street. The hedge will buffer the recreational use and will provide 

a physical impediment to keep people from straying from the Multi-Use Path. 

The proposed hedge would extend the length of Hartshorne Drive across from 

the buildings of Officers Row, or from Building 18 to the Post Theatre. 

 

The following shrubs are recommended species to use in reestablishing the 

Hartshorne Drive hedgerow: 

Bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica), is a native seashore plant growing 

abundantly at Sandy Hook and is an established part of the park's vegetative 

palette. The mounding shrub with fragrant long narrow leaves exhibits high 

salt tolerance and is an excellent massing plant. If left to mature naturally, 

bayberry can become large but periodic hand pruning and salt laden winds 

would easily keep it below three feet in height. Its loose, natural habit does 

not closely mimic a privet but its hardiness makes it an obvious plant to 

consider for the hedge replacement. 

Highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) flourish near the ocean, 

being tolerant of sandy soils and salty conditions. Its 1-2 1/2" elliptical leaves 

and spreading branch habit creates a loose, moderately dense shrub that will 

easily grow to 5' high with a 5' spread. The leaves are dark green and similar 

in size and texture to a privet. Sheering is not recommended but light 

pruning to control overall height and width is possible. A highbush 

blueberry hedge would appear less formal and more naturalistic than a 

clipped hedge. 

Inkberry (Ilex glabra) is an excellent hedging or massing shrub with 3/4-2" 

long slender leaves that has a moderately dense, somewhat feathery growth 

habit. This native shrub will grow to 6-8' tall and slightly greater than that in 

spread if left to grow naturally but will take pruning. Sheering is not 

recommended. Mature specimens can become leggy. Inkberries show 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

34 

tolerance to seaside conditions but may show signs of stress against the heavy 

salt-spray and sustained winter winds. 

Common juniper (Juniperus communis var. 'depressa') is another hardy 

shrub that would be well adapted to the harsh winds and salt along Sandy 

Hook Bay. The evergreen shrubs grow almost everywhere and take to 

hedging well. The 'Depressa' variety is a low growing form that rarely 

exceeds three feet in height, and is the most common variety of this species 

occurring naturally in eastern North America.14 

 

Austrian Pines at Post Flagstaff 

A semi-circle of overgrown Austrian pine trees (Pinus nigra) is located along the 

west side of the Post Flagstaff, at the northeast quadrant of the Parade Ground. 

These trees are the few survivors of a planting that once encircled the flagstaff. 

The extant aged trees with tall trunks and uncharacteristically high canopies no 

longer define the circular space. Though the Fort Hancock EA recommends 

replanting the missing trees in the circle and eventually replacing the existing 

trees in-kind when they die, this two-phased effort is not recommended. Instead, 

it is recommended that the existing trees be removed -- which are without 

individual significance as single specimens -- and the historic Austrian pine circle 

be replaced as a single effort. Thus, the feature will be restored in its entirety. 

Eight, five to six foot tall trees would restore this feature. 

Officers Club Lawn Area 

The Fort Hancock Officers Club sits apart from the key areas of activity at the 

northern extent of the study area. It was built on a slight rise, set back from the 

ocean and near what now functions as the park maintenance facility. The area 

was historically planted liberally with street trees, shade trees, and ornamental 

shrubs that helped screen the building from surrounding post development and 

reinforce a sense of separation. Open lawn was maintained between the 

informal, randomly spaced woody plant material. Unlike the majority of Fort 

Hancock, a diverse palette of trees was used around the Officers Club including 

the ubiquitous London planetree, as well as several varieties of maples, catalpas, 

and hackberries. Common landscape shrubs were planted in the lawn, though 

not surrounding the building's foundation, including hollies, lilacs, yews, and 

junipers. The plant material is now overgrown (Figure 2.20). 

For the purposes of the rehabilitation of the landscape, the Officers Club area is 

bounded by Knox Road, Canfield Road, and South Bragg Drive, and includes the 

lawn areas surrounding the building as well as the small triangular piece of land 

northwest of the building that is created from the intersection of Kilpatrick, 
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

35

Canfield, and Knox Roads. The informality of the Officers Club landscape 

should be perpetuated through the maintenance of open lawn and preservation 

of historic specimen trees and shrubs. Historic pathways and circulation patterns 

should be preserved as part of rehabilitation plans for this central open space. Of 

high importance is the retention and replacement of the area's street trees found 

at the perimeter of the Officers Club parcel. London planetrees should be 

utilized around the site's perimeter to blend with the character of the adjacent 

Fort Hancock landscape. See Figure 2.21 for a proposed schematic planting plan 

for the Officers Club. 

Because there will be an interval of time between the completion of this report 

and the implementation of its recommendations, it is recommended that an 

updated inventory of the existing vegetation be completed, similar to the one 

appearing in the “Landscape Preservation Maintenance Guide for Fort 

Hancock” of 1994, and a detailed planting plan be prepared for the Officers Club 

lawn area just prior to implementation. 

TURF REHABILITATION 

Clipped lawn is an essential component of the Fort Hancock cultural landscape. 

Large areas of open space, notably the Parade Ground and Athletic Field were 

maintained historically for military pageantry, drilling, and recreation. Currently, 

the turf around the Fort area is in poor condition. The presence of many Canada 

geese and limited routine maintenance, outside of regular mowing, has led to a 

deterioration of the turf. Reestablishing healthy and low maintenance lawns is 

recommended to improve the overall condition of the cultural landscape. 

 

The Fort Hancock EA outlines a commitment to sustainable landscape 

maintenance practice, evidenced by the following directives: 

Fort Hancock EA Directive: 

Turf management and ornamental plantings would include drought resistant species 

where appropriate to the cultural landscape, in order to reduce reliance on 

irrigation, pest control, and fertilizer.15

Recommendation: The tough seaside conditions prove challenging to many 

common grasses but several turf-type tall fescue blends have been engineered to 

adapt to the very conditions at Fort Hancock. Several, such as Enviro-Blend®, 

"Triad," and the Rebels® blends are known for their ability to withstand heavy 

use and to grow in poor, dry soils with little maintenance. All are available 

through the Pennington Seed Company (See www.penningtonseed.com). 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

36 

Fort Hancock EA Directive: 

Turf and foundation plantings may be irrigated using tertiary treated wastewater 

from the park’s treatment plant.16

Recommendation: It is recommended to allow the turf grass at Fort Hancock to 

go into summer dormancy before a recycled wastewater irrigation system can be 

implemented, with the exception of after overseeding when new seeds will 

require regular watering for germination. This may yield yellowish dry grass in 

the heat of summer but if this is allowed to occur throughout the site, it will be 

visually consistent and not out of context with historic conditions. Tall fescue 

grasses are not harmed by summer dormancy and are known for showing 

drought resistance. 

Additional Turf Grass Rehabilitation Recommendations 

The following turf grass rehabilitation recommendations provide additional 

guidance for establishing healthy and sustainable lawns at Fort Hancock. The 

fort’s existing turf should not be removed to reestablish new turf from bare soil. 

The following recommendations are for a multi-year turf rehabilitation program

which will yield results without disrupting activities occurring on the lawns at 

Fort Hancock. For more specific turf management recommendations, see 

Appendix C. 

 Identify and apply necessary soil amendments to increase porosity, air 

exchange capability, drainage, and to enhance resistance to 

compaction. In severely compacted situations, the addition of porous 

materials, such as AXIS, a diatomaceous earth product, can help 

remediate compaction. 

 

 Maintain proper soil pH and fertility; optimum turfgrass growth occurs 

at a pH of 6.4 - 6.8. Test soil annually and apply lime when necessary. 

 

 Test soil to determine nutritional health. In the northeast, fertilizer 

provides the best results when applied in late August, September and 

October. One pound of Nitrogen per 1000 sq. ft. should be supplied 

with each application. Implement a natural organic fertilizer program 

to enhance the level and activity of beneficial microorganisms and 

increase water and nutrient holding capacity of the soil, increased air 

and water pore space, and improved resistance to compaction. 


CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

37

 Manage Soil Compaction with a mechanical core aerator. A core 

aerator removes narrow cores of soil and thatch from the lawn 

producing a series of small 2-4" deep holes that allow water, air, and 

fertilizer to reach turf roots. Aerate soil during the most active growth 

periods of grass, i.e. early spring and/or fall. 

 Renovate Lawn Areas when they become worn due to heavy use or 

weather extremes. Repair bare spots by overseeding using a slicer 

seeder in the early fall only. Set the seed delivery rate moderately low, 

applying 1-3 lbs of seed per thousand square feet. Larger areas may be 

renovated using a broadcast seeder. Scarify the surface with a slicer 

seeder or garden rake to prepare the seed bed and use a drop type or 

centrifugal spreader. Lightly rake the area after seeding and roll to 

press the seed into the soil. Renovate lawn areas during the late 

summer or early fall. 

 To discourage the presence of geese on the Parade Ground and Athletic 

Field, evaluate the possibility of applying a mixture of the non-toxic, 

biodegradable product “Goose Chase®” or equivalent. This liquid 

produces a bitter taste (active ingredient methyl anthranilate) that is 

unpleasant to geese. This product is typically mixed according to label 

instructions with water at a ratio of sixty parts water, one part “goose 

chase®” and applied through a sprayer at a rate of sixty gallons of the 

diluted product per acre. The product is reapplied after mowing for 

optimum effectiveness. 

 Alter Mowing Practices. Lawns should be mowed often without 

removing more than one third of the total height. Grass height should 

be 2” for spring and fall and 2 1⁄2” for the summer months. Mower 

blades should be sharpened regularly to avoid tearing the leaves. 

Clippings should be left on the lawn unless a disease outbreak occurs. 

The mowing pattern should be routinely changed so that grooming 

lines do not occur. 

 Manage Thatch Build-Up by removing all but 1/2” of thatch to ensure 

proper growth and quality of the grass. 

 Manage Weed Growth by adjusting soil pH and fertility levels and by 

mechanically overseeding the area. Use top quality grass seed with less 

than .1% weed content. Some chemical weed management will also 

help re-establish the turfgrass. Consult with the regional IPM 

coordinator to discuss the use of a pre-emergent herbicide. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

38 

 Provide turfgrass management training for maintenance staff 

SITE FURNISHINGS AND FIXTURES 

A wide range of site furnishings, notably for lighting, are located throughout Fort 

Hancock, representing many years of habitation and evolving land use. 

Historically there were many styles of street lights, including a cast iron 

gooseneck light that was installed after electricity was brought to the peninsula in 

the early 1900s. Only one of these remains. Multiple other styles of street 

lighting were introduced in subsequent decades, several of which remain in 

varying states of repair. 

 

A large lighting improvement effort was undertaken in the 1950s and concrete 

light posts replaced older models (Figure 2.22). These 1950s-era lights received 

new luminaires in the 1960s. Multiple examples remain along Kessler Road and 

around Sergeants Row, though as a group they are in disrepair. 

In contrast, Hartshorne Drive has a series of modernly styled streetlights installed 

in the 1960s that are in good condition and provide visual continuity along the 

road (Figure 2.23). These lights have cylindrical aluminum supports and a simple 

upright, lantern-style light fixture with a shade to direct light downward. 

 

The NPS installed new lighting around Fort Hancock in the 1980s to supplement 

the existing historic streetlights. These newer fixtures, sometimes called “cobra 

heads,” have a square, tapered, grey-stained, wood poles and aluminum light 

fixtures supported by an aluminum arm. These are predominantly located along 

roadways and parking lots, not in pedestrian areas. 

Lighting was added more recently around the MAST campus and NOAA Marine 

Laboratory. The lights at both facilities are similar in style but the MAST lights 

are pole-mounted square boxes that shine light downward and the NOAA lights 

have similar square luminaires mounted on arms. Both are painted a flat dark 

brown color (Figures 2.24 and 2.25). 

A few new experimental light poles have been added along Kessler Road that 

mimic the historic gooseneck and Walter Reed styles of the early 1900s. 

 

Overall, the street lights of Fort Hancock are in poor condition and are dissimilar 

in scale, material, and style. However, with the exception of the most recent trial 
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

39

introductions, the fixtures date to the period of significance and are 

representative of design choices made during the active period of Fort Hancock. 

Other site furnishings include the Parade Ground flagpole, several benches, and 

picnic tables. A concrete sidewalk and several large Austrian pine trees surround 

the tall, white flagpole that is symbolically located at the center of Fort Hancock. 

Two weathered wood benches are located at the YMCA. They are simple wood 

slat benches features metal pipe supports mounted permanently into the 

surrounding concrete pad. Fifteen to twenty picnic tables are placed at Guardian 

Park in the warm months. These are typical aluminum tables on metal pipe 

supports. No trash cans for public use exist because of the park’s carry-in, carryout policy. Dumpsters and trash cans are provided around park housing and 

buildings occupied by tenants and NPS offices. 

SITE FIXTURES -- FEATURE LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS: 

STREET LIGHTING 

Through implementation of its environmental policies, the National Park Service 

seeks to reduce night-sky light pollution by employing materials and methods 

that include timers, motion detectors, and specially designed light fixtures. The 

agency also seeks to preserve the historic character of its historic properties. The 

following recommendations deal broadly with choices relating to the 

compatibility of new and replacement light fixtures at Fort Hancock. In addition, 

particular care has been given toward recommending an effective and 

harmonious arrangement of light poles with street trees. Nevertheless, the 

following lighting recommendations serve as a point of beginning, and are not 

intended to replace engineering calculations and findings that would result from 

a professional lighting study. Such a study, prepared by lighting engineers, is 

recommended prior to planning construction work. However, the outcome of 

an engineering study should not be understood to replace management judgment 

or agency policy. A park superintendent has the discretionary authority to 

implement a lighting plan that does not meet levels of outdoor lighting required 

by building codes or suggested by lighting industry guidelines in order to protect 

other resource values. 

 

Lighting recommendations for Fort Hancock are directly influenced by the 

chosen treatment option generated in the 2003 Fort Hancock EA and refined in 

the 2003 Fort Hancock FONSI. This language provides welcome direction for 

the complex task of creating a lighting plan for Fort Hancock. As stated in option 

one, or the preferred alternative identified by the Fort Hancock FONSI: 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

40 

When it is necessary to replace important resources that are missing or deteriorated 

beyond repair, or to make alterations and additions to assure continued use, the new 

features will be contemporary in design yet compatible with character-defining 

features of the District. New features will not attempt to replicate historic features 

but will be differentiated in a way that does not create a false historical 

appearance.17 

As directed by the 2003 Fort Hancock EA and 2003 Fort Hancock FONSI, two 

replacement lighting strategies will be implemented at Fort Hancock; the first is 

replacement-in-kind of historic lights, and the second is selecting a new fixture 

that is contemporary yet compatible with the character of the district to be 

located in areas that were not historically lighted or in areas that currently have 

non-historic lighting. 

Since lighting from several different eras within the period of significance exists 

on site, it is recommended to perpetuate the eclectic mix of fixtures. Two types 

of historic streetlights remain and warrant replacement-in-kind. One is the spun 

aluminum fixture dating to the 1960s that lines the east side of Hartshorne Drive 

and the other is the 1950s era cast concrete fixture located on Kessler Road, 

around the Parade Ground, and in the vicinity of Sergeants Row. Missing or 

deteriorated examples of these two historic lights will be replaced with 

commercially available, cost effective replacements that will closely match the 

originals in design, color, texture, and material. 

 

All other areas of Fort Hancock --including both areas that have existing nonhistoric lighting or in areas that are not currently lit and will need to be in the 

future -- will use a new fixture of a contemporary yet compatible style. This new 

light style will be clearly non-historic but will not draw attention by being either 

too modern nor heavily ornamented. The new fixture will be made to blend into 

the landscape through the use of a dark surface color and a design that is similar 

to the scale and basic styling of the historic lights. 

See Figure 2.26 for a diagram of the proposed locations of the different lighting 

styles in the study area. 

 

In general terms, implementing a lighting plan at Fort Hancock will lead to higher 

nighttime light levels than currently exist due to the large number of nonfunctioning street lights and historically wide fixture spacing. However, this does 

not mean that the new lighting plan should create more light than necessary to 

provide a safe nighttime environment for tenants and residents. The treatment 
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

41

plan relies on guidelines set by the industry accepted lighting standards 

association, the Illuminating Engineers Society of North America (IESNA). 

 

The first component of identifying adequate light levels for Fort Hancock 

includes matching the site with the IESNA's lighting categories of 

Local/Subdivision, Collector/Main Street, or Major/Roadway that refer to the 

level and type of use. Recognizing that much of the projected use Fort Hancock 

will be during daylight hours, limited amounts of twenty-four hour hospitality, 

residential and educational activities will require lighting. Historic Fort Hancock 

should be categorized as requiring Local/Subdivision light levels. According to 

IESNA definitions, Local/Subdivision lighting "is ideal for areas with low 

nighttime pedestrian traffic, such as residential developments consisting of 

single-family homes, townhouses, small apartment buildings, and small 

neighborhood shops. It is also suitable for roadways providing direct access."18 

This information then provides guidance on choosing mounting height, pole 

spacing, and lamp wattage. 

 

Local/Subdivision light levels should maintain 0.5 to 0.7 footcandle illuminance 

and 6 to 1 average/minimum uniformity. This translates into the formula for 

maintaining adequate light levels throughout the lighted area, while avoiding 

large areas of darkness. While footcandles, defined as the light levels generated 

from the lamp and density of light on the horizontal and vertical planes, are 

important to establish, maintaining adequate uniformity is most important. This 

means avoiding cones of darkness between light fixtures. Uniformity is 

calculated by averaging the highest generated light levels with the lowest light 

levels appearing along the lighted surface. 

As a matter of policy, reducing night-sky pollution is a priority for the adaptive 

use of Fort Hancock. This can be accomplished through a number of measures 

including spacing the fixtures appropriately to avoid over-lighting and by 

choosing light fixtures that cast light downward. IESNA has created a ranking 

system that rates light fixture or "luminaire" types based on how much light is 

released into the night sky, known as cutoff classification. At Fort Hancock, the 

range of options considered for replacement fixtures should fall into the "semicutoff" category while the new fixtures should be classified as "cutoff." 

IESNA defines semi-cutoff luminaires as those that allow less than five percent of 

the total lamp lumens to project above ninety degrees from the lamp source. 19 

Cutoff luminaires do not exceed two and a half percent of the lamp lumens above 

90 degrees. Achieving cutoff and semi-cutoff status will be accomplished by 

choosing luminaires with downward facing caps and through the use of reflector 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

42 

caps. Semi-cutoff fixtures are appropriate for replacements of historic fixtures 

that must conform to existing stylistic constraints. However, since the new 

fixture has no precedent at Fort Hancock and will be of a contemporary design, a 

higher standard cutoff classification is achievable. 

The use of timers, motion detectors, or mechanisms to vary the intensity of light 

based on time of day or level of activity may be used at Fort Hancock to reduce 

light pollution and help conserve energy. 

Recommendations for Selecting Replacement Historic Fixtures 

Historic streetlights will be replaced in-kind with fixtures that share the same 

proportion, material, color, and styling as the originals. Both spun aluminum and 

cast concrete streetlights are readily available in commerce and several 

manufacturers have stock items that will meet the project requirements. 

While most of the Hartshorne Drive streetlights are in working condition, it is 

recommended to replace the entire system of lights with in-kind replacements. 

This is a justifiable action under the rehabilitation treatment due to health and 

safety considerations and the desire for the proposed lighting plan to be 

compatible with the proposed street tree plan. Furthermore, at over forty years 

old, the Hartshorne Drive lights are near the end of their useful life, helping 

justify their replacement with new fixtures that share character defining 

characteristics. 

As stated earlier, trees along Hartshorne Drive should be aligned with the corners 

of the residences in order to preserve water views from both the buildings’ front 

porches and from the Parade Ground. As the existing lights on Hartshorne Drive 

are two hundred feet apart, casting insufficient light for a vehicular roadway, a 

replacement fixture would need to be inserted between each existing fixture. In 

doing this, the new and existing lights would come into conflict with the 

proposed street trees. It is recommended to replace the existing historic street 

lights in-kind at approximately one hundred feet on-center, located between the 

proposed street trees to reduce conflict between the light source and tree 

canopies and to retain open view corridors.20 

It is recommended to replace the Hartshorne Drive streetlights with the 

"Hermosa" fixture made by Bieber Lighting®. This aluminum light has a similar 

semi-cutoff capped luminaire, simple round, non-fluted pole, and can be 

specified to the same height, color, and surface finish as the existing historic 

lights. A sixteen-foot fixture with a non-painted brushed aluminum finish is 

recommended. See Figure 2.27 for an image of the fixture. 
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

43

 

In-kind replacement fixtures for the concrete light poles found at the Parade 

Ground and Athletic Field can be purchased from SkyCast Inc®. The 

recommended fixture features an octagonal concrete pole with a tapered base 

from their "Milwaukee" line, specified with a salt-and-pepper concrete finish. 

The semi-cutoff luminaire has a round globe covered with a wide cone-shaped 

cap. Seventy-watt high pressure sodium bulbs with reflectors are recommended. 

Replacement concrete lights should be approximately twelve feet tall. See Figure 

2.28 for an image of the fixture. 

 

Since the streetlights in Sergeants Row remain in good condition and provide 

adequate light for the residential setting, they should be preserved. When they 

no longer function, they should be replaced with the Skycast® cast concrete 

replacement fixture. 

Similar to Hartshorne Drive, the historic spacing of the existing concrete 

streetlights around the Parade Ground is wider than is recommended. An 

approximately one hundred foot spacing using a subdued medium-level seventywatt high pressure sodium bulb would conform with the recommendations of 

IESNA (See Appendix D for lighting diagrams that illustrate the balance between 

pole spacing, light sources, and uniformity). 

While taking the industry standards into consideration, the park Superintendent 

retains the discretionary authority to implement a plan that does not fully meet all 

code requirements to satisfy the mission of resource preservation. Since the 

lighted path on the east side of the space, or west side of Barracks Row, is for 

pedestrians only and since Kessler Road on the west side of the Parade Ground is 

a low speed, low traffic service road, the spacing of street lights should be 

expanded. Installing the street lights at two hundred feet on-center instead of 

one hundred feet on-center will reduce the number of fixtures around the Parade 

Ground, reducing visual intrusions in the landscape and will reduce the total light 

output on site. 

The final decision on the number and spacing of lights should be made as part of 

a professional lighting study completed by a qualified lighting engineer. The 

lighting study should be based on the lighting fixtures and criteria outlined in this 

cultural landscape treatment plan. 

Recommendations for New Streetlights and Replacements for Existing 

Non-Historic Lights 

A new fixture style is recommended site-wide for areas of Fort Hancock that 

were not lit historically and for areas that currently have non-historic lighting. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

44 

These features will be contemporary in design yet compatible with historic design 

precedents established at the fort. The light should be unremarkable in its styling 

and a dark green color so it will not draw attention away from the significant 

historic resources of Fort Hancock's landscape. 

 

A composite material is recommended for the new light poles. Composite poles 

are made from a number of materials, mainly fiberglass, and have many benefits. 

Installation is simplified due to their light weight, yet despite this, they offer 

excellent strength in windy situations. Of all the pole materials, composite is the 

closest to maintenance free. Because of the manufacturing process, the finish will 

not rust, chip, or flake. Natural solvents may be used to remove graffiti and after 

their working life, the poles can be recycled. Composite poles are generally less 

expensive than aluminum, cast iron, and concrete and have life-spans similar to 

aluminum poles. Nicks or gouges can be touched-up with repair kits supplied by 

the manufacturer. 

It is recommend to use luminaires made by Lumec® and composite poles made 

by Shakespeare®. The lights should be twelve feet tall. Three alternative fixture 

styles are proposed though all share similarities such as conical luminaires and 

shielded caps to direct light downward. Two are from Lumec's "Opticone" 

series, models OPC and OPC-YM and the third alternative is model CAND6 of 

Lumec's "Candela" series. See Figures 2.29-2.31 for images of the new lighting 

alternatives. 

An exception to the recommendation to replace all non-historic lights with the 

new light style is the retention of existing lights at the MAST campus and NOAA 

laboratories. Since the lights in these areas are relatively new, energy efficient, 

and non-light polluting, replacement with the site-wide compatible fixture 

should only occur after these are no longer functioning. At the future time when 

outdoor lighting serving the MAST campus and NOAA laboratory is replaced, 

lighting placement should be revaluated so the resulting level of illumination is 

consistent with the neighboring areas of Fort Hancock. Replacement lighting, in 

addition to being of a consistent style, should also employ timers and motion 

detectors wherever practical in order to reduce night-sky pollution. 

See Figures 3.29-3.32 in the following chapter for the proposed Fort Hancock 

lighting plan. 

 

PATHWAY LIGHTING 

Path lighting will become necessary at Fort Hancock when pedestrian use of the 

site increases due to new occupants. Fixtures should be placed in pedestrian 

areas not adequately lit by street lighting. This includes along the path between 
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

45

the mess halls and the barracks and along sidewalks leading to parking lots. Since 

path lighting will be an introduced feature to the cultural landscape, it is 

recommended that the lights be an unobtrusive style that does not attract the eye 

--modern yet of a low profile -- and focusing light downward to avoid night –sky 

pollution. It is recommended that the fixtures be a dark green color, similar to 

the new streetlights. See Figure 2.32 for an image of the recommended bollard 

light, the BD8 by Lumec. 

 

BENCHES 

Several types of benches existed around the fort during the period of significance, 

though specific information about dates and locations of different styles is scant. 

One bench that is clearly documented in site photographs was the “World’s Fair” 

style, which was a typical wood slat park bench with slender cast iron supports 

and circular armrests. It is recommended to use commercially available World’s 

Fair style benches as needed at Fort Hancock. See Figure 2.33 for an image of a 

recommended bench style, that may have a back or be back-less. The new 

benches should be located next to a sidewalk or building, not placed in open 

lawn. Benches should be located along the curved east sidewalk of the Parade 

Ground, near the chapel and mule barn, and near other public use buildings. 

 

TRASH RECEPTACLES 

Fort Hancock, like all of Sandy Hook, is a carry-in, carry-out facility. This policy 

will continue in the future so no public trash receptacles will be provided at Fort 

Hancock. However, trash removal service will be provided for residents and 

tenants of Fort Hancock. Dumpsters will be provided at buildings with 

commercial uses by an independent refuse contractor. Effort should be taken to 

place the containers strategically to avoid visual intrusions near front entrances 

or in areas of high visitor traffic. Screening elements such as simple wood fences 

or minimal hedging (chosen from the palette of acceptable hedge material) may 

be utilized to reduce the impact of highly visible dumpsters. 

Residential buildings, including the park housing in Sergeants Row and the 

buildings of Officers Row, will have smaller individual trash storage containers. 

These should be structures large enough to hold two or three typical residential 

trash cans, be made of pressure treated wood, and have secure lids to keep out 

wildlife. Any historic trash enclosures remaining on site should be preserved, 

whether they are utilized or not. 

DRINKING FOUNTAINS 

Several water fountains should be placed in areas of high visitor use. 

Recommended locations may include near the National Park Service visitor 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

46 

center and buildings frequented by the public. A straightforward, unadorned 

fixture should be used to clearly delineate that they are non-historic features. A 

dark green, similar to the color of the new streetlights, should be used. See Figure 

2.34 for a graphic of recommended style of ADA compliant drinking fountain. 

BICYCLE RACKS 

As the site is used by recreational visitors, bicycle racks should be incorporated 

into the palette of site fixtures. A straightforward, dark green, metal rack is 

recommended and should be located in high visitor use areas like at the National 

Park Service visitor center and ferry landing. See Figure 2.35 for a graphic of 

recommended style of fixture. 

PICNIC TABLES 

Picnic facilities are currently available at Guardian Park and it is recommended 

that this use continue. When the existing picnic tables fall into disrepair, it is 

recommended to replace them with similar features for ease of transporting and 

storage during the winter months. Tables should have aluminum benches and 

table tops, supported by metal pipe rails. A dark green surface color is 

recommended to visually tie them to other site features. Picnic tables should be 

restricted to Guardian Park. See Figure 2.36 for an image of a recommended 

picnic table style. 

STREET SIGNS 

A draft Fort Hancock Sign Plan was created in 2002 and examines in detail the 

historic signage of the district and makes recommendations for future sign 

placement. It was prepared in anticipation of the adaptive use program when the 

need for signage will increase. The report describes historic and existing signs in 

the district and creates a plan for the design, location, and implementation of 

future signage. Paramount to the recommendations is the desire to use 

compatible features that are uniform throughout Fort Hancock, a principle 

supported by this landscape treatment plan. This report supports the findings 

and recommendation of the 2002 draft Sign Plan. 

 

The draft Sign Plan specifies that new signage should be limited to reduce the 

impact on the cultural landscape. Design specifications describe the kind of 

signage allowable for different types of buildings. Also discussed is the process 

required for reviewing and placing new signs as the need arises. 

 

One remaining historic street sign is located in the park archives. It is made of 

two solid metal plates, placed perpendicularly to one another, and was once 

mounted on a metal pole. The historic signs were reddish brown with black 
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

47

lettering. A distinctive feature of the historic signs was the placement of a small 

rectangular “Fort Hancock” emblem at the top of each street sign (Figure 2.37). 

It is recommended to select new street signs of a contemporary design, similar to 

typical municipal signs. Six inch high, rectangular signs with brown backgrounds 

and white lettering are recommended. Two single-faced signs should sandwich a 

square pole with perforated holes that accepts mounting hardware. At cross 

streets, a second street sign should be placed perpendicularly below the first sign. 

A smaller sign, approximately four inches high, reading "Fort Hancock" should 

be placed on the top of each pole to create a unifying element throughout the 

historic district's signage. See Figure 2.38 for an example of such a sign. This 

identifying element shares design similarities with historic Fort Hancock signage, 

yet is not an attempt to duplicate the original features. In accordance with the 

Federal Highways Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Devices, the 

bottom of the signs should be no less than seven feet from the ground. 

UTILITIES 

One particularly important action described in the Fort Hancock EA relating to 

utilities is the burying of existing and proposed new utilities. If this is not 

carefully considered, the layout of new underground utilities may bear negative 

consequences for the site’s street trees. Engineering drawings for underground 

utilities should be coordinated with a certified arborist or natural resource 

manager. The Fort Hancock EA calls for the Hartshorne Dive utility corridor to 

be located on the east side of the street, approximately twelve feet from the edge 

of the roadway and as close to the sidewalk as possible. Underground conduit 

should be located well to the east of the sidewalk. The area between Hartshorne 

Drive and the sidewalk should be a dedicated planting strip to promote healthy 

tree root development. It is vitally important that Hartshorne Drive street trees 

and underground utilities not share the narrow strip between the road and the 

sidewalk. Electrical conduits feeding streetlights located within the planting strip 

should be arranged to "T" off of the underground electrical line buried east of the 

sidewalk. Should the electrical line serving the streetlights be placed within the 

planting strip to run parallel to the road for its entire length, this will adversely 

impact the survival rate for the street tree planting. 

Currently, numerous utility boxes are located in between the residences of 

Officers Row, undisguised and prevalent. As clipped lawn surrounds the 

structures, the boxes are noticeable features on the landscape. It is 

recommended that existing and proposed utility boxes be placed underground or 

in close proximity to the structures they service. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

48 

ENDNOTES: 

 

1

 Fort Hancock EA, July 2003, Appendix C. 

2

 Fort Hancock EA, July 2003, 30. 

3

 Ibid. 

4

 Ibid. 

5

 Ibid. 

6

 Ibid. 

7

 Ibid. 

8

 Ibid. 

9

 "Flora of Gateway National Recreation Area," Second Printing, 1997, National Park 

Service, Gateway National Recreation Area, Division of Natural Resources and Compliance, 

4. 

10 Fort Hancock EA, July 2003, Appendix D: "Guidelines for the Replacement of Historic 

Trees and Building Foundation Plantings." 

11Trees considered and rejected for replanting along Hartshorne Drive and Kessler Road: 

Lacebark elms (Ulmus parvifolia), whose common name derives from its characteristic 

mottled and exfoliating bark, matures to a 40'-50' height. Although an elm variety, this nonnative species is resistant to Dutch Elm Disease and has been used in a variety of landscape 

situations. Its greatest attribute is its extreme toughness; the tree has shown durability in many 

difficult growing conditions, including along coastlines. Lacebark elm was eliminated from 

consideration for planting at Fort Hancock because of its non-native status. 

American elm (Ulmus americana) cultivars, 'Valley Forge,' 'Homestead' have exhibited 

resistance to Dutch elm disease. These varieties all exhibit the classic vase-like shape, have 

3"-6" ovate-oblong leaves, and have dark gray bark with broad, deep, intersecting ridges. 

Their habit is upright with a high arching crown and vase shape. Though American elms 

show tolerance to salts in the soil, their ability to withstand heavy wind and salt spray remains 

in question. Because of this, American elm is not recommended for use at Fort Hancock. 

Sugar Hackberry (Celtis laevigata) is a common and hardy variety of hackberry that 

characteristically grows in low wet areas. The cultivar 'Magnifica' introduced by Princeton 

Nurseries is said to be a cross between Celtis occidentalis and Celtis laevigata is untroubled 

by witches broom in its branching that is otherwise common among hackberries. The orangered to blue-black fruit is sweet and attractive to birds, providing the common name. The 

Sugar hackberry was eliminated from consideration for planting at Fort Hancock because of 

its non-native status in the region. 

12 Fort Hancock EA, July 2003, Appendix D: "Guidelines for the Replacement of Historic 

Trees and Building Foundation Plantings." 

13 These proportions of caliper to height to root ball size are specified by the American 

Standards for Nursery Stock, typical shade trees. 

14 Dirr, 438. 

15 Fort Hancock EA, 31. 

16 Fort Hancock EA, 31. 

17 Fort Hancock FONSI p 3 

18 "Outdoor Lighting Application Guide," Lumec® product literature. 

19 "Outdoor Environmental Lighting Guide," Holophane Lighting product literature. 

20 Typically, pole spacing for local roads should be no greater than six times the height of 

the fixture. This is a widely accepted lighting industry "rule of thumb. 
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

49

Figure 2.2. Officers Row fronts onto a strip of open space along the water’s edge, as shown 

here. The buildings back onto the Parade Ground, one of the defining spaces of Fort Hancock. OCLP, 2004.

Figure 2.1. The Parade Ground is bordered by Barracks buildings, 

pictured in the background, and the structures of Officers Row, just 

outside of the frame at image right. OCLP, 2004.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

50

Figure 2.3. Diagram of defining open spaces and views at Fort Hancock. The most significant views on-site are those from the Fort to 

Sandy Hook Bay, which were used historically to define the spatial organization of Fort Hancock. Other notable views not illustrated on 

the diagram include the view north and south along the Parade Ground, the view south across the Athletic Field to the Post Flagstaff, 

views to Officers Row from the bay, and views of the Sandy Hook Lighthouse from the bay and the Post Flagstaff. Not to scale. OCLP, 

2004.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

51

Figure 2.4. Above ground utility boxes are located throughout the study area, notably between the buildings of Officers Row, as pictured above. These fixtures should be located 

to one side of the gap between Officers Row quarters or underground, rather than in the 

center of the open space. OCLP, 2004.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

52

Figure 2.5. The building currently leased by the Audubon Society is typical of the smaller single family homes at Fort Hancock. 

OCLP, 2004.

Figure 2.6. The Sandy Hook lighthouse and Keepers 

Quarters Museum. OCLP, 2004.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

53

Figure 2.7. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation is highlighted in this diagram of Fort Hancock. Existing roads, paths, and parking lots appear white, while all other spaces including lawns and building footprints are colored black. Not to scale. OCLP, 2004.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

54

Figure 2.8. Poured concrete sidewalks line the east side of Hartshorne Drive. OCLP, 2004.

Figure 2.9. Some walkways surrounding the homes of Officers’s Row are flagstone, like the one pictured 

above. Also note the trash can enclosures. OCLP, 2004.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

55

Figure 2.10. The multi-use path travels between the water’s edge and Hartshorne Drive. OCLP, 2004. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

56

Figure 2.11. Parking diagram highlighting existing parking lots and the changes proposed in the Environmental Assessment. OCLP, 2005.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

57

Figure 2.13. Several self-seeded trees have been allowed to mature along side the front porches of Officers Row. 

These should be removed. OCLP, 2004.

Figure 2.12. Mature street trees line the curved edge of the 

Parade Ground. OCLP, 2004.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

58

Figure 2.14. 1930 aerial photo shows the inconsistent street tree coverage along Hartshorne Drive 

that was typical throughout the period of significance. September 1930, National Geographic aerial 

photograph of Fort Hancock. Copy in Gateway NRA Museum Collection, Catalogue #833. 
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

59

Figure 2.15. Hartshorne Drive street tree planting diagram. The triangles represent proposed replacement streetlights along Hartshorne 

Drive and the squares represent proposed replacement street lights along Kessler Road. The new lights are located to avoid interfering 

with open view corridors between the Parade Ground and Sandy Hook Bay and are evenly spaced between street trees. Not to scale. 

OCLP, 2004.

Tree spacing along Kessler Road

varies between 45'-55' on center

depending on building spacing

Align street trees with the corners

of Officers Row buildings to retain

open view corridors

Street trees lining Hartshorne Drive

should be staggered as seen in

numerous historical photographs

so as not to restrict views from the

front porches of Officers Row

Sandy Hook Bay

Hartshorne Drive

Kessler Road

Parade Ground

N
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

60

Figure 2.16. Proposed Hartshorne Drive streetscape after replanting of street trees and hedge, looking south. OCLP, 2005.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

61

Figure 2.17. Tree planting diagram. OCLP, 2005.

Figure 2.18. Tree staking diagram. OCLP, 2005.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

62

4'

Minumum required planting area for residential units

Optional planting area at 

secondary facades

Figure 2.19. Diagram of foundation planting areas at Officers Row buildings. Graphic from the 1999 Fort Hancock Rehabilitation Guidelines.

Hartshorne Drive

Required Planting Area
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

63

Figure 2.20. Overgrown vegetation dominates the Officers Club landscape. The building can be seen through the trees in the background. OCLP, 2005.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

64
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

65

Figure 2.22. A surviving concrete streetlight in the vicinity of 

Sergeants Row. OCLP, 2005.

Figure 2.23. The 16 foot spun aluminum streetlights along 

Hartshorne Drive. OCLP, 2005. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

66

Figure 2.24. Contemporary lights at the MAST Campus. OCLP, 2005.

Figure 2.25. Contemporary lights at the NOAA laboratories. GATE 

photo, 2005.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

67

Figure 2.26. Zone map for Fort Hancock streetlight replacement. Streets marked with the green line will receive replacement concrete 

light fixtures, streets lined in brown will receive replacement aluminum light fixtures, and all other streets and parking lots in the study 

area (not marked with a color) will receive the new style of light fixture. Not to scale. OCLP, 2005. 

Y

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

Y

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

Y

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

H Y D

BATTERY

SPEED SIGN 25 MPH

Replacement Spun Aluminum

Street Lights

Replacement Cast Concrete

Street Lights

Study Area Boundary

Unmarked Streets and

Parking Lots = New Street

Lights

N
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

68
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

69

Figure 2.27 (Above). This shielded Hermosa luminaire 

from Bieber Lighting is recommended to replace fixtures 

along Hartshorne Drive. An unpainted, brushed aluminum 

finish will be specified for surface color. 

Figure 2.28 (Right). Concrete streetlights at the 

Parade Ground, Athletic Field, and Sergeants Row 

should be replaced by this 12’ cast concrete fixture 

made by Skycast. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

70

Figure 2.29. Image of an alternative for the new 

streetlight. This is the OPC-YM “Opticone” light made 

by Lumec. 

Figure 2.30. Image of an alternative for the new streetlight. 

This is the OPC “Opticone” light made by Lumec. 

Figure 2.31. Image of an alternative for the new streetlight. 

This is the CAND6 “Candela” light made by Lumec. 

Figure 2.32. Image of the preferred bollard. This is the BD8 

bollard made by Lumec. 
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

71

Figure 2.36. A simple aluminum and metal picnic table that is 

light-weight and easy to transport is recommended for Fort 

Hancock. A dark green surface color will help visually harmonize 

the picnic tables with other introduced site amenities. The picnic 

tables should be limited to placement at at Guardian Park. 

Figure 2.35. Standard bicycle racks should be placed near areas 

of high visitor use, especially at the NPS visitor center and Ferry 

landing. 

Figure 2.34. Several water fountains should be placed around 

the historic district, near high visitor use areas. It is recommended to use simple ADA accessible fixture with a dark green 

surface color to harmonize the water fountains with other 

introduced site amenities. 

Figure 2.33. This ‘World’s Fair’ style bench is similar to ones 

found historically at Fort Hancock. The wood and metal bench is 

distributed by Kenneth Lynch and Sons. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

72

Figure 2.37. The historic Fort Hancock street signs were reddish brown with black lettering. Notice the small 

sign reading “Fort Hancock” located above the street names. OCLP, 1994. 

Figure 2.38. This street sign from off-site shows the mounting hardware and configuration of the recommended street signs for Fort Hancock. The small sign on top should be constant on all signs, reading “Fort Hancock.” 

Lower sign panels would list street names. Brown backgrounds with white lettering is recommended. OCLP, 

2005. 
CHAPTER 3: KEY LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION PROJECTS

73 

CHAPTER 3: 

KEY LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION PROJECTS 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter provides more specific information about the most important 

landscape rehabilitation projects for the adaptive use program at Fort Hancock. 

The projects highlighted below will require dedicated funding from sources 

outside the park's annual budget. All of the projects, which include new and 

modified parking facilities, replacement of street trees, replacement of street 

lighting, and replacement of street signage, are instrumental in providing a safe 

and historically appropriate environment for the new users of Fort Hancock. 

SITE PARKING 

Providing adequate vehicular circulation and parking will be an essential 

component of the success of the rehabilitation program. To meet the number of 

parking spaces determined by the Fort Hancock EA and Fort Hancock FONSI, 

several new parking lots are proposed at Fort Hancock and it is recommended to 

reconfigure several existing lots. As previously directed, there will be 1,378 

parking spaces at Fort Hancock after the final realization of the Fort Hancock 

adaptive use program. The construction of these parking lots will be phased 

based on the pace of the rehabilitation program. 

Access and parking for busses is an important component of the Fort Hancock 

parking plan because of the many educational programs offered that bring large 

groups to the site. Several of the proposed parking lots incorporate bus drop-off 

and/or parking. 

See Figure 3.1 for locations of the proposed schematic Fort Hancock parking 

lots. It is important to note that schematic parking lot layout alternatives 

incorporated into this report will require revisions as part of the process of 

preparing official construction documents. Placement of vegetation in the 

parking lot alternatives is schematic and subject to change. 

A) Reconfigure Existing Chapel/Ferry Dock area 

The existing Chapel and Ferry Dock parking lot is an informal packed earth lot 

that has spaces for approximately sixty-eight cars. In the summer season, the lot 

is also used by a shuttle bus that picks up beachgoers from the Ferry Landing. 

Future plans for the currently unused Chapel call renting the renovated building 

for events such as weddings and lectures. It is intended that the building function 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

74 

in concert with activities occurring at the Theatre and Mule Barn and will 

consequently need a central out-door gathering space. 

Though the Fort Hancock EA calls for the removal of all of the parking spaces at 

the Chapel/Ferry Dock, it is recommended to reconfigure the lot so bus pick-up 

and drop-off can occur along with limited parking for ferry service and Chapel 

events. The proposed plan includes sixty-two parking spaces. Traffic will enter 

the site at north side of the area, into the parking lot located north of the Chapel, 

and exit via a semi-circular drive in front of the Chapel. The curved driveway, 

that closely resembles the layout of the historic driveway, may also double as 

drop-off for Chapel events and the shuttle bus. A paved patio area will be located 

at the main door of the Chapel, aligned with views of the post flagstaff and 

Rodman gun, providing an excellent orientation location where visitors can take 

in the wider Fort Hancock district. See Figure 3.2 for the proposed plan and 

Figures 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 for alternatives considered but rejected. 

B) Reconfigure Mule Barn Intersection 

Proposals for the reuse of the Mule Barn that stands at the intersection of South 

Bragg Drive and Kearney Road identify food service or hospitality uses. This will 

bring visitors and patrons to the area throughout the day, generating 

considerable foot traffic. Currently the intersection of South Bragg and Kearney 

Road is greater than 90 degrees and encourages high vehicular speeds. This may 

create conflicts in the future when pedestrian traffic increases. Another issue 

between existing conditions and potential reuse of the area is that the sidewalk 

outside the south doors of the Mule Barn are very narrow, placing patrons almost 

on South Bragg Street after exiting the Mule Barn. 

 

Several adaptations to the area are recommended to accommodate the adaptive 

use. To create a wider pedestrian area on the north side of the Mule Barn, South 

Bragg Road should be realigned. By removing the small raised island, removing 

the curved turning lane onto South Bragg Road, and moving the road several feet 

to the south, a simplified ninety-degree intersection and wider sidewalk could be 

created. This will slow vehicular speeds and create a safe buffer for pedestrians 

entering and exiting the Mule Barn. The short segment of Kearney Road that 

travels east of the Rodman gun and west of the Mule Barn could be blocked to 

vehicular traffic with removable bollards, directing all traffic to access 

Hartshorne Drive via South Bragg Road. The unused roadway could then be 

used by the restaurant for outdoor seating. This plan also includes a route for the 

extension of the Multi-Use Path that is slated to pass through the area. For a 

schematic plan of the proposed realignment, see Figure 3.2 of the Chapel lot. It is 

important to note that schematic alternatives for the realignment of this 
CHAPTER 3: KEY LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION PROJECTS

75 

intersection found in this report will require revisions as part of the process of 

preparing official construction documents. 

 

C) Expand Athletic Field Lot 

Twenty-five parking spaces are currently provided at the Post 

Headquarters/Athletic Field, standing at the southern extents of the Athletic 

field. Future plans for the Post Headquarters and Bachelor Officers Quarters 

buildings include hospitality and administrative uses. To serve the future need, 

twenty-two additional parking spaces are required. The existing lot will be 

expanded by two bays to the north and increased slightly east and west to 

accommodate the parking in a fairly linear configuration an avoid encroaching 

too much on the Athletic Field. A vehicular drop-off has been proposed at the 

west side of the Bachelor Officers Quarters, along Kearney Road, to serve the 

hospitality uses planned for the building. See Figure 3.6 for the proposed plan 

and Figures 3.7 and 3.8 for alternatives considered but rejected. 

 

D) Construct Coal Pit Lot 

The Coal Pit Lot is planned for the historic location of the post's coal storage area 

along Kearney Road. It is currently undeveloped with small to mid-sized woody 

vegetation growing abundantly. A concrete foundation of the former coal shed 

remains in the space. It is intended that this lot service the buildings located at 

the north portion of Officers Row. 

The proposed lot contains sixty-nine spaces, thirty four more than directed in the 

Fort Hancock EA. The lot is set back from Kearney Road to preserve the 

concrete foundation of the former coal shed, as well as to accommodate a 

vegetative buffer. As the land rises slightly toward the rear of the space, the 

proposed parking lot is not deep in order to reduce the amount of earthmoving 

and disturbance. See Figure 3.9 for the proposed schematic plan and Figures 3.10 

and 3.11 for alternatives considered but rejected. 

E) Construct Coal Yard Lot 

The Coal Yard Lot is proposed northwest of the Sandy Hook Lighthouse, near 

the corners of Hudson and Knox Roads. This lot is likely to service overflow 

traffic generated from the Lighthouse, proposed National Park Service visitor 

center, and activities at the former YMCA. The area is currently unprogrammed 

and dominated by native shrubs and small trees. The proposed lot calls for 

seventy-nine parking spaces, three more than the seventy-six proposed in the 

Fort Hancock EA, and space for four busses. Busses dropping students or tour 

groups at the National Park Service visitor center could drive the short distance 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

76 

and park in the Coal Yard Lot. The proposed lot has two access points, one on 

Hudson Road and the other exiting just north of the Lighthouse. Pedestrian and 

bicycle traffic can access the future Multi-Use Path extension east of the lot, 

though a specially designated path. See Figure 3.12 for proposed plan and 

Figures 3.13 and 3.14 for alternatives considered but rejected. 

F) Reconfigure South Parade Lot 

The South Parade lot will be a critical parking facility at Fort Hancock due to its 

central location. The lot is currently a rough graded lot formerly the site of a 

large hospital annex on the south side of the Parade Ground, just east of the site 

of the former hospital building. A small portion at the west side of the open space 

is paved and parking occurs informally on the unstriped lot. Cars park 

haphazardly near the intersection of Kessler Road, some on the pavement and 

some on the grass. School busses often use the space, including the unpaved 

portion, for drop-off and parking. A National Park Service restroom was created 

from the former morgue building at the southwest extent of the existing parking 

lot, which is often utilized by school groups and bus tours. 

 

It is intended to provide ninety-two parking spaces at the South Parade lot to 

serve tenants in Barracks Row and the southern buildings of Officers Row, as 

stated in the Fort Hancock EA. An infrequently used road runs along the south 

side of the lot, servicing the day-care center and National Park Service restrooms. 

This road does not serve through traffic and could be used for parallel parking 

for several buses. See Figure 3.15 for the proposed plan and Figure 3.16 for an 

alternative considered but rejected. 

 

G) Construct Tent City Lot 

The Tent City lot is proposed for an area south of the MAST Campus that 

historically served as the site of temporary tent housing for troops. It is currently 

an infrequently mowed grassy area abutting a tract of naturally growing grass and 

shrubs that serves as wildlife habitat. Underground utilities for the MAST 

Campus are located in the northwest corner of the space, witnessed by several 

vent pipes protruding from the ground. It is likely that this lot will serve the 

buildings of Barracks Row, as well as weekend beach traffic. 

 

The treatment plan calls for adding 172 parking spaces, the same number 

specified in the Fort Hancock EA. Access to the Tent City lot is provided along 

Gunnison Road and purposefully not into the MAST Campus. The north side of 

the parking lot will be screened with vegetation to separate the space from the 

school zone. The proposed plan avoids the underground utilities and utilizes the 
CHAPTER 3: KEY LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION PROJECTS

77 

remainder of the space without encroaching into natural area to the east. See 

Figure 3.17 for the proposed plan and Figure 3.18 for an alternative considered 

but rejected. 

H) Reconfigure Fort Hancock lot 

The Fort Hancock Lot is centrally located to serve the future National Park 

Service visitor center, current administration building, and other tenants of 

Barracks Row. By reconfiguring the ninety spaces that exist today, an additional 

fourteen spaces can be added to maximize the capacity of the lot. A sidewalk and 

curb should be added along the edge of the parking lot along MAST Way to 

provide safe access for students entering and exiting the MAST campus. 

Additionally, the construction of a raised crosswalk at the junction of MAST Way 

and Magruder Road will slow vehicular speeds into the MAST campus and 

provide a safe crossing for students. See Figure 3.19 for the proposed plan. 

F) Construct Paddock Lot 

The Paddock area is a mowed grass field encircled by a post and rail fence located 

northeast of the Mule Barn. This site has been proposed as the location of a 

parking lot to service activities centered at the Chapel, Mule Barn, and Theater. 

Because of its size, the lot could also be used for special event overflow parking. 

The treatment plan has proposed a parking lot with two egress points on South 

Bragg Road, a sidewalk to the Mule Barn/Chapel/Theatre area and room for 130 

cars and four busses. Some of this parking lot may be left as reinforced turf to 

make a smaller paved area and to allow more surface drainage. A cluster of 

informally placed native vegetation may be planted on the west side of the lot to 

screen it from the Mule Barn/Chapel/Theatre area. Select plant material from the 

approved list of shrubs that appears in Appendix B of this report. See Figure 3.20

for the proposed plan. 

I) Construct Warehouse Lot 

It is proposed to lease space in the complex currently used by the National Park 

service for maintenance activities. The National Park Service would retain access 

and sole control over the east portion of the maintenance yard with two buildings 

in the west part of the complex being rented. Subsequently, parking must be 

provided at these structures. The Fort Hancock EA calls for sixty-five spaces at 

the western extents of the maintenance yard, which is supported by the proposal 

of this treatment plan. The lot would be located south of the National Park 

Service gas pumps and screened on that side and to the east to separate tenant 

activities from the National Park Service storage yard. National Park Service 

maintenance vehicles would be rerouted to access the maintenance facility solely 

from the east. See Figure 3.21 for the proposed plan. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

78 

J) Construct Tennis Lot 

A parking lot is proposed to serve the Officers Club and beach parking near the 

intersection of Kilpatrick and Atlantic Drives. The area is currently an 

infrequently mowed area, located across Atlantic Drive from a National Park 

Service restroom facility. Fifty-five spaces are proposed, two less that the Fort 

Hancock EA directive, with two egress points, one on Kilpatrick Drive and the 

other on Atlantic Drive. See Figure 3.22 for the proposed plan and Figure 3.23 

for an alternative considered but rejected. 

K) Construct Mess Hall Lots 

Small capacity parking lots will be added at the mess halls lining Magruder Road, 

Buildings 55, 56, and 57. One six-car lot currently exists on the south side of 

Building 58, the National Park Service Headquarters, and will serve as a model 

for the others. The lots will be used primarily for handicapped parking and 

deliveries for the buildings of Barracks Row. A lot will be located on the north 

side of Building 57, the south side of Building 56, and the north side of Building 

55. This configuration will leave an uninterrupted corridor between Buildings 57 

and 56, the main viewshed connecting the east and west sides of the Parade 

Ground. See Figure 3.24 for the proposed plan. 

L) Reconfigure Gas Station Intersection 

Currently the area surrounding the gas station is a busy vehicular and pedestrian 

area due to the presence of the National Park Service headquarters building, 

Brookdale College, and the Keepers Quarters Museum. This use will increase 

markedly in the future when the National Park Service visitor center moves to the 

area and other buildings are leased. Little directional signage is provided for 

motorists and even less for pedestrians. 

It is recommended to provide more structure to the area to reduce the potential 

for conflict between motorists and pedestrians. A defined three-way stop should 

be created at the intersection of Magruder and Hudson Roads. One way roads 

should be established around the Gas Station to direct the flow of traffic past 

Brookdale College and the Keepers Quarters Museum. Also, the intersection at 

the corner of the Gas Station and Mercer Road should be defined with bollards. 

It is currently an expanse of asphalt that leads to vehicular confusion. See Figure 

3.25 for the proposed plan and Figures 3.26, 3.27, and 3.28 for alternatives 

suggested but rejected. 
CHAPTER 3: KEY LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION PROJECTS

79 

STREET TREE REPLACEMENT 

The street tree planting plan generated for Fort Hancock as part of this report 

includes 148 trees. These trees are comprised of a mixture of London planetrees, 

hackberries, and sycamore maples. See Figure 3.28 for the proposed street tree 

planting plan. See the street tree section of the previous chapter for specific 

actions relating to planting methods and tree selection. 

It is recommended to plant one and one half inch caliper trees that are 

commercially available, at the estimated 2006 cost of three hundred and fifty 

dollars. Installation and a one-year maintenance contracts that includes watering 

will likely cost six hundred and fifty dollars. Therefore, for estimating purposes, 

each tree at Fort Hancock will require an outlay of approximately one thousand 

dollars. 

STREET LIGHTING REPLACEMENT 

Replacement of the Fort Hancock streetlights should be implemented only after 

the completion of a comprehensive utility study and a lighting plan by a lighting 

engineer. The lighting guidelines in this report have been developed to help 

preserve the historic character of Fort Hancock and can be incorporated into a 

professional lighting plan. Notably the recommendations concerning adequate 

light levels, and luminaire design, height, and placement of the new and 

replacement light fixtures. 

Currently, seventy-four streetlights, both functioning and non-functioning, exist 

on site. Of those, twenty-seven should remain, including the full-cutoff brown 

"shoe-box" style lights found at the MAST and NOAA facilities, and the historic 

concrete light poles in the vicinity of Sergeants Row. 

See Figures 3.28-3.31 for the proposed street light replacement plan. 

When nearing the implementation phase of the streetlight project, direct 

purchase of the lighting poles and fixtures from the manufacturer should be 

considered. By contracting only the installation component of the project, the 

park may reap substantial savings. If the entire project is contracted to a lighting 

or general contractor, that company will purchase the fixtures from a lighting 

wholesaler, passing on the costs of the vendor. However, the park may opt to pay 

more to have the contractor take responsibility for the purchase, delivery, and 

installation. Another benefit of contracting the entire project would be avoiding 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

80 

a contracting exercise and eliminating the responsibility for maintaining the 

quality and condition of the fixtures before they are installed. 

REHABILITATION OF GUARDIAN PARK 

Just prior to Fort Hancock's deactivation in 1974, the Army chose to 

commemorate its important air defense mission at Sandy Hook with the creation 

of "Guardian Park." This park was built at the triangular plot of land defined by 

the intersection of Hartshorne Drive and Magruder Road. A disarmed Nike 

"Hercules" missile was installed next to an Nike "Ajax" missile that had been 

placed there earlier. These obsolete weapons served as monuments to the last 

phase of Fort Hancock's defensive mission. A stone monument commemorating 

six U.S. Army enlisted men and four Ordnance Corps civilian employees killed 

during an explosion was also relocated to Guardian Park from nearby 

Middletown, New Jersey. Concrete walkways and young landscape plantings 

were installed at the same time prior to the departure of the Army. 

Guardian Park, located at the southern extremity of historic Fort Hancock, now 

serves as a gateway to the historic district. This treatment plan has focused 

primarily on site-wide issues relating to plantings, parking, lighting fixtures and 

landscape furnishings needed for the re-use of the historic district. However, 

Guardian Park has also become deteriorated during the past thirty years. A large 

portion of the deterioration may be corrected through implementation of turf 

rehabilitation and management recommendations offered in this report. 

However, the rehabilitation of plantings of trees and shrubs, in an effort to 

recapture the character of this area as it existed in 1974 would be appropriate as a 

subsequent follow-up effort to this landscape treatment plan. 

CHAPTER 3: KEY LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION PROJECTS

83
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

84
CHAPTER 3: KEY LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION PROJECTS

85
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

86
CHAPTER 3: KEY LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION PROJECTS

87
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

88
CHAPTER 3: KEY LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION PROJECTS

89
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

90
CHAPTER 3: KEY LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION PROJECTS

91
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

92
CHAPTER 3: KEY LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION PROJECTS

93
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

94
CHAPTER 3: KEY LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION PROJECTS

95
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

96
CHAPTER 3: KEY LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION PROJECTS

97
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

98
CHAPTER 3: KEY LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION PROJECTS

99
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

100
CHAPTER 3: KEY LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION PROJECTS

101
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

102
CHAPTER 3: KEY LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION PROJECTS

103
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

104
CHAPTER 3: KEY LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION PROJECTS

105
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

106
CHAPTER 3: KEY LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION PROJECTS

107
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

108
CHAPTER 3: KEY LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION PROJECTS

109
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

110




REFERENCES

119 

REFERENCES

Published Sources 

Dirr, Michael A. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants: Their Identification, 

Ornamental Characteristics, Culture, Propagation and Uses, Fourth Edition. 

Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Co., 1990. 

Hamblin, Stephen F. List of Plant Types for Landscape Planting. Cambridge, MA: 

Harvard University Press, 1929. 

National Park Service. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment 

of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services, 

1996. 

Rea, Mark S., Ph.D., FIES, ed. The IESNA Lighting Handbook: Reference and 

Application, Ninth Edition. New York: Illuminating Engineering Society of 

North America, 2000. 

National Register of Historic Places, Nomination Form- Fort Hancock Historic 

District. Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1979. 

Wyman, Donald. Wyman's Gardening Encyclopedia. New York: Scribner, 1997. 

Unpublished Sources 

Edwin C. Bearss. National Park Service. “Historic Structure Report, Sandy 

Hook, Exterior Electric Lighting System 1897-1945. Gateway National 

Recreation Area. Denver Service Center, Branch of Cultural Resources, MidAtlantic/North Atlantic Team. July 1982. 

Foulds, H. Eliot. “Historic Landscape Assessment for Fort Hancock, Sandy 

Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area.” National Park Service, Olmsted 

Center for Landscape Preservation, Boston, Massachusetts. November 1994, 

Revised October 1997. 

National Park Service, in association with Sandy Hook Partners, LLC, 

"Environmental Assessment: Adaptive Use of Fort Hancock and the Sandy 

Hook Proving Ground Historic District." U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Gateway National Recreation Area, New Jersey, 2003. 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

120 

National Park Service. “Finding of No Significant Impact, Adaptive Use of Fort 

Hancock and Sandy Hook Proving Ground Historic District,” Gateway National 

Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit, Monmouth County, New Jersey. July 8, 

2003. 

National Park Service. "Flora of Gateway National Recreation Area," Second 

Printing, Gateway National Recreation Area, Division of Natural Resources and 

Compliance, 1997. 

National Park Service. “Fort Hancock Rehabilitation Guidelines,” Sandy Hook, 

New Jersey. March 1999. 

National Park Service, “Sandy Hook Historic Structures Paint Plan,” Sandy 

Hook, Gateway National Recreation Area, Fort Hancock, New Jersey. August 

2000/March 2001. 

National Park Service. “Fort Hancock Sign Plan,” Gateway National Recreation 

Area, Fort Hancock, New Jersey. March 2002. 

Williams, Norma E. “Cultural Landscape Report for Proving Ground and 

Wartime Expansion Areas, Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation 

Area.” National Park Service, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation. July 

1999. 

Product Literature 

"Outdoor Environmental Lighting Guide," Holophane Lighting product 

literature. 

"Outdoor Lighting Application Guide," Lumec® product literature. 
APPENDICES

121

Appendix A: Building and Foundation Planting Chart, 1 of 5 (planting category based on historic use)

Building Name Bldg.

No. Date Historical Use

Present 

Use Management Planting Category

Lieutenants 

Quarters 1 1898 Housing Museum NPS Residential

Lieutenants 

Quarters 2 1898 Housing Vacant Historic Lease Residential

Lieutenants 

Quarters 3 1898 Housing Vacant Historic Lease Residential

Lieutenants 

Quarters 4 1898 Housing Vacant Historic Lease Residential

Lieutenants 

Quarters 5 1899 Housing Vacant Historic Lease Residential

Lieutenants 

Quarters 6 1899 Housing Vacant Historic Lease Residential

Lieutenants 

Quarters 7 1899 Housing Vacant Historic Lease Residential

Lieutenants 

Quarters 8 1899 Housing Vacant Historic Lease Residential

Captains Quarters 9 1899 Housing Vacant Historic Lease Residential

Captains Quarters 10 1899 Housing Vacant Historic Lease Residential

Captains Quarters 11 1899 Housing Vacant Historic Lease Residential

Commander’s 

Quarters 12 1899 Housing Vacant Historic Lease Residential

Captains Quarters 13 1899 Housing Vacant Historic Lease Residential

Captains Quarters 14 1899 Housing Vacant Historic Lease Residential

Captains Quarters 15 1899 Housing Vacant Historic Lease Residential 

Lieutenants 

Quarters 16 1899 Housing Vacant Historic Lease Residential

Lieutenants 

Quarters 17 1899 Housing Vacant Historic Lease Residential

Lieutenants 

Quarters 18 1899 Housing Park 

Partner Historic Lease Residential

Hospital Steward 

Quarters 20 1899 Housing Education 

Partnership

Cooperative 

Agreement Residential

2-Family Officers Quarters 21 1939 Housing NPS 

Housing Historic Lease Residential

Enlisted Barracks 22 1899 Housing Education 

Partnership 

Cooperative 

Agreement Public

Enlisted Barracks 23 1899 Housing Vacant Historic Lease Public

Enlisted Barracks 24 1898 Housing Vacant Historic Lease Public

Enlisted Barracks 25 1898 Housing Vacant NPS Public

Post Headquarters 26 1899 Headquarters Offices Historic Lease Public

Bachelor

Officers Quarters 27 1899 Housing Vacant Historic Lease Residential

Post Guardhouse 28 1899 Post Jail Museum NPS Service

NCO Quarters 29 1899 Housing NPS 

Housing NPS Residential

NCO Quarters 30 1898 Housing NPS 

Housing NPS Residential

Quartermaster 

Storehouse 32 1898 Warehouse NPS Operations NPS Service

Bakery 33 1898 Bakery Vacant Historic Lease Service
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

122

Appendix A: Building and Foundation Planting Chart, 2 of 5 (planting category based on historic use)

Building Name Bldg.

No.

Date Historical 

Use

Present 

Use Management PlantingCategory

Fire Station 

Office 34 1899 Office/Dormitory

NPS 

Operations NPS Service

Chapel/

Auditorium 35 1941 Chapel Reception /Events

Historic Lease 

(Shared Use) Public

Mule Stables 36 1899 Stable Vacant Historic Lease Service

Pump House 37 1928 Pump Station Pump Station NPS Service

YMCA / 

Gymnasium 40 1903/1941

YMCA/

Gym

Gym/US Post Office Historic Lease Public

Post Office 41 1941 Post Office NPS Housing NPS Public

Quartermaster 

Latrine 44 1899 Latrine Vacant NPS Service

Shell Warehouse 45 1921 Warehouse NPS 

Operations NPS Service

Commissary 47 1900 Storehouse NPS 

Operations NPS Service

Warehouse 49 1942 Warehouse NPS 

Operations NPS Service

Fire House #1 51 1905 Firehouse NPS 

Operations NPS Service

NCO Quarters 52 1905 Housing NPS Housing NPS Residential

Post Exchange 53 1905 Exchange/ 

Offices

Education 

Partnership

Cooperative 

Agreement Public

Mess Hall 55 1905 Kitchen/

Dining Vacant Historic Lease Public

Mess Hall 56 1905 Kitchen/

Dining Vacant Historic Lease Public

Mess Hall 57 1905 Kitchen/

Dining Vacant Historic Lease Public

Mess Hall 58 1905 Kitchen/

Dining

NPS 

Operations NPS Public

Gas Station 60 1936 Gas Station Vacant Historic Lease Service

NCO Quarters 64 1907 Housing NPS Housing NPS Residential

Storehouse 65 1905 Storehouse NPS 

Operations NPS Service

NCO Quarters 66 1908 Housing NPS Housing NPS Residential

Post Theater 67 1933 Theater Theater/

Meeting

Historic Lease 

(Shared Use) Public

Post Exchange/ 

Gymnasium 70 1909 P.X./Gym Vacant Historic Lease Public

NCO Quarters 71 1909 Housing NPS Housing NPS Residential

NCO Quarters 72 1909 Housing NPS Housing NPS Residential

NCO Quarters 73 1909 Housing NPS Housing NPS Residential
APPENDICES

123

Appendix A: Building and Foundation Planting Chart, 3 of 5 (planting category based on historic use)

Building Name Bldg.

No.

Date Historical 

Use

Present 

Use Management Planting Category

Enlisted Barracks 74 1909 Housing State Offices State of NJ Public

NCO Quarters 75 1910 Housing NPS Housing NPS Residential

Fire House #2 76 1910 Fire House NPS 

Operations NPS Service

Laundry 77 1941 Laundry Educational 

Partnership

Cooperative 

Agreement Service

Oil and Paint 

Storehouse 79 1918 Storehouse Storage Historic Lease Service

2-Family NCO 

Quarters 80 1910 Housing Vacant Historic Lease Residential

Lighthouse 

Keepers Quarters 84 1883 Housing Education Partnership

Cooperative 

Agreement Residential

Barn 85 1910 Barn/

Garage Museum NPS Service

Proving Ground 

Barracks 102 1909 Barracks Education Center NPS Public 

NCO Quarters 104 1894 Housing NPS 

Operations NPS Residential

NCO Quarters 108 1905 Housing NPS 

Operations NPS Residential

Laundry 113 1905 Laundry Vacant NPS Service

Officers Club 114 1878 Housing Vacant Historic Lease Public

WWII Barracks 119 1941 Barracks NPS Housing NPS Public

WWII Barracks 120 1941 Barracks NPS Housing NPS Public

Power Plant 124 1907 Power Plant NPS Storage Historic Lease Service

Motor Shop 125 1907 Motor Shop NPS Storage Historic Lease Service

Proving Ground Storehouse 130 1907 Maintenance 

Shops

NPS 

Operations NPS Service

Proving Ground 

Shelter House 131 1907 Maintenance 

Shops

NPS 

Operations NPS Service

Proving Ground 

Paint Shop 132 1907 Maintenance Shops

NPS 

Operations NPS Service

Proving Ground Storehouse 134 1907 Maintenance 

Shops

NPS 

Operations NPS Service

Officers Quarters 144 1939 Housing NPS Housing NPS Residential

Officers Quarters 145 1939 Housing NPS Housing NPS Residential

Warehouse 156 1942 Warehouse NPS 

Operation NPS Service
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

124

Appendix A: Building and Foundation Planting Chart, 4 of 5 (planting category based on historic use)

Building Name Bldg.

No.

Date Historical 

Use

Present 

Use Management Planting Category

Laundry/Latrine 157 1967 Latrine Restroom NPS Service

 Latrine 300 1940 Latrine Vacant NPS Service

Officers Mess 301 1941 Kitchen/

Dining

Educational 

Partnership

Cooperative 

Agreement Public

Camp 

Headquarters 302 1941 Offices Educational Partnership

Cooperative 

Agreement Public

Storehouse 303 1941 Storehouse Educational 

Partnership

Cooperative 

Agreement Service

Officers Latrine 304 1941 Latrine Educational 

Partnership

Cooperative 

Agreement Service

Dispensary 305 1941 Dispensary Educational 

Partnership

Cooperative 

Agreement Public

Sewage Pump 

Station 306 1940 Pump Station Vacant NPS Service

Sewage Pump 

Station 307 1940 Pump Station Vacant NPS Service

Mess Hall 315 1941 Kitchen/

Dining

Educational 

Partnership

Cooperative 

Agreement Public

Post Exchange 316 1941 Exchange Educational 

Partnership

Cooperative 

Agreement Public

Mess Hall 317 1941 Kitchen/

Dining

Educational 

Partnership

Cooperative 

Agreement Public

Dispensary 318 1941 Dispensary Educational 

Partnership

Cooperative 

Agreement Public

Post Exchange 319 1941 Exchange Educational 

Partnership

Cooperative 

Agreement Public

Enlisted Men’s 

Latrine 320 1941 Latrine Educational 

Partnership

Cooperative 

Agreement Service

Enlisted Men’s 

Latrine 321 1941 Latrine Educational Partnership

Cooperative 

Agreement Service

Power Plant 324 1941 Power Plant Restroom NPS Service

NCO Quarters 335 1898 Housing Day Care 

Center

Cooperative 

Agreement Residential

Morgue 326 1905 Morgue Restroom NPS Service

Howard Marine 

Laboratory N/A 1990 N/A NJ State 

Offices

Cooperative 

Agreement Public
APPENDICES

125

36

49

53

80

19 1

145

144

120

130

134

157

131

125

124

156

132

108

04 1

114 113

102

60

74

25

40

52

47

41

85

45

75

73

72 71

30

29

64

66

84

70

22

23

24

M.A.S.T.

Marine Academy of Science & Technology

BATTERY

GRANGER

MORTAR

BATTERY

HARTSHORNE DRIVE

CANFIELD ROAD

ATLANTIC DRIVE

ATLANTIC DRIVE

KNOX ROAD

SANDY HOOK

LIGHTHOUSE

James J. Howard

Marine Sciences

Laboratory

PARADE GROUND

FLAG POLE

NPS PARK

HEADQUARTERS

I Lot

G Lot

 K Lot

 J Lot

BATTERY

POTTER

57

56

58

55

2

27

26

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

15

16

17

18

20

13

335

14

4

3

51

65

34 33 32

67

35

H

U

DSON

DR

VE I

S. BRAGG DR.

KILPATRICK

RD.

KESSLER

ROAD

MERCER RD. 76

77

MAGRUDER

RD.

GUNNISON RD.

RODMAN GUN

305

KEARNEY RD.

U.S.COAST GUARD

SANDY HOOK STATION

[ NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC ]

U.S.C.G. PIERS

FERRY LANDING

(seasonal)

SANDY HOOK BAY

28

N

UH

DSON

RD.

MAST WAY

TA AL NT CI

DR.

Building Planting Category Residential Public Service

1 21

2

3

44

37

79

324

326

77

318

319

320

315

321

316

302

303

304

300

307

306

317

301

Appendix A: Building and Foundation Planting Chart, 5 of 5 (planting category based on historic use)
APPENDICES

127

Appendix B: Recommended Plant Lists for Fort Hancock, 1 of 4

Recommended Mid-Height to Tall Shrubs for Residential Buildings

Latin Name Common Name Height Shade 

Tolerance

Deciduous/

Evergreen Native

Aronia arbutifolia red chokeberry 9’ Intermediate Deciduous X

Aronia melanocarpa black chokeberry 9’ Intermediate Deciduous X

Baccharis halimifolia groundsel-bush 5’-12’ Intolerant

Clethra alnifolia summersweet 9’ Tolerant Deciduous X

Cornus sericea redosier dogwood 7’ Intolerant Deciduous X

Cotoneaster 

divaricatus

spreading 

cotoneaster 5-6’ Intolerant Deciduous

Hibiscus syriacus rose-of-sharon 8-12’ Intolerant Deciduous

Hydrangea 

macrophylla bigleaf hydrangea 6-12’ Intolerant Deciduous

Hydrangea 

quercifolia oakleaf hydrangea 4-8’ Tolerant Deciduous

Ilex glabra inkberry 9’ Tolerant Evergreen X

Juniperus communis common juniper 5-7’ Intermediate Evergreen X

Myrica pensylvania northern bayberry 9’ Intermediate SemiEvergreen X

Pieris fl oribunda mountain 

andromeda 6’ Tolerant Deciduous X

Prunus maritima beach plum 6’ Intolerant Deciduous X

Rosa rugosa saltspray rose 6’ Intolerant Deciduous

Sambucus 

Canadensis American elder 5-12’ Deciduous X

Syringa vulgaris common lilac 5-12’ Intermediate Deciduous

Vaccinium 

corymbosum highbush blueberry 6-12’ Intermediate Deciduous X

Recommended Foundation Shrubs for Public Buildings

Latin Name Common Name Height Shade 

Tolerance

Deciduous/

Evergreen

Native

Ilex glabra Inkberry 9’ Tolerant Evergreen X

Juniperus communis Common Juniper 4-6’ Intermediate Evergreen X

Myrica pensylvania Northern Bayberry 9’ Intermediate SemiEvergreen X

Pieris fl oribunda Mountain 

Andromeda 6’ Tolerant Deciduous X

Vaccinium 

corymbosum Highbush Blueberry 6-12’ Intermediate Deciduous X

 
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

128

Recommended Low Growing Shrubs for Residential Buildings

Latin Name Common Name Height Shade 

Tolerance

Deciduous/

Evergreen Native

Abelia x grandiflora glossy abelia 3-6’ Intermediate Deciduous

Ceanothus 

americana New Jersey tea 2-3’ Intermediate Deciduous X

Chaenomeles sp. flowering quince 3-6’ Intermediate Deciduous

Cotoneaster 

apiculatus

cranberry 

cotoneaster 3’ Intermediate Deciduous

Cotoneaster 

horizontalias

rockspray 

cotoneaster 5’ Intermediate Deciduous

Leucothoe sp. leucothoe 3-6’ Tolerant Evergreen X

Juniperus sabina savin juniper 4-6’ Tolerant Evergreen

Juniperus conferta shore juniper 1-2’ Intolerant Evergreen

Myrica gale sweetgale 4’ Tolerant Deciduous X

Paeonia suffruticosa tree peony 4-5’ Intermediate Deciduous

Potentilla fruiticosa bush cinquefoil 1-4’ Intolerant Deciduous X

Rosa virginiana Virginia rose 4-6’ Intolerant Deciduous X

Suaeda fruiticosa shrubby goosefoot 2-3’ Intolerant Evergreen X

Vaccunium 

angustifolium lowbush blueberry 6”-2’ Intermediate 

(needs acid soil) Deciduous X

Recommended Groundcover for All Buildings

Latin Name Common Name Height Shade 

Tolerance

Deciduous/

Evergreen Native

Arctostaphylos uvaursi bearberry 6”-12” Intolerant Evergreen X

Convallaria majalis lily of the valley 6” Tolerant Deciduous

Juniperus 

horizontalis creeping juniper 1-2’ Intolerant Evergreen X

Juiperus procumbens Japanese garden 

juniper 8-12” Intolerant Evergreen

Opuntia humifusa eastern prickly pear 3-4” Intolerant Succulent X

Parthenocissus 

quinquefolia Virginia Creeper Vine Intermediate Deciduous X

Pachysandra 

procumbens

Alleghany 

pachysandra 4-8” Requires Shade Deciduous in north X

Thymus serphyllum mother-of-thyme 4-6” Intolerant SemiEvergreen

Recommended Tall Perennials for Residential Buildings: (N)=Native

Latin Name Common Name Height Sun/Shade 

Preference Flower Color Flowering Season

Alcea rosea hollyhock 4’-5’ Full Sun Pink, Rose, Red Late Summer

Aster novae-angliae

Aster novi-belgii (N)

New England aster 

and New York aster 3-4’ Sun/Part Shade Pink, Salmon Late Summer

Baptisia tinctoria wild indigo 3’ Part Shade Yellow May - September

Appendix B: Recommended Plant Lists for Fort Hancock, 2 of 5
APPENDICES

129

Cimicifuga sp. snakeroot 4-8’ Full Sun/Part 

Shade White, Light Pink Mid-Summer - Early Fall

Delphinium sp. delphinium 2-5’ Full Sun Blue, Purple, Pink Early - Late Summer

Digitalis sp. foxglove 3-4’ Full Sun/Part 

Shade Varied Late Spring to Mid Summer

Fesctuca glauca blue fescue 12”-5’ Full Sun/Part 

Shade

Known for Blue or 

Green Foliage Ornamental Grass

Hibiscus moscheutos 

(N) swamp rose mallow 3-6’ Full Sun White, Red, Pink Mid-Summer - Early Fall

Liatris scariosa blazing star 2-5’ Full Sun Reddish Purple August-September

Liatris spicata gayfeather 3’ Full Sun Reddish Purple Mid Summer –Early 

Fall

Lupinus lupines 3-4’ Full Sun Varied Early to MidSummer

Osmunda 

claytoniana interrupted fern Shade Green Foliage

Papaver orientale oriental poppy 2-4’ Full Sun Varied Late Spring- Early 

Summer

Physostegia 

virginiana Virginia lion’s heart 3’ Full Sun/Part Shade White, Pink Mid-Summer - Late Fall

Yucca filamentosa 

(N) yucca 3-5’ Full Sun

Distinctive foliage, 

central white 

flower spike

Mid-Summer

Recommended Mid-Height Perennials for Residential Buildings: (N)= Native

Latin Name Common Name Height Sun/Shade 

Preference Flower Color Flowering Season

Aquilegia sp. columbine 1-3’ Full Sun/Part 

Shade Varied Late Spring to Early Summer

Asclepias tuberose 

(N) butterfly milkweed 2’ Full Sun Varied Mid-Summer to Early Fall

Astilbe sp. astilbe 2-3 

1/2’

Part Shade/Full 

Shade Red, White, Pink Early to Mid-Summer

Chrysanthemum sp. chrysanthemum 1-3’ Full Sun/Part 

Shade Varied Mid-Summer to Late Fall

Coreopsis lanceolata tickseed 1-2’ Full Sun/Part 

Shade Yellow Late Spring

Dicentra spectabilis bleeding heart 2’ Part Shade Red, Pink, White Late Spring to Early 

Summer

Hosta decorata and 

fortunei - avoid 

cultivars

plantain lily

(hosta) 1-3’ Part Shade/

Shade

Widely used for 

green foliage Summer

Hyssop officianalis hyssop 2’ Full Sun Blue, Pink Mid to Late Summer

Iris germanica bearded Iris 1-3’ Full Sun/Part 

Shade Varied Late Spring to Early Summer

Lavendula 

angustfolia lavender 2-3’ Full Sun Light Blue Late Spring to Summer

Lobelia cardinalis cardinalflower 2-3’ Part Shade Red

Summer to Early Fall 

(may also be used as 

an annual)

Lychnis coronaria rose campion 3’ Full Sun Varied Early to Late Summer

Mentha spicata peppermint 2’ Part Shade Dark Green 

Foliage

Monarda didyma bee-balm 3-4’ Full Sun/Part 

Shade Red, Pink, Purple Mid-Summer to Late Fall

Oenothera biennis 

(N) evening primrose 3-4’ Sun Yellow Late Spring-Early Fall

Paeonia sp. peony 2-4’ Full Sun/Part 

Shade

Red, Pink, White, 

Yellow

Late Spring to Early 

Summer

Appendix B: Recommended Plant Lists for Fort Hancock, 3 of 5

Recommended Tall Perennials for Residential Buildings (continued from previous page)
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

130

Phlox paniculata garden phlox 6”-4’ Full Sun/Part 

Shade 

Pink, White, Blue, 

Purple

Late Spring to Early 

Summer

Rudbeckia hirta black-eyed susan 3’ Full Sun Yellow Late Summer

Solidago sp. (N) goldenrod 1-4’ Full Sun/Part 

Shade Yellow Late Summer to Mid Fall

Recommended Low Growing Perennials for Residential Buildings: (N)= Native

Latin Name Common Name Height Sun/Shade 

Preference Flower Color Flowering Season

Achillea sp. (N) yarrow 12”-4’ Full Sun Yellow, White, 

Red, Pink

Mid-Spring to Early 

Summer

Alyssum saxatile alyssum 12” Full Sun Yellow Late Spring

Arabis sp. rock cress 2-10” Full Sun White, Pink Early Summer to Mid 

Fall

Armeria maritima common thrift 6-12” Full Sun Red, Pink, White Late Spring to Early 

Summer

Aurinia saxatilis golden-tuft 6-12” Full Sun Yellow Mid-Spring to Early 

Summer

Dianthus sp. pinks 4-15” Full Sun Red, Pink, White Late Spring to Early 

Summer

Dicentra canadensis squirrel corn 12” Shade White Spring

Heuchera sanguinea coral bells 12-18” Part Shade Red, White, Pink Late Spring to Late 

Summer

Limonium sp. sea lavender 8-12” Full Sun Yellow to 

Lavender Mid to Late Summer

Lychnis viscaria German catchfly 1-3’ Part Shade Purple, Pink, Red, 

White Spring to Summer

Phlox divaricata woodland phlox 8-12” Part Shade Purple, Pink, 

White, Blue

Spring to Early 

Summer

Potentilla sp. cinquefoil 12” Full Sun Orange, Yellow, 

Red Early to Late Summer

Erigeron sp. fleabane 4-30” Full Sun Blue, Pink Early to Late Summer

Gyposphilia sp. baby’s breath 1-3’ Full Sun White, Light Pink Early Summer to Early 

Fall

Iberis sempervirens evergreen candytuft 1’ Full Sun/Part 

Shade White Mid-Spring to Early Summer

Phlox sublata moss phlox 4” Sun White, Purple Spring

Sedum sp. stonecrop 3”-3’ Full Sun/Part 

Shade

Widely used for 

waxy light green 

foliage

Summer

Senecio sp. groundsel 8-18” Full Sun/Part 

Shade Yellow Mid-Spring to Late Spring

Thymus thyme 4-8” Part Shade Delicate green 

foliage

Recommended Annuals for Residential Buildings: (N)=Native

Latin Name Common Name Height Sun/Shade 

Preference Flower Color Flowering Season

Ageratum 

houstoniatum ageratum 6”-18” Sun/Part 

Shade Blue, White, Pink Summer to Fall

Alcea rosea hollyhock 4’-5’ Sun Pink, Rose, Red Late Summer

Caleddula officinalis pot-marigold 1-2’ Sun/Part 

Shade

Gold, Yellow, 

Orange

Summer to Fall

Centaurea sp. cornflower 2 1/2’ Sun Purple, Blue, 

Yellow, White

Late Spring to Fall

Appendix B: Recommended Plant Lists for Fort Hancock, 4 of 5

Recommended Mid-Height Perennials for Residential Buildings (continued from previous page)
APPENDICES

131

Appendix B: Recommended Plant Lists for Fort Hancock, 5 of 5

Recommended Annuals for Residential Buildings (continued from previous page)

Note: This list of annuals may also be used for planting in small pots placed on porches and porch stairs. Plantings in window boxes hung 

from windowsills will not be allowed, however planting boxes smaller than 3’ x 1’ x 1’ may be hung from the porch railings of Buildings 1 

through 21, as stated in the 2003 Fort Hancock EA.

Clarkia sp. clarkia 18”-3’ Sun/Part 

Shade

White, Pink, Blue Late Spring to Fall

Cleome sp. spiderflower 1-3’ Sun/Part 

Shade

White, Pink, Blue Summer to Fall

Cosmos sp. cosmos 10” Sun Varied Summer-Fall

Eschscholtzia 

californica

California-poppy 2’ Sun Orange, Red, 

Yellow, Pink

Early to Late Spring

Gaillardia sp. gaillardia 2’ Sun Yellow, Red Late Summer

Glaucium 

corniculatum

sea-poppy 1 1/2” Sun Red Summer

Helichrysum 

bracteatum

strawflower 3’ Sun Various Mid-Summer to Late 

Fall

Lobularia maritime sweet alyssum 1’ Sun Blue Late Spring to 

Summer

Lathyrus odoratus sweetpea Vine Sun Yellow, Purple Early Summer

Nigella damascene love-in-a-mist 18”-2’ Sun Light Blue, White Spring to Early 

Summer

Papaver sp. poppy 2’ Sun Varied Summer

Petunia sp. petunia 6”-3’ Sun Varied Summer

Portulaca sp. portulaca 8” Sun Varied Summer

Salvia sp. sage 1-3’ Sun Varied Summer

Scabiosa sp. scabiosa 1-3’ Sun Dark Purple, Rose, 

White

Summer

Tithionia rotundifloia tithonia 3-6’ Sun Orange, Yellow Summer

Tropaeolum sp. nasturtium 6”-2’, 

vine

Sun Yellow, Orange, 

Red

Summer

Verbena tenera sand verbena 2” Sun White, Pink, 

Purple

Late Spring to Fall

Zinnia sp. zinnia 18”-3’ Sun Varied Summer to Fall
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

132
APPENDICES

133

Fort Hancock Turf Grass Management Recommendations

Identify and apply necessary soil amendments 

• Amendments are added to soil for increasing porosity, air exchange capability, drainage, and to enhance 

resistance to compaction. In severely compacted situations, the entire soil profile/character can be 

modified. The addition of porous materials, such as AXIS, a diatomaceous earth product, can help 

improve turf conditions in soils that are repeatedly compacted. These products resist compaction by 

creating stabile pores or pockets of air and water space within the soil and could be considered for some 

of the highly compacted areas adjacent to walks and parking areas at SPAR. 

• Maintaining proper soil pH and fertility is critical to achieving an effective turf management program. 

Soil management practices at the park should be implemented to adjust and maintain adequate pH and 

fertility to support turf growth. A correct pH range allows turf to absorb nutrients, such as nitrogen 

(N), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), and calcium (Ca) from the soil. If pH is too high or too low, 

nutrients may be "locked" onto soil particles and not be available to plants. Most soils in the Northeast 

are somewhat acidic and require routine limestone applications to keep pH in a favorable range for turf. 

Optimum turfgrass growth occurs at a pH of 6.4 - 6.8. 

The pH range of soils at a site can vary substantially from area to area and from year to year. Lime 

applications should be based on soil test results only. Applications should never exceed 50#/Total 

Square Footage (TSF)/application. If soil pH is low enough to require more than 50#/TSF, two or more 

applications at different times in the year should be made. 

There are three types of limestone that can be applied to turf for soil pH adjustment:

1. Calcitic (CaCO3) raises pH

2. Dolomite (CaMg (CO3) 2, raises pH while adding magnesium

3. Gypsum (CaSO4), does not change pH

Limestone is not a fertilizer. Rather, it is a material that is used to raise soil pH with the objective of 

improving nutrient uptake by the plant. Proper soil pH increases the efficiency of fertilizing by allowing 

the nutrients applied to the soil to be more readily available to the turf.

Soil samples should be collected once or twice each year to determine pH levels. The test results 

provided will include recommendations on the amount of lime that needs to be applied to properly adjust 

the soil pH.

• The nutritional health of turfgrass is dependent on a fertilization program that is developed using 

information derived from soil tests. Fertilizer applications should be timed to provide nutrients to plants 

when they use the material effectively. In the northeast, fertilizer provides the best results when applied in 

late August, September and October. One pound of actual Nitrogen per 1000 sq. ft. should be supplied 

with each application. 

Actual applications should be based on annual soil test results collected from each lawn area. In the 

absence of a soil test, a fertilizer with a 3-1-2 or closely equivalent ratio of nitrogen, phosphorous and 

potassium should be used. 

The implementation of a natural organic fertilizer program will enhance the level and activity of 

beneficial microorganisms. These microorganisms will improve the decomposition rate of thatch and 

other organic matter resulting in an increase of water and nutrient holding capacity of the soil, increased 

air and water pore space, and improved resistance to compaction. An organic fertilization program also 

helps to minimize the use of pesticides and other synthetic products on turf. 

Appendix C: Turfgrass Management Recommendations, 1 of 3
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

134

 Manage Soil Compaction

• Soil compaction results from the loss of air and/or water space between soil particles. It is typically 

a result of over use from pedestrians, equipment or vehicles. Excessive soil compaction reduces the 

effectiveness of a soil to support turf growth, limits water and air exchange and increases erosion. 

Ultimately, if left untreated, soil compaction will result in the loss of turf.

• Areas of soil compaction can be corrected through mechanical aeration, however, the timing of aeration 

and the equipment used needs to be thoughtfully selected. Poor timing and inappropriate equipment can 

worsen the soil compaction problem.

• Aerating the soil with mechanical equipment can effectively minimize the compaction. While there 

are several different types of aerators available, a core aerator provides the best results for most typical 

turfgrass situations. A core aerator removes narrow cores of soil and thatch from the lawn producing a 

series of small 2-4” deep holes. These holes allow water, air, and fertilizer to reach turf roots. 

• The actual process can temporarily injure turf roots. It is best to accomplish mechanical aeration during 

the most active growth periods of grass, i.e. early spring and/or fall. This will encourage quick recovery 

of turf after any injury that may occur. 

 Renovate Lawn Areas

• Periodic or cyclic renovation of turf areas should be anticipated. The frequency can vary from every 

two years to twenty years or more, depending on the use of the area, level of care, and weather extremes. 

• Overseeding will be required to fill in bare spots and even out lawn coverage. Use a slicer seeder in the 

early fall only, targeting areas in need of renovation. The seed delivery rate of the slicer should be set 

moderately low, applying 1-3 lbs of seed per thousand square feet

• Lawn may also be renovated using a broadcast seeder. Scarify the surface with a slicer seeder or garden 

rake to prepare the seed bed. To ensure a uniform application, use a drop type or centrifugal spreader at 

half of the recommended rate, walking in two directions at right angles to one another. Following the 

seeding, the area should be lightly raked to incorporate the seed into the top 1⁄4” of soil. Be careful not 

to rake the seed too deeply into the soil, as the seed needs exposure to sunlight for germination. Roll the 

seeding area lightly to press the seed into the soil and to ensure good seed to soil contact. 

• Renovate lawn areas during the late summer or early fall. Temperatures and moisture levels are favorable 

for growth, while competition from weeds is reduced. This provides the new seeds enough time to 

germinate before the onset of winter. 

Alter Mowing Practices

• Lawns should be mowed often, never removing more than one third of the total height. Grass height 

should be 2” for spring and fall and 2 1⁄2” for the summer months. Taller plants photosynthesize energy 

readily, shade out low growing weeds such as crabgrass, and develop more extensive root systems. Grass 

height taller than 3” is not recommended. 

• Mowing should begin around mid-April and continue until the grass has stopped growing in the fall. 

• Mower blades should be sharpened regularly to avoid tearing the leaves. If the blades are dull, the turf 

will appear grayish after mowing. 

• Clippings should be left on the lawn unless a disease outbreak occurs. 

• The mowing pattern should be routinely changed so that grooming lines do not occur. 

Appendix C: Turfgrass Management Recommendations, 2 of 3
APPENDICES

135

Manage Thatch Build-Up

• The thatch layer should not exceed 1/2” because build-up reduces growth and quality of the grass and 

the effectiveness of fertilization and irrigation. 

• Avoid fertilizer with high nitrogen content.

• Use organic fertilizers to assist in the breakdown of thatch by promoting the activity of soil 

microorganisms.

Manage Weed Growth

• Initially, attempts should be made to improve the quality of the turf by adjusting soil pH and fertility 

levels and by mechanically overseeding the area. 

• Use top quality grass seed with less than .1% weed content.

• Some chemical weed management will also help re-establish the turfgrass. Consult with the regional IPM 

coordinator to discuss the use of a pre-emergent herbicide, such as Siduron (commercial name Tupersan) 

that is registered to use in newly seeded lawns. 

Provide turfgrass management training for site staff

• Site staff should receive introductory and annual training in the principles and practices of turf 

management. 

Appendix C: Turfgrass Management Recommendations, 3 of 3
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT HANCOCK, TREATMENT PLAN

136
APPENDICES

137

100 2. Ft

.2

.2

.2

.2

.2

0.9

1.1 1.1 0.9 1.0

0.9 1.4 1.7 1.3 1.0 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.7

0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.7

0.5 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.4

0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.4 1.3 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.2

0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.4 1.7 1.2 1.6 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5

0.5 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.4 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7

0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.30.3 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.4

0.6 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

Luminaire Schedule

Project: Fort Hancock

Symbol Qty Label Arrangement Lumens LLF

6 OP3N-70hps SINGLE 6300 0.700

Luminaire Location Summary

Project: All Projects

Z

11

11

11

11

11

11

Numeric Summary

Project: Fort Hancock

Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min

Typical #1 Illuminance Fc 0.76 1.7 0.2 3.80 8.50

Appendix D: Lighting Study of Barracks Row, Generated by Quattro Lighting, 1 of 1
OLMSTED CENTER FOR LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION

email: FRLA_olmsted_center@nps.gov

web: www.nps.gov/oclp/